Menu Icon

Debt Rattle July 7 2024

Jul 072024
 
 July 7, 2024  Posted by at 8:55 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , ,  40 Responses »


Roy Lichtenstein Hopeless 1963

 

• Biden Says He’s ‘Running The World’ (RT)
• America Doesn’t Have A President – Musk (RT)
• ‘Doing My Goodest Job’ To Beat Trump (ZH)
• US Mainstream Media Await New Orders Now Big Lie About Biden is Rumbled (DS)
• Parkinson’s Specialist Visited White House At Least 9 Times The Past Year (ZH)
• Democratic Donors Urge Biden To Step Aside – WaPo (RT)
• Western Elites Lose Grip on Power Amid Political Crisis in US, France (Sp.)
• The West’s Mask Of Morality Burns To Dust (Carman)
• The Grim Reaper: Biden Declares Two Justices Will Be Gone in Four Years (Turley)
• “Think About it Very Carefully”: Author Don Winslow to Sen. Mark Warner (Turley)
• War Has Become NATO’s Agenda – Orban (RT)
• New British PM Assures Ukraine Of ‘Unshakable’ Support (RT)
• Foreign Mercs in Ukraine Bragged About Murdering Russian PoWs (Sp.)

 

 

 

 

Biden ABC

 

 

RoganDuckDuckGo

 

 

 

 

“Biden insisted “no one” had told him he actually needed to undergo one.”

• Biden Says He’s ‘Running The World’ (RT)

US President Joe Biden says he has been “running the world” and therefore does not actually need any cognitive tests to prove his fitness for office. The president made the remarks in an interview with ABC News on Friday, when the 81-year-old was repeatedly pressed by George Stephanopoulos about the growing concerns surrounding his mental and physical condition. Asked whether he has “had a full neurological and cognitive evaluation,” Biden provided a rather incoherent response. “I’ve had – I get a full neurological test everyday with me. And I’ve had a full physical. I had, you know, I mean, I – I’ve been at Walter Reed [national military medical center] for my physicals. I mean – uhm yes, the answer,” he stated. Pressed further whether he has actually had “specific cognitive tests” and an examination by a trained neurologist, rather than a broader practice doctor, Biden insisted “no one” had told him he actually needed to undergo one.

The president dodged the question on whether he would willingly pass such a test and release its results to the public, insisting his work alone proves he is fit enough for office. “Look. I have a cognitive test every single day. Every day I have that test. Everything I do. You know, not only am I campaigning, but I’m running the world. Not – and that’s not hi -sounds like hyperbole, but we are the essential nation of the world,” he asserted. During the interview, the president also blamed his subpar performance during last week’s debate against Donald Trump on suffering from a “bad cold,” dismissing it as a “bad episode” rather than part of a bigger problem.

The debate debacle has reinvigorated long-running concerns over Biden’s advanced age, as well as declining health. On Friday, a group of 168 high-profile Democratic Party supporters, including major donors and academics, sent a letter to the US president, urging him to drop out of the race, the Washington Post reported, citing anonymous sources. The signees have “respectfully” called on Biden to do so, arguing the move was needed “for the sake of our democracy and the future of our nation,” according to the report. However, Biden has repeatedly pledged to continue pursuing reelection, dismissing any prospects of dropping out amid the mounting criticism of the past few days.

Read more …

“Does America need a president?”

• America Doesn’t Have A President – Musk (RT)

The US does not have an actual president and has not had one “for a while,” Tesla and SpaceX founder Elon Musk has suggested. Musk took to his X (formerly Twitter) social media network to dip into the ongoing political debacle in the aftermath of the debates between US President Joe Biden and former leader Donald Trump. He reposted a message by another user, with a screenshot of an opinion piece run by the New York Times, titled “Does America need a president?” “Real question … since we obviously haven’t had one for a while lmao,” Musk wrote.

The piece itself, penned by social conservative columnist Ross Douthat, polemizes with other authors on the role of the president in American society, on whether a dysfunctional president can be fully substituted by others in the executive branch, the impact such a ‘leader’ has on decision-making and accountability, and other topics. Douthat himself has been arguing long before the disastrous debate that Biden “needs to be replaced because it would be incredibly dangerous to have a senescent president in the White House for the next four years – and not just because Democrats fear he might lose to Trump in November.”

Read more …

“We’re gonna protect our children from getting weapons of war off our streets!”

• ‘Doing My Goodest Job’ To Beat Trump (ZH)

On the heels of his flub-filled Fourth of July, President Biden’s Friday appearances did nothing to reverse his slow march to a seemingly inevitable exit from the 2024 presidential campaign. The day brought more head-scratching misstatements and garbled lines on the campaign trail, along with a much-anticipated primetime ABC interview that prominent Democrats called “sad” and “chilling.” Perhaps most significantly of all, however, more Democratic legislators called for Biden to leave the race — and Virginia Sen. Mark Warner is reportedly organizing a meeting with his peers with a goal of building a united plea for Biden to quit. According to anonymous sources cited by the Washington Post, Warner and allies are weighing various means of intervening, including a meeting at the White House with Biden. While the count of House Democrats who’ve urged Biden to quit climbed to four on Friday — as Illinois Rep. Mike Quiqley made his feelings known on MSNBC — no sitting senators have yet crossed that line. However, per the Washington Post:

“There’s a growing consensus among Senate Democrats that the situation with Biden at the top of the ticket is untenable, and senators are trying to determine the best way to relay that message to an insulated president. Some senators don’t think Biden has people around him who are giving him an accurate picture of the fallout.” Tellingly, a Warner spokeswoman refused to confirm or deny the reports about his machinations, instead saying, “Like many other people in Washington and across the country, Senator Warner believes these are critical days for the president’s campaign, and he has made that clear to the White House.” While Warner — the chair of the Senate intelligence committee — maneuvered on Capitol Hill, Biden spent the day in the battleground state of Wisconsin, which he officially won in the last election by only 20,682 votes. At a rally at a middle school gymnasium in Madison, Biden added to his ever-growing stack of gaffes, confidently predicting he’d beat Donald Trump “again in 2020”:

Proving again that not even a teleprompter can assure Biden’s reasonably error-free delivery of a speech, he also said, “We’re gonna protect our children from getting weapons of war off our streets!” Friday’s main event was Biden’s sit-down interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. Though it was pre-recorded after his middle-school-gym rally before airing in a primetime special, ABC said it showed the entire interview without edits. As we’d predicted, Stephanopoulos, who’s demonstrated all the worst tendencies of big-media leftists, played this interview relatively straight. He challenged Biden’s previous attempt to blame his debate performance on jet lag from travel that ended a dozen days before the event. He confronted Biden with pointed quotes from a New York Times report, where sources claimed his mental lapses have become more frequent. He also asked pointed follow-up questions when Biden was evasive.

At one point, however, Stephanopoulos sounded like an empathetic family member gently confronting an elderly person with the hard truth about their condition, telling Biden: “I’ve heard from dozens of your supporters over the last few days…They love you, and they will be forever grateful to you for defeating Donald Trump in 2020. They think you’ve done a great job as president, a lot of the successes you outlined. But they are worried about you and the country. And they don’t think you can win. They want you to go with grace, and they will cheer you if you do.” One of Biden’s worst moments of the interview came in response to what may have been the simplest question. Asked if he’d watched the debate afterwards, Biden said, “I don’t think I did, no.” Stephanopoulos’s follow-up question about when Biden realized the debate wasn’t going well triggered a particularly incoherent reply:

“The whole way I prepared, nobody’s fault mine. Nobody’s fault, mine. I, uh, prepared what I usually would do, sitting down as I did, come back with foreign leaders or National Security Council for explicit detail. And I realized about partway through that, you know, I quoted The New York Times had me down 10 points before the debate, 9 now or whatever the hell it is. The fact of the matter is that what I looked at is that he also lied 28 times. I couldn’t, I mean, the way the debate ran, not — my fault, no one else’s fault — no one else’s fault.”

Read more …

“The donors did not like seeing their investment go down the drain. Many wanted their money back..”

• US Mainstream Media Await New Orders Now Big Lie About Biden is Rumbled (DS)

[..] since 2020 the MSM have been carrying more water for Biden than the Ganges in monsoon season. Biden’s deterioration has been evident for some years and it became an issue in the 2020 election. Brit Hume, one of journalism’s grey eminences, posed that Biden was senile based on his manner, behaviour and actions. MSM “fact-checkers” protected the precious candidate. But Biden and his handlers took notice that they had been rumbled and used the excuse of Covid from early 2020 on to hide Biden away campaigning from his basement. MSM ignored his concerning demeanor completely and supported him for President in words that would have embarrassed George Washington. After a most unusual election came a most unusual Presidency, where the hiding away of the most powerful man in the world continued. Appearances were controlled, press conferences limited and interviews permitted only in controlled scripted environments such as with celebrities or on late night talk shows.

Biden’s deteriorating physical condition, as well as his mental decline, were covered up by his handlers in a number of ways. This year, two events began to poke serious holes in the view that Biden is just old. Last year a Special Counsel, Robert Hur, was appointed to conduct an investigation into the finding of classified documents at Biden’s residences. He reported his findings in January. The report was not kind to Biden to say the least. He stated that Biden should not be prosecuted for the documents because a jury would not find him guilty as they would be sympathetic to the fact he was a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”. NBC News dutifully provided covering fire for this by rolling out Democrat operatives to trash both Hur and the report. Then there were the recent international events such as D-Day and the G7 meetings, where Biden was caught on camera spacing out and wandering off.

The videos were shown on Fox News and went viral. The Associated Press stepped up for the covering fire and called them “cheap fakes”, following on from the White House reaction. A bemused Fox News said the videos “have not been cropped, they have not been sped up or slowed down or edited in any way”. And then came the debate. Biden had slipped in the polls against Trump due to the response from voters to seeing a candidate pursue the Kafka-esque strategy of putting an opponent on trial. And so Biden and his handlers came up with a cunning plan – to challenge Trump to a debate in an environment they believed they could control. They set the rules, selected the moderators (CNN, who had earlier supplied the questions in advance to Hillary Clinton in a 2016 debate), had no audience that would cause Biden to lose focus, and banned any cross-talk to limit Trump’s quick repartee.

Biden spent seven days at Camp David prepping for the debate as if there was nothing else going on that required his attention. It was a brilliant strategy and only one thing could ruin it – the senility of the candidate. It did. The reaction was immediate from folks believing in Biden. Democrats and Never-Trumpers were gob-smacked. But it is fascinating how their surprise was akin to reading the last few pages of an Agatha Christie novel. Massive surprise at the unveiling of the murderer is followed by an “oh yeah” as folks think back on the clues that were there all along. These reactions showed up in polls taken over the last few days. A CBS News poll two days after the debate showed 72% of folks now believe Biden’s cognitive issues prohibit him from being President, and this includes 42% of Democrat voters.

The immediate reactions of the MSM were different. At 10:30 that night the panicked howls of the MSNBC political pundits and “experts” mourned the death of their favoured campaign, while CNN threw ashes on the coffin. The New York Times suffered a dark night of the soul, and as the dawn broke published an editorial claiming Biden should step down. These are the guys who in March this year were taking a victory lap comparing Biden to Beethoven, Wagner and Martin Scorsese after Biden angrily shouted his way through a teleprompter speech to Congress.

The assorted Democrat Party apparatchiks and elected representatives were even more on fire. The donors did not like seeing their investment go down the drain. Many wanted their money back. Incumbent Democrats facing election in November were all over the place, with the mood varying from total support to calls to step down. In a Presidential election year Biden is at the top of the ticket and so has the capability of dragging these guys over the finish line, as party regulars tend to vote the entire line. Or not, as the case may be. The White House gamely tried damage control, saying Biden was ill with a cold or suffering from jet lag after two back-to-back trips to Europe two weeks before the debate. The usually obedient White House Press Corps did not buy it. No word as yet from White House doctor Dr. Kevin O’Connor, who gave Biden his annual physical this year and claimed he was “fit for duty“.

Read more …

“He is part of the Biden family..”

• Parkinson’s Specialist Visited White House At Least 9 Times The Past Year (ZH)

A Parkinson’s disease specialist from Walter Reed Medical Center visited the White House at least nine times in the past year, according to journalist Alex Berenson of Unreported Truths, while the NY Post has reported that a cardiologist was present during one of the visits. Dr. Kevin R Cannard traveled to the White House’s medical clinic each time, meeting with either President Joe Biden’s personal physician Dr. Kevin O’Connor, or a naval nurse who coordinates care for the president and other senior officials. O’Connor notably gave Biden a clean bill of health after his February annual physical. The visits spanned July 28, 2023 with the latest being March 28 of this year. That said, Berenson notes that the most recent logs are from April 1, so it’s unknown if Cannard has visited more recently.

According to Cannard’s physician profile page, he is a “neurologist and movement disorders specialist at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center” who specializes in treatments for “early Parkinson’s disease.” Since 2012, he has served as the “neurology specialist supporting the White House Medical Unit,” per his LinkedIn page. His most recent paper was published in August 2023 in the journal Parkinsonism & Related Disorders, and focuses on the “early-stage” of the crippling disease. Since Biden’s health is O’Connor’s primary responsibility, it is highly probable the meeting was about the commander in chief, according to Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Tx), the doctor for both Presidents Obama and Trump. “It’s highly likely they were talking about Biden,” Jackson told The Post. -NY Post. “He should only be [regularly] treating the president and the first family,” Jackson continued.

Walter Reed cardiologist Dr. John. E. Atwood was also present during a Jan. 17 meeting, the NY Post reports. According to Jackson, who has never treated Biden, O’Connor and Biden’s family are trying to “cover up” Biden’s declining cognitive health. Ya think? “I believe he and Jill Biden have led the cover up. Kevin O’Connor is like a son to Jill Biden — she loves him. It’s crazy. Kevin O’Connor was in that job on day one of the Biden administration because they knew they could trust Kevin to say and do anything that needed to be said or done and cover up whatever needed to be covered up. He is part of the Biden family,” said Jackson, who has warned about Biden’s cognitive decline for years.

Read more …

“A group of 168 Democratic Party supporters..”

• Democratic Donors Urge Biden To Step Aside – WaPo (RT)

A group of 168 Democratic Party supporters, including major donors and academics, sent a letter to US President Joe Biden on Friday, urging him to drop his bid for reelection, the Washington Post has reported, citing anonymous sources. Over the past week, several other media outlets have claimed that pressure on Biden is mounting from within the party, but the incumbent is digging in his heels. Doubts over whether the 81-year-old is mentally and physically capable of leading the country for another four years have grown since his halting performance in a televised debate against Republican rival Donald Trump last week. Biden appeared frail and confused throughout the encounter – something he and his campaign have put down to a cold and travel-related fatigue. In its article on Friday, the Post quoted the letter as “respectfully” calling on Biden to “withdraw from being a candidate for reelection for the sake of our democracy and the future of our nation.”

The plea cited “threats posed by a second term of Donald Trump” and advised Biden to “cement your legacy by passing the torch – just as George Washington did.” According to the paper, the 168 signatories include Christy Walton, the billionaire daughter-in-law of Walmart’s founder, as well as billionaire investor Mike Novogratz and Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig, among many other top-level business executives and academics. Speaking to the New York Times on Wednesday, Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings argued that “Biden needs to step aside to allow a vigorous Democratic leader to beat Trump and keep us safe and prosperous.” The article noted that while Hastings was one of the first major Democratic donors to publicly vent his frustration, many of his peers are privately expressing similar concerns.

On the same day, another major Democratic Party donor, Charles Myers, the chair of Signum Global Advisors, told Bloomberg Surveillance that Biden has “four to five days” to prove he is fit to continue the race for reelection. The president has, however, brushed off all suggestions he should step aside. “Let me say this as clearly as I possibly can, as simply and straightforward as I can: I am running… no one’s pushing me out. I’m not leaving,” the politician insisted during a call with campaign staffers on Wednesday.

Read more …

“So already you have people concerned about Trump, but at least Trump is a known quantity,” he added. “But now, well, what’s going to happen now?”

• Western Elites Lose Grip on Power Amid Political Crisis in US, France (Sp.)

US President Joe Biden is considering dropping out of the 2024 US presidential race after last week’s disastrous debate performance, according to reporting from The New York Times. The news emerged early Monday after the president was said to be in discussions with members of his family over the weekend on whether to continue his candidacy amid widespread concern over his age. Last week’s televised debate with former President Donald Trump, where Biden frequently appeared to have trouble finishing thoughts and responding to questions, stoked public anxiety among many Democratic Party officials. Opinion surveys since Thursday night’s event appear to show the octogenarian head of state falling further behind in the polls. The renewed panic comes as observers in France are urging a center-left alliance ahead of elections this weekend to deny Marine Le Pen’s party a parliamentary majority.

Observers fear the controversial figure could prevail in the second round of voting Sunday, ushering in the country’s first right-wing government since World War II. Both incidents are drawing concern internationally as establishment political forces struggle to fend off increasingly potent challenges to their power, according to Dr. George Szamuely, a senior research fellow at London’s Global Policy Institute. The author joined Sputnik’s The Final Countdown program Wednesday to offer analysis on the twin developments and their implications for Western countries. “This makes the United States look weak because if Biden does step aside and they say ‘I’m not physically and mentally competent to run,’ then the next question will be, ‘well, are you physically and mentally competent to remain president?’” said Szamuely. “It’s going to be very hard for Biden to say, ‘yes, I can still function for another six months as president while there are two serious wars taking place in which America is actively involved. I think there will immediately be calls for Biden to resign forthwith and the result will be great anxiety.”

“So already you have people concerned about Trump, but at least Trump is a known quantity,” he added. “But now, well, what’s going to happen now? I mean, what happens during the next six months? What happens at the convention? Everything is up in the air. So internationally there’s just a great deal of concern of an America in turmoil.” “Yeah, it feels like a bit like a free fall for sure,” agreed host Angie Wong. European leaders are said to be worried over the potential of a second Trump term amid concerns the former president would pull the United States out of the NATO military alliance. The European Union has investigated ways to ensure continued funding for Ukraine’s proxy war against Russia in the event the former president ends US support for the conflict upon returning to the White House.

But Europe’s political establishment is also losing its grip on power as support surges for right-wing populist parties throughout the continent. Marine Le Pen’s National Rally party won the most support in the first round of recent French parliamentary elections, leading President Emmanuel Macron to seek alliances to prevent her triumph in the second round. Although Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s coalition bested Macron’s centrist party in the first round of voting, the French president is unlikely to include the leftwing in figure in any coalition, said Szamuely, noting that ”Macron seems to really hate him.” The analyst suggested the French leader would seek more moderate allies, forming a center-left alliance of establishment political figures to deny Le Pen power.

Read more …

“..empires pass through seven stages, and right now the West is in the stage of decline and collapse in which “the heroes are always the same—the athlete, the singer, or the actor.” Sound familiar?”

• The West’s Mask Of Morality Burns To Dust (Carman)

“Knowledgeable people know that Frankenstein is not the monster, but only wise people see that Frankenstein is the monster.” This quote has been resonating recently when considering the monstrous atrocities occurring on the world stage. Knowledgeable people know now, thanks to eyewitness accounts and global communications, that what is happening in Gaza to civilians is monstrous, in spite of the media spin, but only critical thinkers are willing to go deeper and see that the governments purporting to fight “the monster,” that is, Hamas, are at least partially culpable for creating it and, at worst, the monster themselves. It’s still absolutely wild how quickly the West went from arming Nazis in Ukraine to supporting actual genocide, all the while domestically making issues about the dangers of the far right, inclusion, kindness, and right think.

Words are violence after all, according to AOC, just perhaps a tad less violent than air strikes, but who’s measuring? Western support should be of no surprise considering the death toll in the Middle East over the past several decades in the name of freeing the people from evil tyrants. Of course, it’s easy to overlook that 90% of US drone strikes killed civilians, but we’ve been indoctrinated to have a short memory and rewrite history. Luckily, we get a “masterclass” in painting from old favourite George W. Bush as a gift for our collective amnesia and ability to allow a relentless PR machine to dictate and reformulate our opinions. Of course history would remind us of Agent Orange, the Tuskegee experiments, and other immoral atrocities waged against humans, but there’s something even more flamboyant and bombastic about the West’s current posturing, like they’re no longer hiding the psychopathy from their citizens, with the mainstream media becoming more desperate and less impactful in maintaining these nonsense narratives.

Has the West always been narcissistically playing the good guy, or has it become more depraved over time? While we can look back over history to the banking cartels and war profiteers to see that evil has always lurked within, it must be acknowledged that during the earlier stages of empire, there was a stronger commitment from institutions, some members of government, and active citizens to uphold the values of the ideology. As Glubb asserts, empires pass through seven stages, and right now the West is in the stage of decline and collapse in which “the heroes are always the same—the athlete, the singer, or the actor.” Sound familiar? It’s therefore fair to assume, based on empirical evidence even amassed within our lifetimes, that the Western leadership and its institutions themselves have become even more overtly and intensely morally corrupt over time. It could be argued that there was moral justification for fighting the Nazis in World War II as well as economic and geopolitical aims.

It could also be argued to a lesser extent that the proxy wars fought against the backdrop of the Cold War had legitimacy considering the Western paranoia of the USSR and communist ideals of permanent revolution. It begins to get much harder to justify the more recent wars in the Middle East, but a US public shellshocked by 911 was willingly compliant, with antiwar voices ignored and drowned out by its European allies. However, the military industrial complex is increasingly clutching at straws despite the most intense propaganda scheme deployed since COVID, evoking ignorant but well-meaning support to arm Ukraine and prolong the death toll. The struggling public of the collapsing West has grown weary of taxes used to fund the war machine, and now, with Gaza, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the stories fed to us about freedom and democracy are nothing more than comforting fairytales to justify state sanctioned mass murder.

The weak rationalisations for the current genocide occurring are becoming more and more pitiful as the death toll of innocents surpasses the 10,000s and World War III looms on the horizon, promising many millions more. Yet the tired legacy media still attempts to twist the narrative, making traumatised Palestinians pulled from the rubble condemn Hamas before they are allowed a voice. Are Israeli citizens expected to condemn their government, which, to date, has been far more murderous before being platformed? The whitewashing of history, just as occurred with Ukraine, to downplay the neo-Nazi threat and murder of 14,000 civilians in the Donbass since the US-backed coup in 2014 is in full swing again. Hamas are the personification of evil and attacked Israel completely unprovoked, purely because they are evil. This smear is from the Putin playbook, Hussein before him, and frankly any leader that’s impending the savagery and theft of Western colonialism. It’s so infantile that it’s embarrassing.

Read more …

“>.the next president “is going to appoint at least two new appointees.”

• The Grim Reaper: Biden Declares Two Justices Will Be Gone in Four Years (Turley)

One of the least discussed aspects of the interview with President Joe Biden last night was his declaration that two of the nine justices are not long for the Court. The question is which two are facing retirement or the reaper. In arguing for his remaining as the nominee despite record low polling, the President told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos with certainty that the next president “is going to appoint at least two new appointees.” That must be uneasy news for the relatively small court that almost of a third will soon pass . . . one way or another. Liberals have been pushing Sonia Sotomayor to retire, but she has clearly rejected those calls. On CNN, journalist Josh Barro bluntly wondered why Sotomayor remains on the bench when younger jurists could be brought on to guarantee a liberal vote for years to come. He indicated that many liberals are frustrated with her for not stepping down: “I find it a little bit surprising, given what Justice Sotomayor describes there about the stakes of what is happening before the Supreme Court, that she’s not retired. She’s 69 years old, she’s been on the court for 15 years.”

At 70, Sotomayor shows no signs of mental decline. She has been a highly effective justice, stepping into the vacuum created by the death in 2020 of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Of course, few ever questioned the “Notorious RBG” in her decision to stay on the Court, despite her much older age and longer tenure. While some of us noted that Ginsburg was taking a huge risk in not allowing then-President Barack Obama to pick a successor, she remained on the Court in spite of medical problems and ultimately was replaced by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Ginsburg, however, was almost 20 years older than Sotomayor. There is no concern for deterioration or death on the bench in Sotomayor’s case. It is simply a matter of swapping out justices like light bulbs before they burn out.

All of the justices are younger than Ginsburg when she passed (and considerably younger than President Biden who is running for a second four-year term).
Justice Thomas, 76.
Justice Alito, 74.
Justice Sotomayor, 70.
Chief Justice Roberts, 69.
Justice Kagan, 64.
Justice Kavanaugh, 59.
Justice Gorsuch, 56.
Justice Jackson, 53.
Justice Barrett, 52.

Justice Clarence Thomas is the oldest, but has not indicated that he is ready to retire. He would likely want to wait for a Republican president. If history is a measure, he has time. Oliver Wendell Holmes retired at 90. A recent analysis of the court’s projected composition suggested the next time the majority of justices will be appointed by a Democrat is likely to be around 2065. I did not find that analysis particularly compelling. However, I also fail to see how Biden can be certain that 2 of the 9 justices will die or retire. After all, even Thomas is six years younger than Biden. If he is predicting the death or retirement of Thomas within four years, he would presumably predict his own passing or retirement years ago. Running on the pledge to replace two departing justices could prove awkward if the justices are reluctant to be replaced or dispatched.

Read more …

“The real issue for Democrats is how to address this looming issue without tearing the party apart..”

• “Think About it Very Carefully”: Author Don Winslow to Sen. Mark Warner (Turley)

Last night, President Joe Biden refused to take a cognitive or neurological test despite widespread concerns over his physical and mental decline. ABC’s George Stephanopoulos pressed the President on his low polling and efforts of Democrats to get him to drop out of the race. He specifically mentioned the effort of Sen. Mark Warner (D., Va.) to organize members to pressure him to end his campaign. Biden took a not-so-subtle dig at Warner. However, it was nothing compared to a curious posting by author and Democratic activist Don Winslow, who appeared to threaten Warner on X (formerly Twitter). When the story broke in the Washington Post, Winslow posted a curious and ominous response:

It is not clear what Winslow meant by Warner knowing what he was talking about when asking if he was “sure you want to go down this road?” The message has caused a bit of a stir on the Hill. For the denizens of the Beltway, it sounds extortive and threatening. The suggestion is that Winslow has something on Warner. While some have asked whether this could be viewed as a threat criminally, it is clearly not sufficient for a charge. Warner is a public figure and this comment could just be a reference to political backlash or the lack of an alternative. His asking Warner “Are you sure you want to go down this road?” could be a reference to the political implications of the resulting chaos, including making Kamala Harris the presidential candidate. Harris is even less popular than Biden according to some polls.

While some polls show her doing slightly better than Biden against Trump, other polling shows that she would do considerably worse. However, it is the follow up of “Think about it very carefully” that has got tongues wagging in D.C. Whatever the intended meaning, the posting shows the depth of the division on the issue. Those divisions are only likely to deepen further after the refusal to take a test to put these concerns to rest. Notably, Biden has insisted that the public can simply observe him. However, that position stands in contradiction to the frivolous privilege claims made by the Administration to withhold the audiotape from the interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur. That was an interview that the President was prepared for in advance and held in ideal conditions with staff.

It is an opportunity for the public to hear him under questioning to reach the very conclusions that Biden suggested in the interview. As for Winslow’s posting, it may just be an incautious, poorly worded message rather than extortion or blackmail. We have all made postings that we regretted. The real issue for Democrats is how to address this looming issue without tearing the party apart. I have tried to drill down on the legal implications of swapping out the top of the ticket or the entire ticket. It is uncharted territory when it comes to the federal election laws on the use of past contributions as well as some states with restrictive rules on ballot changes.

Read more …

“According to Orban’s Friday op-ed, unless NATO changes tack now, “it will be committing suicide.”

• War Has Become NATO’s Agenda – Orban (RT)

NATO has effectively made warmongering its raison d’être by jettisoning its original “peaceful” and “defensive” nature, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has claimed. Hungary’s leader, a vocal critic of Western involvement in the Ukraine conflict, has repeatedly warned that ever more escalatory steps by the US-led military bloc could eventually lead to a direct military confrontation with Russia, yielding catastrophic consequences. On Friday, Orban paid a surprise visit to Moscow, where he met with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Hungarian prime minister’s office clarified that he was on a “peacekeeping mission.” The discussion between the two leaders centered on potential ways to peacefully resolve the Ukraine conflict. Wrapping up the talks, Orban acknowledged that Moscow’s and Kiev’s positions remain very “far apart.” He added, however, that “we’ve already taken the most important step – establishing contact,” vowing to continue the effort.

Earlier, on Tuesday, the Hungarian prime minister had arrived in Kiev, where he sat down with Vladimir Zelensky. Orban advocated for an immediate ceasefire and negotiations. On the same day as his trip to Moscow, an op-ed penned by Orban was published in Newsweek which addressed the latest tendencies involving NATO, of which Hungary has been a member since 1999. In it, the Hungarian prime minister stressed Budapest’s active participation in multiple NATO operations and initiatives over the years, as well as its compliance with the bloc’s 2% defense spending target. Orban noted that the NATO his country joined 25 years ago was a “peace project” and a “military alliance for defense.” However, “today, instead of peace, the agenda is the pursuit of war; instead of defense, it is offense,” Orban lamented.

The prime minister stated that “ever more voices within NATO are making the case for the necessity—or even inevitability—of military confrontation with the world’s other geopolitical power centers.” He warned that this attitude “functions like a self-fulfilling prophecy.” He noted that several member states have recently entertained the possibility of launching a NATO operation in Ukraine. In late February, French President Emmanuel Macron said he did not rule out the deployment of French troops to Ukraine. Even though his suggestion quickly drew criticism from Germany and other members, the French head of state has since doubled down on the controversial idea on multiple occasions. In May, Estonia and neighboring Lithuania signaled their readiness to send troops to Ukraine for logistical and other non-combat missions. According to Orban’s Friday op-ed, unless NATO changes tack now, “it will be committing suicide.”

Read more …

“One of Keir Starmer’s first phone calls after taking charge of the UK government was with Vladimir Zelensky..”

• New British PM Assures Ukraine Of ‘Unshakable’ Support (RT)

London’s support for Kiev during the conflict with Moscow will remain at the same level under his leadership, the new Prime Minister of Britain Keir Starmer has told Vladimir Zelensky. Starmer replaced Rishi Sunak as the head of the UK government on Friday after the Labour Party he leads claimed a landslide victory in a general election, securing at least 412 of the 650 seats in parliament. One of his first phone calls in the new role was with Zelensky. The Ukrainian leader wrote on X (formerly Twitter) on Friday that during their conversation he congratulated Starmer on becoming prime minister and “wished him success in fulfilling the British people’s expectations of the new government.” “I am grateful to Prime Minister Starmer for reaffirming the UK’s principled and unwavering support for Ukraine,” he said.

According to Zelensky, he and the British premier had “coordinated positions” ahead of the NATO Summit in Washington on July 9-11 and discussed ways to further strengthen the “partnership” between Kiev and London. Starmer later shared Zelensky’s post on his page, claiming that “Ukraine’s ongoing fight against Russian aggression matters to all of us.” “The UK’s support [for Kiev] remains unshakable,” the PM wrote, adding that he is looking forward to meeting Zelensky in person. Britain has been one of the biggest backers of Ukraine during the conflict with Russia, pledging £12.5 billion (around $16 billion) in support for Kiev, including £7.6 billion (around $9.7 billion) in military aid, since February 2022.

Starmer becomes the UK’s fourth prime minister during this period, after Conservatives Boris Johnson, who resigned in September 2022, Liz Truss, who set a record by stepping down on her 15th day in office, and Sunak, who headed the government until Friday. However, London’s commitment to Kiev remained unchanged despite the changes at the helm. Earlier this year, Russia’s foreign minister Sergey Lavrov said that the role played by Britain during the conflict in Ukraine was “even more aggressive, more elaborate in its provocative assertiveness than of any other participant, including even the US.”

In May, London’s ambassador in Moscow, Nigel Casey, was summoned to the foreign ministry following remarks by the UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron that Ukraine has the “right” to use UK-provided weaponry to strike targets deep inside Russia, if it decides to do so. Casey was warned that “British military facilities and equipment on the territory of Ukraine and beyond” could be targeted if such attacks do happen. Moscow has repeatedly warned that deliveries of weapons and ammunition to Kiev by the US, UK and their allies will not prevent Russia from achieving its military goals, but will merely prolong the fighting and increase the risk of a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO. According to Russian officials, the provision of arms, sharing of intelligence, and training of Ukrainian troops effectively means that Western nations have become de-facto parties to the conflict.

Read more …

“..the so-called “Chosen company.”

• Foreign Mercs in Ukraine Bragged About Murdering Russian PoWs (Sp.)

A US media outlet’s report has claimed to shed light on atrocities committed by foreign hirelings dubbed by the West as so-called “volunteer soldiers” fighting in the proxy war in Ukraine. Foreign mercenaries fighting on the side of the Kiev regime reveled in executing Russian prisoners, the New York Times has reported. The atrocious killings are believed to have been carried out by members of the so-called “Chosen company.” One incident in August 2023 was described to the outlet by a witness, the unit’s medic, a German called Caspar Grosse. Grosse explained that a wounded and unarmed Russian soldier seeking medical help from his foreign captors was shot in cold blood. First one mercenary shot the Russian in the torso, and then, as he slumped still breathing, another soldier “just shot him in the head,” Grosse recalled. According to several accounts, video footage and text messages exchanged by members of the unit and reviewed by the outlet, such “unwarranted killings” continued.

In another episode, a Chosen company fighter “threw a grenade at a surrendering Russian soldier who had raised his hands, killing him,” the outlet stated, referencing reviewed drone footage. It was added that the Ukrainian military published a video of this episode, but edited out the surrender moment. Militants from the company of foreign hirelings and thrill-seekers reportedly talked freely about the murders of prisoners of war in group chats. In a third episode, revealed by such messages, a soldier in command in October 2023 told the fighters he would take personal responsibility if “anything comes out” about the killings. At the center of all these three incidents was reportedly a Greek mercenary with the callsign Zeus. He shot a wounded Russian in the trench, tossed the grenade at a prisoner, and bragged “a thousand times” about killing the surrendering Russian, claimed Grosse.

Benjamin Reed, a former American member of the unit, claimed that he “heard, to such a large degree, innumerable conversations, about the executions of PoWs on various operations.” Furthermore, the unit’s recruiter told him that it “was OK to kill PoWs if they didn’t surrender in the strictest Geneva Convention standards.” Reed posted a video on TikTok, calling his former comrades “kill-crazy cowboys, nothing more.”In interviews, Grosse is said to have recounted details that other Chosen members corroborated. Ryan O’Leary, the American who claims to be the de facto commander of Chosen company, denied to the outlet that his fighters had committed war crimes. However, after being contacted by The Times, O’Leary reportedly vowed in a group chat to “cast a wide net” to “snare the rabbit” who had been speaking to journalists. Any footage showing the killing of a surrendering soldier should have triggered an investigation in the US, underscored the publication.

Read more …

 

 

 

 


When life gets you down and you feel unloved and worthless, just remember you’ll be dead one day. Have a great weekend.

 

 

Pet machine
https://twitter.com/i/status/1809504559963816060

 

 

Cattle swim

 

 

 

 

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

Crossfire Boomerang

Apr 252019
 
 April 25, 2019  Posted by at 12:43 pm Primers Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  2 Responses »


M. C. Escher Relativity Lattice 1953

 

From Twitter:

Remember Spying on Trump was called “Crossfire Hurricane”? Well now it’s renamed to “Crossfire Boomerang”. BOOM. Karma!

 

 

From the moment the Special Counsel investigation into Trump-Russia collusion began, we’ve been presented with a portrait of Robert Swan Mueller III as a man of unassailable character, a straight shooter, as impartial as can be. But Mueller was director of the FBI for 12 years (2001-2013), he was the king of the spies.

Does anyone really have the idea that the people who work in US intelligence are the country’s straightest shooters? Not everybody does. For instance, not Mike Pompeo, who bluntly stated: We lied, we cheated, we stole; It’s – it was like – we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.”

So why should we believe Mueller is a man of such unassailable character when he rose to one of the very top ranks in intelligence? It doesn’t make much sense, except of course it’s what politics and media – and intelligence- want us to believe. It may not make sense, but boy, does it work.

And then at some point obviously you have to wonder why Mueller got the Special Counsel job on May 27 2017. Because of that unassailable character, we were told at the time. But if that doesn’t apply to Pompeo, why would it be true of Mueller? And why Mueller while there were strong links to US intelligence that would obviously have to be probed by the counsel (but were not).

That brings us straight to the next question: The main issue, post-report, is not whether Trump tried to stop the Mueller probe. The main issue instead is why it was instigated to begin with. Yes, US intelligence. CIA. And then there’s yet another question: When did Mueller know there was no collusion? Not just 1 or 2 weeks before presenting his report, that’s for sure.

So when? 6 months ago? A year? Did he ever really think there was collusion? If so, based on what? The almost entrirely discredited Steele dossier? Did he have faith in that? The Mifsud-Papadoloulos-Downer connection ‘engineered’ by CIA asset Stephen Halper? Did he have faith in that? Or was the whole thing goal-seeeked from the start?

It appears very silly to assume that Mueller did not start his job with an agenda, because of the heavy involvement of his former employees and colleagues and his best friend James Comey, whose firing by Trump was one of the main reasons to start the investigation. Sounds like a very hard one to sell, but the media did a great job. Everybody bought into it.

And then the whole thing collapsed. Yes, collapsed. Because this was never about finding the truth, it was always about digging for dirt. On Trump. Think Mueller wasn’t aware of that? I own a bridge….

 

Mueller was forced to find Trump and his team not guilty on conspiracy or collusion -and obstruction. This is because he would have had to prove this, and couldn’t. But he’s left the accusations against the Russian government and Julian Assange stand. Not because he has evidence for that, but because he doesn’t have to prove them.

Nobody believes a word any Russian says anymore, thanks to the MSM and US intelligence campaign against them. As for Assange, it’s obvious what Robert Mueller has done. He’s completely ignored the one person who could have helped him find the truth -just not the dirt-. and let him rot in hell. Here’s wishing for that same hell to befall Mueller and all of his family.

There is zero chance that Mueller didn’t know his buddy and successor James Comey prevented Assange from talking with the DOJ in 2017. Neither wanted Assange’s evidence to become public, because that would have killed the Russia narrative as well as the WikiLeaks one. And then what?

Let’s make one thing clear. All that proof of Russian hacking and Russian Facebook ads? It doesn’t exist. The entire story is fictional. How do we know? Because the only source that says it is true is US intelligence. And they can not be believed. As Mueller’s investigation once again shows.

Mueller and Barr, like all of Washington -it’s a bipartisan effort-, want the narrative to remain alive that the Russians hacked and meddled in the US elections in favor of Trump, and that Julian Assange was in cahoots with them. None of which Mueller has any evidence for. And Mueller at all have no problem sacrificing Assange and Chelsea Manning while they’re at it.

Assange is not the only expert source who is silenced. The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity -VIPS- also can’t get their voice heard. People who ran US intelligence for decades are being silenced by those who succeeded them. As if they don’t exist. As if their expertise is worthless.

The evidence they offer simply doesn’t rhyme with the official narrative promoted by their successors and the CIA and FBI. Remember: Mueller only dropped in his report what he would have had to provide evidence for. The rest is still there, but that doesn’t mean it’s true.

 

One VIPS member is Larry Johnson, “former CIA Intelligence Officer & former State Department Counter-Terrorism Official, (ret.)”. Trump referenced him the other day on Twitter:

“Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson accuses United Kingdom Intelligence of helping Obama Administration Spy on the 2016 Trump Presidential Campaign.” @OANN WOW! It is now just a question of time before the truth comes out, and when it does, it will be a beauty!

And sure enough, the Guardian today described Johnson as a “conservative conspiracy theorist”. This stuff is predictable. But at least we know that while Mueller et al ignore the VIPS, Trump knows at least something about them. A few excerpts of a letter they sent to Trump last week (which he hasn’t seen, undoubtedly):

 

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President. SUBJECT: The Fly in the Mueller Ointment

[..] the Mueller report left unscathed the central-but-unproven allegation that the Russian government hacked into the DNC and Podesta emails, gave them to WikiLeaks to publish, and helped you win the election. The thrust will be the same; namely, even if there is a lack of evidence that you colluded with Russian President Vladimir Putin, you have him to thank for becoming president.

Mueller has accepted that central-but-unproven allegation as gospel truth [..] Following the odd example of his erstwhile colleague, former FBI Director James Comey, Mueller apparently has relied for forensics on a discredited, DNC-hired firm named CrowdStrike, whose credibility is on a par with “pee-tape dossier” compiler Christopher Steele. Like Steele, CrowdStrike was hired and paid by the DNC.

[..] In Barr’s words: “The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks.

Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election.” We are eager to see if Mueller’s report contains more persuasive forensic evidence than that which VIPS has already debunked.

“But They Were Indicted! “Circular reasoning is not likely to work for very long, even with a U.S. populace used to being brainwashed by the media. Many Americans had mistakenly assumed that Mueller’s indictment of Russians — whether they be posting on FaceBook or acting like intelligence officers — was proof of guilt. But, as lawyers regularly point out, “one can easily indict a ham sandwich” — easier still these days, if it comes with Russian dressing.

 

The VIPS mention a few times they can’t get heard. They sent Barr a letter 5 weeks ago, and never got an answer. Here they say: “.. specialists will have a field day, IF — and it is a capital “IF” — by some miracle, word of VIPS’ forensic findings gets into the media this time around.”

 

The evidence-impoverished, misleadingly labeled “Intelligence Community Assessment” of January 6, 2017 had one saving grace. The authors noted: “The nature of cyberspace makes attribution of cyber operations difficult but not impossible. Every kind of cyber operation — malicious or not — leaves a trail.” Forensic investigators can follow a trail of metadata and other technical properties. VIPS has done that.

If, as we strongly suspect, Mueller is relying for forensics solely on CrowdStrike, the discredited firm hired by the DNC in the spring of 2016, he is acting more in the mold of Inspector Clouseau than the crackerjack investigator he is reputed to be. It simply does not suffice for Mueller’s former colleague James Comey to tell Congress that CrowdStrike is a “high-class entity.” It is nothing of the sort [..] Comey needs to explain why he kept the FBI away from the DNC computers after they were said to have been “hacked.”


And former National Intelligence Director James Clapper needs to explain his claim last November that “the forensic evidence was overwhelming about what the Russians had done.” What forensic evidence? From CrowdStrike? We at VIPS, in contrast, are finding more and more forensic evidence that the DNC emails were leaked, not hacked by the Russians or anyone else — and that “Guccifer 2.0” is an out-and-out fraud. Yes, we can prove that from forensics too.

 

No Russian hacking. No Guccifer 2.0. But Mueller mentions both a lot.

Again, if Mueller’s incomplete investigation is allowed to assume the status of Holy Writ, most Americans will continue to believe that — whether you colluded the Russians or not — Putin came through for you big time. In short, absent President Putin’s help, you would not be president.

Far too many Americans will still believe this because of the mainstream-media fodder — half-cooked by intelligence leaks — that they have been fed for two and a half years. The media have been playing the central role in the effort of the MICIMATT (the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think-Tank) complex to stymie any improvement in relations with Russia.

We in VIPS have repeatedly demonstrated that the core charges of Russian interference in the 2016 election are built on a house of cards. But, despite our record of accuracy on this issue — not to mention our pre-Iraq-war warnings about the fraudulent intelligence served up by our former colleagues — we have gotten no play in mainstream media.

Most of us have chalked up decades in the intelligence business and many have extensive academic and government experience focusing on Russia. We consider the issue of “Russian interference” of overriding significance not only because the allegation is mischievously bogus and easily disproven. More important, it has brought tension with nuclear-armed Russia to the kind of dangerous fever pitch not seen since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, when the Russian provocation was real — authentic, not synthetic.

 

[..] We recall that you were apprised of that Memorandum’s key findings because you ordered then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo to talk to William Binney, one of our two former NSA Technical Directors and one of the principal authors of that Memorandum. On October 24, 2017, Pompeo began an hour-long meeting with Binney by explaining the genesis of the odd invitation to CIA Headquarters: “You are here because the president told me that if I really wanted to know about Russian hacking I needed to talk to you.”

[..] Binney, a plain-spoken, widely respected scientist, began by telling Pompeo that his (CIA) people were lying to him about Russian hacking and that he (Binney) could prove it. [..] As we told Attorney General Barr five weeks ago, we consider Mueller’s findings fundamentally flawed on the forensics side and ipso facto incomplete. We also criticized Mueller for failing to interview willing witnesses with direct knowledge, like WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange.

You may be unaware that in March 2017 lawyers for Assange and the Justice Department (acting on behalf of the CIA) reportedly were very close to an agreement under which Assange would agree to discuss “technical evidence ruling out certain parties” in the leak of the DNC emails and agree to redact some classified CIA information, in exchange for limited immunity. According to the investigative reporter John Solomon of The Hill, Sen. Mark Warner, (D-VA) vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, learned of the incipient deal and told then-FBI Director Comey, who ordered an abrupt “stand down” and an end to the discussions with Assange.

Why did Comey and Warner put the kibosh on receiving “technical evidence ruling out certain parties” [read Russia]? We won’t insult you with the obvious answer.

Assange is now in prison, to the delight of so many — including Mrs. Clinton who has said Assange must now “answer for what he has done.” But is it too late to follow up somehow on Assange’s offer? Might he or his associates be still willing to provide “technical evidence” showing, at least, who was not the culprit?

 

VIPS can’t get their voices heard. Everyone ignores them. These are highly experienced veterans of US intelligence, whose successors, and politics, and media, simply act as if they don’t exist. And while it’s curious to see how they go out of their way NOT to create the impression that Mueller makes his “mistakes” on purpose, the gist is just that.

What this adds up to is not just that Mueller has come up with nothing in his $20-30-50 million investigation, but that he has purposely left things in his report that he has no evidence for but also doesn’t have to prove, because those he accuses cannot defend themselves. Note also that Mueller has never indicted Assange, he has only smeared him.

Mueller doesn’t just have nothing, he has less than nothing. What is left of his “findings” once the collusion and obstruction elements are gone, are things that either he himself (his team) or US intelligence has concocted out of thin air. And have you seen even one ‘journalist’ who has questioned these fantasies?

I see only ‘reporters’ more than willing to heap their own fiction on top of the report’s. They’ll grudgingly accept there’s no collusion only to run away with what can still be construed as obstruction, but not a single one questions the Russian hacking or emails or Facebook ads anymore or Assange’s involvement, though Mueller offers zero proof for any of these things. Ditto for Guccifer 2.0.

The GRU (Main Directorate of the General Staff of Russian Armed Forces, formerly the Main Intelligence Directorate) is a very advanced operation. When they hack something they leave no traces. US intelligence is just as capable of leaving GRU “traces” as the GRU itself is of NOT leaving them. The CIA is not smarter than the GRU. That’s what we’re looking at here.

How many Americans do you think there are who think this is the way to conduct investigations ostensibly aimed at truth-finding? You know, if only they knew?!

The only thing perceived as reality in America today is a bunch of fantasies designed to hide the truth. What truth there is, is left to rot in hell. What a place -and time- to live.

 

 

 

 

Incidents and Accidents, Hints and Allegations

Aug 052018
 
 August 5, 2018  Posted by at 1:19 pm Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , ,  9 Responses »


Salvador Dali Spain 1936-38 (Spanish civil war)

 

Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-semite. Julian Assange is a rapist, a Russian agent and a terrorist. Donald Trump is an anti-semite, a rapist AND a Russian agent. Vladimir Putin wants to invade and enslave the entire western world and to that end employs Assange, Trump, maybe also Corbyn(?), as well as thousands upon thousands of hackers and murderers who make people vote for whoever Putin chooses, and poison former Russian agents on western soil.

These allegations, and there’s many more of them, have a number of things in common. Most importantly, they serve to change your mind. They serve to change your perception of reality. They seek to whip up your support for the very people and forces that launch them into the media.

Something else they have in common is that none of them has ever been proven, even though some of them are getting on in years. But they were never meant to be proven, simply because they don’t have to be. If your mind is a fertile breeding ground for such allegations, all that needs to be done is plant a seed, and plant another, and then water them day after day by repeating the allegations and make them ‘yummier’, until they sprout a plant or a tree ‘spontaneously’.

A third feature the allegations have in common is that as they change your perception of reality, you will be -more- inclined to support those who invented them for that exact purpose, so you will not oppose their -further- grab for power and wealth.

That Jeremy Corbyn would hate Jews goes against the man’s entire life history. But he’s been exceedingly weak in defending himself, and his Labour Party, against the accusations of anti-semitism, so the label sticks and has been very successful. Instead of explaining his position in the face of the unfolding and increasingly disastrous Brexit proceedings, all Corbyn gets to do is utter some feeble defence about his history with Jewish people. On Brexit, he’s been all but silenced. Even his own party merrily goes along with the smear.

 

The accusations concerning Assange in the Swedish rape ‘case’ are, if possible, even more preposterous, even if they have also ostensibly been even more successful. The Swedes, British and Americans involved in the narrative knew beforehand that all they needed was to plant a fragile seed. Julian had historically enjoyed a lot of support from women, and that was over in a heartbeat.

Sweden’s female(!) prosecutor, Marianne Ny, refused for 4 years to talk to Assange one on one and when she finally did, dropped the case right after. But that’s 4 years of allegations hanging over him, easily enough to serve the purpose of those allegations: plant a seed of doubt. By then, another -hollow- tree had sprouted: Assange was accused of working directly with the Kremlin.

He always denied this, but after negotiations with the US Justice Department in early 2017 were abruptly halted by then FBI-head James Comey and US Senator Mark Warner (D.-VA) as Assange offered to prove that it wasn’t Russians who provided him with files from the DNC server(s), Robert Mueller felt free to accuse him of working with Russia once again in his indictment of 12 Russians last month. Not only could Assange not defend himself by then, since he had been totally silenced, but Mueller didn’t even attempt to provide evidence.

And I’ve said this numerous times before, but I still think it bears repeating: WikiLeaks is based on one underlying principle above and beyond anything else: trust; which means uncompromising honesty. WIthout that, no-one would ever again offer them any files. WikiLeaks doesn’t reveal sources, and it doesn’t redact things out of files other than to protect people’s lives.

In that sense it’s interesting that even with the Vault7 CIA files, after Comey had betrayed Assange, the latter still held back from publishing certain pages, just so CIA operatives wouldn’t be exposed. If Assange is caught in just one lie, be it about rape or about Russia, WikiLeaks is done, and so is he and his life’s work. So what do you do about someone who doesn’t lie? You spread lies about him.

But, again, that’s not what people see, because that’s not what their media report. Papers like the New York Times and the Guardian, who were more than happy to share, and profit from, WikiLeaks files before, have turned on Assange with a vengeance. Journalists are more than willing to throw a fellow journalist under the bus and then turn around and accuse Donald Trump of endangering journalists when he says they spread fake news. Well, they do, that’s what Assange’s case proves without a doubt.

 

That brings us to Trump, a ‘case’ that has much in common with Assange -even if the men themselves don’t-, but is also very different. Trump doesn’t seem to shy away from the odd white lie or embellishment. And sure, that may be putting it mildly. But both journalists and their viewers and readers need to keep one thing in mind: their work does not consist of spouting allegations. They need to provide proof.

And in the 18 -or 24- months since Trump prominently rose upon the Washington scene, precious little has been proven. Robert Mueller has alleged plenty, but proven next to nothing. It’s fair to say after all that time that he’s fishing. Sure, Paul Manafort will likely go to jail, but his case has nothing to do with Russia collusion, at least not in any way that Mueller has evidence for (we would have known if he did).

And you know, if you spend so much time, and resources, trying to find something, trying to find proof, and you have failed to find it, you have to acknowledge just that. Maybe not halt the investigation entirely, but go public and state that you haven’t been able to find what you thought you would or could. The country deserves that, The American people deserve it, and yes, Donald Trump does, too.

But the whole country now lives on a narrative. Media left and right profit from it, each to feed their audience the ‘latest’ 24/7. And there’s nothing really, so they have to make it up in order to continue profiting from the whipped-up attention. One side tells you how evil Trump is, the other how great he’s doing. The truth is always in the middle, but America has no middle left.

 

I said before that Donald Trump is portrayed as an anti-semite, a rapist AND a Russian agent. As for the first bit, I covered that a few days ago in “Globalist”. Does Trump hate Jews? Even if he does, he hides it pretty well. He’s always done business with Jewish people (hey, this is New York!), there are plenty Jews in his government, and in his own family. Calling someone an anti-Semite is a very serious thing, not a detail to be thrown around at will. Prove it or hold your tongue.

Is Trump a rapist, like what Assange is accused of? You can certainly find no shortage of people willing to state that in both cases. But again, no evidence. And with the fame and glory awaiting anyone who does prove it in either case, you would think by now someone would have found something. Again, prove it or hold your tongue.

Thirdly: is Trump a Russian agent? Look, if Robert Mueller hasn’t been able to prove that he is after two years and tens of millions spent, at least get off your high horse and focus on something else for a bit, if you want to be taken serious as a journalist. Russia, and Putin, are America’s favorite bogeyman today, and about the only thing that still unites the country.

So find something instead that unites you that is not your enemy. Find common cause. Find what makes you proud to be America. Are you all going to be proud if Assange is dragged into some place like Gitmo? Then you have completely lost what it is that should make you proud citizens of the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Because no matter how you may twist it, Julian Assange is braver than any of you, and braver than all of you put together too. But no, he’s not free. He gave up his freedom so you would know what it means to be free. Free from manipulation, free from people making up your minds for you, free from indoctrination, free from the forces that take more of your freedom away every day.

You see, Julian Assange is not free. But neither are you. He’s a prisoner of the very people who are taking your freedom away, day by day, step by step. That’s why you should stand up for him. And of course, it’s not just your freedom that’s at stake, it’s your humanity, it’s the very essence of what makes you human, the difference between a life worth living and a life wasted by complacency and cowardice.

Anything else is just narrative. It’s not life.

 

 

And yes, the title is from Paul Simon’s You Can Call Me Al.

 

 

 

 

The True Meaning of ‘Collusion’

Jul 142018
 
 July 14, 2018  Posted by at 12:14 pm Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  3 Responses »


Vincent van Gogh Weeping woman 1883

 

The indictment by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, whose task it is to investigate possible collusion between the Trump campaign and ‘Russians’, that was released yesterday by Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, raises so many questions one has to be picky.

Many people have already stated that the report contains no proof of anything it claims, and that Mueller doesn’t have to prove a thing, because the 12 Russians he accuses will never show up in a US court. Many of course also have at least questioned the timing of the release, 3 days before the Putin-Trump summit in Helsinki, of information Mueller and Rosenstein have allegedly been sitting on for months.

The idea that the event was not coordinated to inflict maximum damage to the summit seems indeed far-fetched. But something else struck me in the report: the role of WikiLeaks (labeled “Organization 1”). Mueller very much focuses on both Julian Assange -though he doesn’t get named and is not indicted- and his presumed links to the indicted Russians, who -allegedly- posed as Guccifer 2.0:

 

Use of Organization 1

47. In order to expand their interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the Conspirators transferred many of the documents they stole from the DNC and the chairman of the Clinton Campaign to Organization 1. The Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, discussed the release of the stolen documents and the timing of those releases with Organization 1 to heighten their impact on the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

a. On or about June 22, 2016, Organization 1 sent a private message to Guccifer 2.0 to “[s]end any new material [stolen from the DNC] here for us to review and it will have a much higher impact than what you are doing.” On or about July 6, 2016, Organization 1 added, “if you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the DNC [Democratic National Convention] is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after.” The Conspirators responded, “ok . . . i see.” Organization 1 explained, “we think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary . . . so conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting.”

b. After failed attempts to transfer the stolen documents starting in late June 2016, on or about July 14, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, sent Organization 1 an email with an attachment titled “wk dnc link1.txt.gpg.” The Conspirators explained to Organization 1 that the encrypted file contained instructions on how to access an online archive of stolen DNC documents. On or about July 18, 2016, Organization 1 confirmed it had “the 1Gb or so archive” and would make a release of the stolen documents “this week.”

48. On or about July 22, 2016, Organization 1 released over 20,000 emails and other documents stolen from the DNC network by the Conspirators. This release occurred approximately three days before the start of the Democratic National Convention. Organization 1 did not disclose Guccifer 2.0’s role in providing them. The latest-in-time email released through Organization 1 was dated on or about May 25, 2016, approximately the same day the Conspirators hacked the DNC Microsoft Exchange Server.

49. On or about October 7, 2016, Organization 1 released the first set of emails from the chairman of the Clinton Campaign that had been stolen by LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators. Between on or about October 7, 2016 and November 7, 2016, Organization 1 released approximately thirty-three tranches of documents that had been stolen from the chairman of the Clinton Campaign. In total, over 50,000 stolen documents were released.

 

This means Mueller et al claim that WikiLeaks received the DNC files from Russian parties which had hacked into DNC(-related) servers. Something Julian Assange has always denied. Now, remember that the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), a group of former US intelligence professionals, as well as others, have said that the speed with which the files were downloaded from the server(s) indicates that they were not hacked, but put onto a hard drive.

The person who is supposed to have done that is Seth Rich. Who was murdered on July 10 2016. Kim Dotcom has long claimed to have evidence that Seth Rich was indeed the person who provided the files to Assange. Today he said on Twitter that his lawyers warned him about exposing that evidence, citing his safety and that of his family.

Half a year after Rich’s -never solved- murder, in the first months of 2017, the US Department of Defense was involved in negotiations with Assange in which the latter was offered -temporary- ‘safe passage’ from the Ecuador Embassy in London where he is holed up, in exchange for Assange ‘redacting’ a batch of files on the CIA known as Vault 7.

These negotiations were suddenly halted in April 2017 through the interference of James Comey -then FBI chief- and Mark Warner, a US Senator (D-VA). In the talks, Assange had offered to prove that no Russians were involved in the process that led to WikiLeaks receiving the files.

Today, of course, Assange is completely incommunicado in the Ecuador embassy, so he cannot defend himself against the Mueller accusations. Mueller really doesn’t have to prove anything: he can say what he wants. Comey and Warner prevented Assange from providing evidence exonerating ‘the Russians’, and Assange has been shut down.

Let me reapeat once again: Assange is fully aware that the smallest bit of non-truth or half-lie would mean the end of WikiLeaks. It is based on ultimate trust. Nobody would ever offer a single file again if they wouldn’t have full confidence that Wikileaks would treat it -and them- with the utmost respect. So the American approach is to smear Assange in any way possible, rape allegations, collusion with Russian agents, anything goes.

And ‘the Russians’ can be ‘freely’ accused in a 29-page indictment released on the eve of the first summit President Trump is supposed to have with his Russian counterpart a year and a half into his presidency, where his predecessors all had such meetings much earlier into their presidencies. With many lawmakers calling on him to cancel it.

Do we all still remember the true meaning of ‘collusion’?