New poll shows that the Clintons are in no way trusted by the general public when it comes to the preservation of evidence
(INTELLIHUB) — Well, it’s official, 94% of those who took yesterday’s Twitter poll feel that Bill and Hillary Clinton most likely had their own property set on fire this week in order to destroy evidence of some sort.
House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte announced Tuesday morning they have officially opened a joint investigation into decisions made at the Obama Justice Department surrounding the FBI’s criminal investigation into former Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. They also want to know why the FBI kept quiet about ongoing investigations into members of the Trump campaign, like Paul Manafort, while publicly discussing the Clinton probe.
“Our justice system is represented by a blind-folded woman holding a set of scales. Those scales do not tip to the right or the left; they do not recognize wealth, power, or social status. The impartiality of our justice system is the bedrock of our republic and our fellow citizens must have confidence in its objectivity, independence, and evenhandedness. The law is the most equalizing force in this country. No entity or individual is exempt from oversight,” Gowdy and Goodlatte released in a statement. “Decisions made by the Department of Justice in 2016 have led to a host of outstanding questions that must be answered.”
The Committees will investigate the following:
-FBI’s decision to publicly announce the investigation into Secretary Clinton’s handling of classified information but not to publicly announce the investigation into campaign associates of then-candidate Donald Trump;
-FBI’s decision to notify Congress by formal letter of the status of the investigation both in October and November of 2016;
-FBI’s decision to appropriate full decision making in respect to charging or not charging Secretary Clinton to the -FBI rather than the DOJ; and
-FBI’s timeline in respect to charging decisions.
“The Committees will review these decisions and others to better understand the reasoning behind how certain conclusions were drawn. Congress has a constitutional duty to preserve the integrity of our justice system by ensuring transparency and accountability of actions taken,” the statement continues.
The Department of Justice and FBI have come under extra scrutiny in recent months after it was revealed former FBI Director James Comey drafted a letter exonerating Clinton long before agents were finished with their investigation. The letter was also drafted before Clinton and her top aides were interviewed for the case.
Comey was fired in May after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein concluded he had usurped his authority by publicly announcing Clinton’s exoneration.
Crossing a line from recklessness into madness, The New York Times published a front-page opus suggesting that Russia was behind social media criticism of Hillary Clinton, reports Robert Parry.
(CN) For those of us who have taught journalism or worked as editors, a sign that an article is the product of sloppy or dishonest journalism is that a key point will be declared as flat fact when it is unproven or a point in serious dispute – and it then becomes the foundation for other claims, building a story like a high-rise constructed on sand.
This use of speculation as fact is something to guard against particularly in the work of inexperienced or opinionated reporters. But what happens when this sort of unprofessional work tops page one of The New York Times one day as a major “investigative” article and reemerges the next day in even more strident form as a major Times editorial? Are we dealing then with an inept journalist who got carried away with his thesis or are we facing institutional corruption or even a collective madness driven by ideological fervor?
What is stunning about the lede story in last Friday’s print edition of The New York Times is that it offers no real evidence to support its provocative claim that – as the headline states – “To Sway Vote, Russia Used Army of Fake Americans” or its subhead: “Flooding Twitter and Facebook, Impostors Helped Fuel Anger in Polarized U.S.”
In the old days, this wildly speculative article, which spills over three pages, would have earned an F in a J-school class or gotten a rookie reporter a stern rebuke from a senior editor. But now such unprofessionalism is highlighted by The New York Times, which boasts that it is the standard-setter of American journalism, the nation’s “newspaper of record.”
In this case, it allows reporter Scott Shane to introduce his thesis by citing some Internet accounts that apparently used fake identities, but he ties none of them to the Russian government. Acting like he has minimal familiarity with the Internet – yes, a lot of people do use fake identities – Shane builds his case on the assumption that accounts that cited references to purloined Democratic emails must be somehow from an agent or a bot connected to the Kremlin.
For instance, Shane cites the fake identity of “Melvin Redick,” who suggested on June 8, 2016, that people visit DCLeaks which, a few days earlier, had posted some emails from prominent Americans, which Shane states as fact – not allegation – were “stolen … by Russian hackers.”
Shane then adds, also as flat fact, that “The site’s phony promoters were in the vanguard of a cyberarmy of counterfeit Facebook and Twitter accounts, a legion of Russian-controlled impostors whose operations are still being unraveled.”
The Times’ Version
In other words, Shane tells us, “The Russian information attack on the election did not stop with the hacking and leaking of Democratic emails or the fire hose of stories, true, false and in between, that battered Mrs. Clinton on Russian outlets like RT and Sputnik. Far less splashy, and far more difficult to trace, was Russia’s experimentation on Facebook and Twitter, the American companies that essentially invented the tools of social media and, in this case, did not stop them from being turned into engines of deception and propaganda.”
Besides the obvious point that very few Americans watch RT and/or Sputnik and that Shane offers no details about the alleged falsity of those “fire hose of stories,” let’s examine how his accusations are backed up:
“An investigation by The New York Times, and new research from the cybersecurity firm FireEye, reveals some of the mechanisms by which suspected Russian operators used Twitter and Facebook to spread anti-Clinton messages and promote the hacked material they had leaked. On Wednesday, Facebook officials disclosed that they had shut down several hundred accounts that they believe were created by a Russian company linked to the Kremlin and used to buy $100,000 in ads pushing divisive issues during and after the American election campaign. On Twitter, as on Facebook, Russian fingerprints are on hundreds or thousands of fake accounts that regularly posted anti-Clinton messages.”
Note the weasel words: “suspected”; “believe”; ‘linked”; “fingerprints.” When you see such equivocation, it means that these folks – both the Times and FireEye – don’t have hard evidence; they are speculating.
And it’s worth noting that the supposed “army of fake Americans” may amount to hundreds out of Facebook’s two billion or so monthly users and the $100,000 in ads compare to the company’s annual ad revenue of around $27 billion. (I’d do the math but my calculator doesn’t compute such tiny percentages.)
So, this “army” is really not an “army” and we don’t even know that it is “Russian.” But some readers might say that surely we know that the Kremlin did mastermind the hacking of Democratic emails!
That claim is supported by the Jan. 6 “intelligence community assessment” that was the work of what President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called “hand-picked” analysts from three agencies – the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation. But, as any intelligence expert will tell you, if you hand-pick the analysts, you are hand-picking the conclusions.
Agreeing with Putin
But some still might protest that the Jan. 6 report surely presented convincing evidence of this serious charge about Russian President Vladimir Putin personally intervening in the U.S. election to help put Donald Trump in the White House. Well, as it turns out, not so much, and if you don’t believe me, we can call to the witness stand none other than New York Times reporter Scott Shane.
Shane wrote at the time: “What is missing from the [the Jan. 6] public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies’ claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack. … Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to ‘trust us.’”
So, even Scott Shane, the author of last Friday’s opus, recognized the lack of “hard evidence” to prove that the Russian government was behind the release of the Democratic emails, a claim that both Putin and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who published a trove of the emails, have denied. While it is surely possible that Putin and Assange are lying or don’t know the facts, you might think that their denials would be relevant to this lengthy investigative article, which also could have benefited from some mention of Shane’s own skepticism of last January, but, hey, you don’t want inconvenient details to mess up a cool narrative.
Yet, if you struggle all the way to the end of last Friday’s article, you do find out how flimsy the Times’ case actually is. How, for instance, do we know that “Melvin Redick” is a Russian impostor posing as an American? The proof, according to Shane, is that “His posts were never personal, just news articles reflecting a pro-Russian worldview.”
As it turns out, the Times now operates with what must be called a neo-McCarthyistic approach for identifying people as Kremlin stooges, i.e., anyone who doubts the truthfulness of the State Department’s narratives on Syria, Ukraine and other international topics.
Unreliable Source
In the article’s last section, Shane acknowledges as much in citing one of his experts, “Andrew Weisburd, an Illinois online researcher who has written frequently about Russian influence on social media.” Shane quotes Weisburd as admitting how hard it is to differentiate Americans who just might oppose Hillary Clinton because they didn’t think she’d make a good president from supposed Russian operatives: “Trying to disaggregate the two was difficult, to put it mildly.”
According to Shane, “Mr. Weisburd said he had labeled some Twitter accounts ‘Kremlin trolls’ based simply on their pro-Russia tweets and with no proof of Russian government ties. The Times contacted several such users, who insisted that they had come by their anti-American, pro-Russian views honestly, without payment or instructions from Moscow.”
One of Weisburd’s “Kremlin trolls” turned out to be 66-year-old Marilyn Justice who lives in Nova Scotia and who somehow reached the conclusion that “Hillary’s a warmonger.” During the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, she reached another conclusion: that U.S. commentators were exhibiting a snide anti-Russia bias perhaps because they indeed were exhibiting a snide anti-Russia bias.
Shane tracked down another “Kremlin troll,” 48-year-old Marcel Sardo, a web producer in Zurich, Switzerland, who dares to dispute the West’s groupthink that Russia was responsible for shooting down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine on July 17, 2014, and the State Department’s claims that the Syrian government used sarin gas in a Damascus suburb on Aug. 21, 2013.
Presumably, if you don’t toe the line on those dubious U.S. government narratives, you are part of the Kremlin’s propaganda machine. (In both cases, there actually are serious reasons to doubt the Western groupthinks which again lack real evidence.)
But Shane accuses Sardo and his fellow-travelers of spreading “what American officials consider to be Russian disinformation on election hacking, Syria, Ukraine and more.” In other words, if you examine the evidence on MH-17 or the Syrian sarin case and conclude that the U.S. government’s claims are dubious if not downright false, you are somehow disloyal and making Russian officials “gleeful at their success,” as Shane puts it.
But what kind of a traitor are you if you quote Shane’s initial judgment after reading the Jan. 6 report on alleged Russian election meddling? What are you if you agree with his factual observation that the report lacked anything approaching “hard evidence”? That’s a point that also dovetails with what Vladimir Putin has been saying – that “IP addresses can be simply made up. … This is no proof”?
So is Scott Shane a “Kremlin troll,” too? Should the Times immediately fire him as a disloyal foreign agent? What if Putin says that 2 plus 2 equals 4 and your child is taught the same thing in elementary school, what does that say about public school teachers?
Out of such gibberish come the evils of McCarthyism and the death of the Enlightenment. Instead of encouraging a questioning citizenry, the new American paradigm is to silence debate and ridicule anyone who steps out of line.
You might have thought people would have learned something from the disastrous groupthink about Iraqi WMD, a canard that the Times and most of the U.S. mainstream media eagerly promoted.
But if you’re feeling generous and thinking that the Times’ editors must have been chastened by their Iraq-WMD fiasco but perhaps had a bad day last week and somehow allowed an egregious piece of journalism to lead their front page, your kind-heartedness would be shattered on Saturday when the Times’ editorial board penned a laudatory reprise of Scott Shane’s big scoop.
Stripping away even the few caveats that the article had included, the Times’ editors informed us that “a startling investigation by Scott Shane of The New York Times, and new research by the cybersecurity firm FireEye, now reveal, the Kremlin’s stealth intrusion into the election was far broader and more complex, involving a cyberarmy of bloggers posing as Americans and spreading propaganda and disinformation to an American electorate on Facebook, Twitter and other platforms. …
“Now that the scheming is clear, Facebook and Twitter say they are reviewing the 2016 race and studying how to defend against such meddling in the future. … Facing the Russian challenge will involve complicated issues dealing with secret foreign efforts to undermine American free speech.”
But what is the real threat to “American free speech”? Is it the possibility that Russia – in a very mild imitation of what the U.S. government does all over the world – used some Web sites clandestinely to get out its side of various stories, an accusation against Russia that still lacks any real evidence?
Or is the bigger threat that the nearly year-long Russia-gate hysteria will be used to clamp down on Americans who dare question fact-lite or fact-free Official Narratives handed down by the State Department and The New York Times?
This article was chosen for republication based on the interest of our readers. Anti-Media republishes stories from a number of other independent news sources. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect Anti-Media editorial policy.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).
Ben Shapiro speaking at the 2016 Politicon at the Pasadena Convention Center in Pasadena, California. (Gage Skidmore/Flickr)
(INTELLIHUB) — On a recent episode of the Joe Rogan Experience podcast, political commentator and author Ben Shapiro told Joe Rogan that the only reason that Donald Trump got elected as president is because no one liked Hillary Clinton during the run-up and that Trump won merely by chance.
“No, there was no master plan, okay, it’s just that Hillary was an awful candidate and no one liked her,” the washed up commentator told Rogan as he grasped for straws. “This is the untold story of the election.”
Although Shapiro admits that the left was “arrogant” in thinking that they could pit the “most unpopular, unlikable, unqualified, nasty, boring, human being you can think of” against Donald Trump he still may have to come to terms with the fact that Trump is now his president.
In a St. Patrick Day address, she suggested she’ll return to politics – despite a Suffolk University poll showing her popularity at 35%, an all-time low.
Asked after an earlier Wellesley College address (her alma mater) what she’d change about her disastrous 2016 campaign, she said: “I’d win.”
Anyone so widely reviled should realize she’s unwanted and back off. Not Hillary, perhaps as much focused on undermining Trump as pursing a political comeback.
On Tuesday, she spoke at a San Francisco diversity conference, hosted by Professional Business Women of California, invited as keynote speaker, likely for 6-figure remuneration.
“There is no place I’d rather be than here with you,” she blustered – “other than the White House. Obviously the outcome of the election wasn’t the one I hoped for…”
She criticized Trumpcare, calling it “a disastrous” replacement for Obama’s (increasingly unaffordable) Affordable Care Act – ignoring her own “disastrous” foray into health care reform as first lady.
Her “managed competition” scheme was long on marketplace medicine, short on high quality affordable care for all Americans, HillaryCare in its early stages hatched secretly.
Her plan failed. Obamacare became the law of the land, a healthcare rationing scheme, benefiting insurers, drug companies and large hospital chains – instead of universal, single-payer care coverage, everyone included, no one left out, everybody getting equal benefits, the only workable, equitable plan Hillary, Obama, Trump and most other political figures reject.
Her March 17 and Tuesday addresses sounded like she’s still campaigning, her longstanding deplorable record ignored.
She and husband Bill comprise one of America’s most notorious crime families. She’s unabashedly hawkish, pro-Wall Street, pro-other predatory corporate interests, and pro-police state harshness.
She one-sidedly supports Israel’s high crimes. She’s militantly anti-Russia, anti-Iran, and anti-all other sovereign independent states.
She favors interventionism over diplomacy, orchestrated genocidal war on Libya and Syria, was involved in toppling democratic governments in Honduras and Paraguay, along with profiting hugely from plundering Haiti along with husband Bill.
She remains unaccountable for years of high crimes, supports monied interests over popular ones, remains a world-class menace in waiting.
Is she considering another White House run? In the meantime, she appears focused on undermining Trump – perhaps as a way of boosting her future chance to gain the high office twice lost trying.
Gotcha! President Trump decimates Hillary and the dishonest media in live press conference Tuesday morning at the White House, mentions uranium deal
WASHINGTON (INTELLIHUB) — A rather vibrant President Trump spoke critically of the press and of Hillary Clinton during a press conference Tuesday morning.
“You know they say I’m close to Russia — Hillary Clinton gave away 20% of the uranium in the united States — she’s close to Russia,” the President said. “You know what I gave to Russia? Nothing.”
(ZHE) Last week we noted chatter that some saw Mike Pence as “the Deep State’s insurance policy,” and now, judging by tweets from Wikileaks’ Julian Assange, that may well be the Clinton/Intelligence Officials plan…
As The Daily Caller notes, Assange’s claims appear to come in response to reports that President Trump authorized the CIA to perform drone strikes on terrorists Monday evening…
By handing unilateral power to the CIA over its drone strikes at this time White House signals that bullying, disloyalty & incompetence pays
As we concluded previously,if Trump doesn’t adopt the Cold War 2.0 approach of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and is forced out of his own administration in the same manner as Flynn, it will become clear why once we learn who would replace him: Mike Pence.
No matter what one makes of Trump – or his administration and the policies that have been initiated thus far – the fact remains that Trump won the U.S. election. The people working behind the scenes to oust him are not subject to democratic controls, nor are they working in the best interests of the American public. We are left to ask ourselves exactly how renewing relations with Russia – a nuclear power – could possibly endanger American lives.
Either way, we are more or less left with two paths ahead of us.The first path involves Trump giving in and adopting an anti-Russian agenda, as is already apparent in his decision to send more ground troops to Syria alongside Saudi troops, who will intentionally oppose the Syrian regime (a close ally of Russia). The second involves the possibility of another direct coup within the Trump administration, this time one that may ultimately force Trump out of the White House so he can be replaced by Mike Pence, a war hawk who will be more than happy to do the job Hillary Clinton wanted to do.
According to seemingly reliable reports in the media, President Trump may have determined that his Administration will not conduct a criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton (and presumably of the Clinton Foundation and those associated with it as well).
The reasons that were bruted for this decision prior to Mr. Trump’s inauguration should give one pause. First, various pundits contended that investigation of Mrs. Clinton would run afoul of some supposed “political tradition” in this country which discountenances prosecution of the loser of an election by the winner—when in fact Mrs. Clinton would be investigated, not because she lost the Presidential election, or even because of her dangerously aberrant political views, but instead because she has allegedly engaged in serious misbehavior, quite unconnected to the election, for which any other such perpetrator would surely be prosecuted sine die. Second, one of Mr. Trump’s aides mouthed the psychobabble that foregoing prosecution of Mrs. Clinton could “help her heal”—when “escape” would be the more accurate verb. Third, Mr. Trump himself announced: (i) that “I don’t think we have to delve back in the past”—notwithstanding that every criminal investigation does so; (ii) that prosecution of Mrs. Clinton “would be very, very divisive for the country”—as if affording her immunity from prosecution would not be; and (iii) that “I don’t want to hurt them [i.e., the Clintons]…they’re good people”—leaving to worrisome conjecture what Mr. Trump’s definition of “good people” might be. And most recently, when asked by a reporter whether no further investigations of Mrs. Clinton would be conducted, President Trump responded, “I certainly hope so”.
The most obviously justified criticism of Mr. Trump’s apparent willingness to allow Mrs. Clinton and others associated with her “to skate”, unscathed by honest and competent inquiries into their shadowy dealings, is that it proves once again how in the contemporary United States one body of law (or absence of law) specially privileges and protects the super-rich, the politically well-connected, and other big wheels, top noises, and string-pullers, while a quite different body of law bears down on everyone else. Any constitutionalist should be concerned, though, that something far more serious is involved here.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 7 of the Constitution provides that “[b]efore he [i.e., the President-elect] enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’” The text of this “Oath or Affirmation”sets out, not a possibly inaccurate prediction cast in terms of the simple futurity of temporal sequence (“I shall”), but instead a strict promise of fidelity cast in terms of the emphatic futurity of a solemn assurance (“I will”). Moreover, “taking the * * * Oath or Affirmation” is the condition precedent sine qua non to “enter[ing] on the Execution of [the] Office [of President]”. Self-evidently, if it is not “take[n]” at all, a President-elect cannot “enter on the Execution of [that] Office”. No less plain is that a President-elect cannot “enter on the Execution of [that] Office” if he “take[s] the * * * Oath or Affirmation” falsely. For a false “Oath or Affirmation” is, by definition, fraudulent. And fraud vitiates and renders inoperative any and every act which it has facilitated. To be sure, the falsity of a representation as to the “Oath or Affirmation” might not be evident when it was uttered, because a rogue President-elect would be careful to engage in fraudulent concealment of his true state of mind when he deceitfully “t[ook] the * * * Oath or Affirmation”. That, however, is not the situation here.
Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution sets forth the chief duty of the President, that “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. Observe that the phrase “faithfully executed” in this provision echoes the phrase “faithfully execute” in the “Oath or Affirmation”. Thus, his “Oath or Affirmation” requires the President, “to the best of [his] Ability, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” by fulfilling the duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”, without any exception (because the Constitution allows for none).
It requires no extended argument to establish that, now installed in “the Office of President”, Mr. Trump disposes of every right and power necessary, sufficient, and convenient to ensure that “the Laws [shall] be faithfully executed” with respect to Mrs. Clinton and her associates. And no airy notion that she were in some sense and to some degree a “good person” could relieve Mr. Trump of the duty “faithfully [to] execute[ ]” “the Laws” as to her. (Indeed, as a “good person”, Mrs. Clinton herself should welcome the opportunity in an official forum to be absolved of the malodorous charges her record of “public service” seems to substantiate in many Americans’ estimation.)
To be sure, as is every American, Mrs. Clinton and her associates are entitled to the presumption of innocence. But, based upon what is already known about their behavior, this country is entitled to see them properly investigated, indicted, and prosecuted, in order to test that presumption in the crucible of a public trial, before a jury of their peers, pursuant to Article II, Section 2, Clause 3 and Amendments Five and Six of the Constitution surely, and Article III, Clause 1 possibly. Mr. Trump has, however, left the world with the distinct impression that he does not intend to press for investigations into Mrs. Clinton’s questionable affairs. As a matter of constitutional law (as well as common sense), the reasons he has advanced for this disinclination are unconvincing, if not patently specious. Therefore, if before his inauguration he actually did not, and following his inauguration still does not, intend under color of “the Office of President” to “take Care that the [applicable] Laws be faithfully executed” as to her, then he did not “take the * * * Oath or Affirmation” truthfully—and as a result did not “enter on the Execution of [the] Office [of President]” at all. If so, America finds herself confronted with yet another Presidency constitutionally questionable from its supposed inception.
Admittedly, this concern rests upon something of a fine legal point—although not one so fine as to be indiscernible on the face of the Constitution. In any event, the Constitution is festooned with fine points intended to impede and even impale rogue public officials in their malicious course. These points can serve their purposes, however, only if they are forcefully driven home, without any compunction, whenever suitable occasions arise. Few crimes are worse than the systematic prostitution, perversion, and betrayal of public office for private political and financial gain. But surely one of them is for someone to attempt to “enter on the Execution of [the] Office [of President]” knowingly and willfully intent upon allowing anyone who has notoriously engaged in such misbehavior to escape punishment.
Unfortunately, the running of various statutes of limitations might preclude prosecution of Mrs. Clinton and her associates with respect to some of their alleged misbehavior—although statutes of limitations can be removed or extended by legislation. See, e.g., Chase Securities Corporation v. Donaldson, 325 U.S. 304 (1945); Campbell v. Holt, 115 U.S. 620 (1885). Where statutes of limitations would impose a bar, though, it would still behoove the Trump Administration to investigate these matters thoroughly and report its findings completely to the public. See Lee Duigon’s recent NewsWithViews commentary “A Speech Mr. Trump Ought To Make” (17 November 2016).
As a complicating factor, it is not inconceivable that Mr. Trump might seek to finesse this apparently distasteful political situation in a legalistic fashion by purporting to extend some sort of blanket “pardon” to Mrs. Clinton and her associates. Any such “pardon” which issued before indictments had specified the crimes the members of the Clinton cabal had allegedly committed would be constitutionally problematic, however.
Lest you thought the parading around of Bill Clinton’s accusers and alleged rape victims was nothing more than an election stunt, check out this series of Tweets that has once again stirred the pot.
It seems that Juanita Broaddrick is not the least bit prepared to let it go – since she remains a victim who is outraged that her alleged perpetrator remains free and highly distinguished in world affairs.
The assumption is that they are above the law, but they certainly aren’t above a Twitter spanking:
Well, since you asked, Here’s my definition of horrifying, sick & awful. Answer: Your father, Bill Clinton pic.twitter.com/UvpB64FP9P
Apparently, Chelsea is not interested in delving into that topic, or defending the actions of her parents besides a surface level endorsement of them.
Some people reacted by blasting Broaddrick for ‘disparaging people’s children’ – a comment that she laughingly dismissed by pointing out that Chelsea is now 36 years old – and older than Broaddrick was at the time of her rape:
@atensnut@SKIPdaZIP Don’t disparage people’s children! You’re only showing your own character! Too much meanness in this World!
It is quite obvious that many people would prefer to see the Clinton’s leave politics altogether – not only their opponents on the right, but also the millions of leftists who witnessed the Democratic party taken over during the round, only to put up a candidate who is mired in controversy and scandal, and lacked the energy to carry on a full campaign.
Instead, Hillary is threatening a 2020 run (even if it is utterly absurd), and Chelsea is being groomed to be an irrelevant dynasty heir or media pawn.
Click here to subscribe: Join over one million monthly readers and receive breaking news, strategies, ideas and commentary.
Please Spread The Word And Share This Post
Author: Mac Slavo Views: Read by 2,158 people Date: February 20th, 2017 Website:www.SHTFplan.com
Copyright Information: Copyright SHTFplan and Mac Slavo. This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to www.shtfplan.com. Please contact us for permission to reproduce this content in other media formats.
Do you see the writing on the wall? Do you see what is happening here?
If there was any doubt that the Trump era will eventually unfold into either a) revolution and total chaos, b) a police state under martial law or c) a coup or assassination against the leader of the free world, then it should be clear from this.
Behind the scenes, the intelligence community are at war with President Donald Trump.
He has refused to attend CIA briefings; they have sabotaged his National Security Advisor by leaking classified communications with the explicit purpose of undermining the new administration and stoking tensions with Russia.
If Gen. Mike Flynn can be removed, it not only challenges the power of the Trump White House but builds upon the false narrative that Russia has been involved in hacking, cyber attacks and undermining legitimate U.S. power.
Catherine Austin Fitts-Trump Taking On Corruption & Lawlessness
How many other Trump administration officials will be mired in scandal, or ousted by bad optics? When they go down, will we know whether it was for good reason or not? There are many unaddressed issues with Mike Flynn, but the implications are disturbing. The news media is blatantly distorted, and no mainstream accounts can be trusted anymore.
But there is no real way for the average citizen to know what is going on behind closed doors in Washington, etc. without solid, accountable, transparent and accurate reporting – and virtually nothing of the sort exists in Washington or elsewhere.
The CIA and national security deep state would love for the American people to believe the notion that Putin represents a hostile and immediate threat, and that the entire Trump presidency has been a Trojan horse scheme to advance Russian interest. But, if nobody buys it, they at least want the American people to know who holds the ultimate power.
Hypocrisy and true intent mean nothing to these people. They must have it their way, and they will stop at nothing to get their agenda settled. They are at war with Trump, and he will either bend or break, as far as they’re concerned.
If that is the case, then there is no “democracy” or “constitutional republic.” The American Dream and the republic for which it stands are null and void, because the shadow government stole unchecked power from the gods like Prometheus, and have kept it to themselves rather than distributing the power.
The 1947 National Security Act set the CIA on a long-leash, that thereafter either came loose around its neck, or snapped under pressure.
And here’s what former Rep. Dennis Kucinich told Fox Business, warning America that the intelligence community was actively trying to undermine the Trump Administration, and are targeting his top cabinet officials. The resignation of Gen. Mike Flynn may be just the beginning:
Intel community trying to undermine Trump’s presidency?
These will be some trying times for America.
Internal turmoil, war within and war without. Stay on watch.
Click here to subscribe: Join over one million monthly readers and receive breaking news, strategies, ideas and commentary.
Please Spread The Word And Share This Post
Author: Mac Slavo Views: Read by 417 people Date: February 16th, 2017 Website:www.SHTFplan.com
Copyright Information: Copyright SHTFplan and Mac Slavo. This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to www.shtfplan.com. Please contact us for permission to reproduce this content in other media formats.
This article was written by Claire Bernish and originally published at The Free Thought Project.
Editor’s Comment: The entanglement and potential war with Russia looms ever larger. Gen. Mike Flynn resigned after pressure about his slippery comments and failure to disclose properly to his superiors, namely the VP and Pres. But the real reason so much pressure was put on Flynn likely also has to do with his general attitude of cooperation with Russia, not just unauthorized discussions of removing sanctions with his Russian counterpart.
The shadow powers of this country intend to keep Russia hostile, not as a burgeoning ally. Is it any coincidence at all that the Russians have popped up off the U.S. coast, quite close to the capital, just after Flynn’s resignation? It seems that everyone has their part to pay, and the age of spying, intrigue and the gravity pulling us to war is upon us. Keep watch how this general issue develops…
Hours After Nat’l Security Adviser Quits, Russian Spy Ship Spotted Off US Coast
by Claire Bernish
A Russian spy ship has reportedly been spotted by officials just 70 miles of the U.S. East Coast for the first time since President Donald Trump took office — and just hours after National Security Adviser Michael Flynn resigned from his position less than one month on the job amid controversy over a phone call with the Russian ambassador.
Two unnamed U.S. officials from an undivulged department allegedly toldFox News the Russian ship was seen 70 miles of the coast of Delaware, heading north at 10 knots — well outside United States territorial waters, which extend 12 nautical miles from the coast.
“It’s not a huge concern, but we are keeping our eyes on it,” one official said.
The ship, the SSV-175 Viktor Leonov, last sailed near the U.S. in April 2015, an official said. The ship is capable of intercepting communications or signals, known as SIGINT, as well as measuring U.S. Navy sonar capability, a separate official said.
The Russian spy ship is also armed with surface-to-air missiles.
While Russia is perfectly within its rights to sail in international waters, the proximity of the ship to the U.S. after Flynn’s resignation would raise eyebrows of politicians who, for months, have championed an anti-Russia propaganda campaign.
“In his resignation letter, which the White House emailed to reporters,” the New York Timesreports, “Mr. Flynn said he had held numerous calls with foreign officials during the transition. ‘Unfortunately, because of the fast pace of events, I inadvertently briefed the vice president-elect and others with incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the Russian ambassador,’ he wrote. ‘I have sincerely apologized to the president and the vice president, and they have accepted my apology.’”
The last time a Russian spy ship was spotted in relative proximity to the US, was in September 2015, when shortly after five Chinese naval ships were observed in the Bering Sea, U.S. military satellites identified a Russian spy ship – capable of cutting undersea communications cables and other sensors – off the coast of Kings Bay, Ga., home to the U.S. Navy’s East Coast ballistic missile submarine fleet. Needless to say, the US navy – and Pentagon – were quite displeased: after all it is only Russia that is allowed to be surrounded by NATO forces.
That wasn’t the only time this particular vessel was spotted near the U.S., as the Daily Mailnotes,
In a throwback to the Cold War, the spy ship also caused a stir after unexpectedly docking in Havana on the eve of historic talks between the U.S. and Cuba the following year.
There was nothing stealthy about the arrival of the Leonov, which was moored to a pier in Old Havana where cruise ships often dock. But the visit was not officially announced by Cuban authorities.
Although U.S. media quickly jumped to report the story — shortly followed by Iranian state press — Russian state-run outlet RT noticeably lacked any coverage of the soon-to-be controversial sighting even an hour after the story broke.
In fact, without visual confirmation or the names, rank, or departments of the officials cited by Fox News — and the recent trend of corporate media proffering news items before vetting them for accuracy — it would be prudent to ingest this information as questionable, rather than proven.
In that vein, the timing of the report less than 24 hours after Flynn’s resignation seems far less than coincidental.
This is a developing story and will be updated as necessary.
This article was written by Claire Bernish and originally published at The Free Thought Project.
Gen. Michael Flynn resigned suddenly from Trump’s cabinet after it came to light that the National Security Advisor had not told the Vice President or President about his conversations with Russia regarding sanctions.
A scandal has since unfolded, and will continue in the media; Gen. Flynn has fallen on his sword. Via the Guardian:
General Michael Flynn has resigned as Donald Trump’s national security adviser after weeks of speculation over his links to Russia turned into days of reporting on the contents of his calls with the Russian ambassador and a day of intense pressure over whether the president could continue to back his pick.
But is there more to the inner-workings and behind stage schemes that led to his demise?
The reaction from one of Hillary Clinton’s closest advisors, and a retweet from the would-be queen herself, suggests that there may have been some Machiavellian intrigue at work.
That depends upon how you interpret the comments of Philippe Reines, a man who previously served as Senior Advisor to Secretary of State Clinton, and who since 2013 (when Hillary resigned) has been working at the shadowy security consulting firm Beacon Global Strategies LLC, founded by a cadre of ex-CIA and ex-defense figures surrounding Hillary, including former CIA/Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, also part of the firm, and who was Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff during his second term.
This is significant because Michael Flynn was the only one Trump’s appointees to publicly discuss or share information about the so-called “Pizzagate” scandal that alleged connections between John Podesta and other Clintonites, a place called Comet Ping Pong and alleged child trafficking and/or pedophile activities.
By hinting that there are “real consequences of fake news,” Hillary pretty much admitted that her team have still been seeking revenge against enemies perceived and real after her electoral defeat in November. Clearly, Hillary, Reines and however many other surrogates from her campaign are not willing to let it go.
Both Michael Flynn Sr. and his son, Michael G. Flynn discussed rumors and accusations surrounding the Clinton camp – whether or not these claims have a solid basis is a separate matter.
Arguably, it could have been the late hour “pizzagate” allegations that sunk Hillary’s campaign, or at least made its inner core deeply concerned about how many skeletons were going to spill out of the closet. By raising the alarm about “fake news,” and the convenient appearance of a man with a gun who went to Comet to “self-investigate,” the story was quickly quashed from all but the most dogged corners of the Internet.
His son, 33 years old, was also part of Trump’s transition team, but forced to step down after referencing #Pizzagate – today thrown back in Flynn’s face by one of Hillary Clinton’s closest staff members. From the BBC back in December:
One of Donald Trump’s aides has lost his job after fanning a conspiracy theory that climaxed at the weekend in gunfire at a pizzeria.
Michael Flynn, 33, left the US president-elect’s transition team on Tuesday following his tweets about the so-called Pizzagate fake news story.
His father, Michael Flynn Snr, Mr Trump’s pick to be US national security adviser, has also shared viral hoaxes.
Now, it seems that things have come full circle – and both Flynn’s are out. Is it all just a coincidence?
It doesn’t seem out of line to suggest that the tight circle of CIA and defense consultants and policy wonks who were to have operated Hillary’s cabinet are joyous, if not still bitter, about their resignations and the fact that the crowd who stole their assumed ‘rightful’ place in the White House are now taking flak.
Philippe Reines, for one, has been gunning for Flynn for a while now:
Reminder to media: this is 2nd time Flynn’s shenanigans have compromised the credibility of @VP.
It wouldn’t take a genius to connect their snickering with the stumbles of Trump’s cabinet – after all, 2016 was less a campaign and more of a dirty tricks scramble to take the Oval Office. That level of covert warfare is never satisfied with due process, the will of the people or the peaceful transition of power.
Incidentally, Beacon Global Strategies is also home to the former deputy director of the CIA – who we have reported on SHTF for openly antagonizing Putin, as well as Iran and Syria, and advocating killing people closely surrounding the leaders of each of these countries. As he boldly told Charlie Rose, they have their ways of “sending a message.”
If Team Hillary is exacting revenged against the Trump Administration for the consequences of their no holds barred fight for power, there may be attempts to unseat other important figures close to Trump.
Flynn may have created his own mess, but there were those who were quite willing to help assist his dramatic fall out of power.
This article was written by Melissa Dykes and originally published at The Daily Sheeple.
Editor’s Comment: It seems that there is more mysterious to be had with Wikileaks and other hactivists working to expose the system. Their role in the election defeat of Hillary was huge, but will they now expose a bigger piece on the board? Is there hypocrisy and misdeeds further into the system? Of course. Does it have anything to do with major crimes and tricks pulled by the shadow government? Will something as big as 9/11 ever be porven for what it is?
There is no way to know the answer to these questions until or unless Wikileaks brings us into the loop… until then, feel free to speculate and put together your own pieces.
The Mystery of Wikileaks’ Cryptic “Vault 7”: Do You Know What This Means?
by Melissa Dykes
Starting on February 4th, each day Wikileaks began sending out a series of cryptic question Tweets teasing the world about “Vault 7”.
The questions were framed in Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How format (but not in that order). Each came with an image “clue”.
Here they are in chronological order starting with the earliest.
The first image, What, is the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, also referred to as the “doomsday seed vault” in Norway.
The second image, Where, reportedly shows a cave Nazis used to store gold and other valuables in during World War II.
The third image, When, has been located here:
The fourth image, Who, shows whistleblowers Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden, and Wikileaks founder Julian Assange on newspapers under the headline “infamous spies”.
The fifth image, Why, shows a welder… and gives us yet another Air Force reference.
The sixth and final image asks “How did #Vault7 make its way to WikiLeaks?” and shows us a retro image of a woman in a beret mailing something at a mailbox.
So… What, Where, When, Who, Why and How did WikiLeaks Acquire Vault 7?
People have a lot of theories on what this series of Tweets refers to.
First, the Tweet Wikileaks sent immediately before its first Vault 7 Tweet had to do with the FBI releasing “Vault 6” of Hillary Clinton’s emails.
Maybe its about both, considering Hillary Clinton was a New York senator at the time of the 9/11 attacks.
Either way, thousands of people are waiting on pins and needles wondering if Wikileaks is going to deliver on its conspiracy theory scavenger hunt. With a build up like that, it better be something good.
We could use a little truth in this world right about now…
This article was written by Melissa Dykes and originally published at The Daily Sheeple.
Editor’s Comment: The situation is becoming desperate. Perhaps Trump was meant merely to distract Americans, or perhaps he is doing exactly what is expected of him – by those who placed him in power. Either way, the country is bitterly divided along partisan lines. Many of the most important principles have been abandoned for a cultural war that isn’t likely to stop, or die down, but rather to explode in the volley back and forth between left wing and progressive opponents, and alt right and conservative factions.
But as Brandon Smith predicts, this narrative will go on not by itself, but in all probability, with the aid a truly stunning attack – perhaps even on American soil. Another large-scale terrorist attack may be need to shock unruly voters and concerned citizens back into their hovels, back onto the reservation. How else would a war with Iran, and more police state actions in the streets be justified? The implications are clear – confusion, violence and especially terror will be used to drive home the message. This is above Donald Trump’s head, beyond the power of the presidency. This is the cynical and very real powers behind the throne, and there is nothing they wouldn’t stoop to.
Be very cautious in the next few years; not only is society disaster ready and disaster prone, but principled activists, conservatives and gun owners are likely to be tested. There are those who are looking for a response; who are looking for a reason, and who are interested in people seeing their differences, rather than unite around a common enemy. Until more calm and clear thinking comes, confusion and chaos will rule the day.
Globalists Want To Destroy Conservative Principles – But They Need Our Help
by Brandon Smith
For months now, long before the 2016 election, I have been warning about a specific social dynamic which is likely to lead to a form of civil war within the U.S.; namely, the reality that people on the left side of the political spectrum would become despondent at the inevitable loss of their candidate, Hillary Clinton, and that they would react by becoming far more militant. In my article ‘Order Out Of Chaos: The Defeat Of The Left Comes With A Cost’, published November post-election, I stated:
“When I mentioned in my last article the crippling of social justice, I did not mention that this could have some negative reverberations. With Trump and conservatives taking near-total power after the Left had assumed they would never lose again, their reaction has been to transform. They are stepping away from the normal activities and mindset of cultural Marxism and evolving into full blown communists. Instead of admitting that their ideology is a failure in every respect, they are doubling down.
When this evolution is complete, the Left WILL resort to direct violent action on a larger scale, and they will do so with a clear conscience because, in their minds, they are fighting fascism.”
I believed at that time that the social-justice cult would lose mainstream influence but that the existing minority would resort to even more insidious tactics and greater violence to get what they want; and, the so-called “moderate left” would cheer them on. As it turns out, I have been proven right so far.
Not that extreme Leftists have been averse to violence over the past year, but I think it is safe to say that the volume on the cultural Marxist machine has been turned up a notch. The riot at UC Berkeley over a scheduled speech by gay, conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos is a perfect example:
Then, there was the raid by SJWs at NYU on a speech by conservative journalist and comedian Gavin McInnes, in which they shouted down all discussion with mindless chants until the event had to be canceled. This was, of course, after they had already physically attacked people outside the building, including McInnes:
The social justice mantra is changing. At first, it was predominately about forming mobs to “shame” target political opponents into silence. Now, it is about forming mobs to do what they call “punching Nazis.” Leftists are now often seen regurgitating the claim — “This is only the beginning…”
I agree, this IS only the beginning. The Left is driven not only by the ideology of cultural Marxism, but also a very specific activist strategy outlined in Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules For Radicals’. The very core of Alinsky’s method revolves around one important rule in particular: the ends justify the means.
This is the key ingredient of moral relativism, and when a movement is motivated by moral relativism, there is no limit to the depths they will sink to get their way. Activists adopting the “ends justify the means” mentality are not interested in being “right,” or wise, or rational or logical or factual; they ONLY care about “winning.” This is their goal, and they will do anything to achieve it.
It is important to note, however, that all of these protests and the increase in violence is not taking place in a vacuum. As many liberty analysts have noted, Trump has hardly had time to do anything yet that would warrant national protests. Is Trump really the only catalyst? Not quite. The mainstream media and globalists like George Soros have been very effective in agitating or outright paying protesters and provocateurs to generate zombie mobs of gullible Leftists to use as a billy club for harassing conservatives.
That said, I want liberty activists and analysts to ponder on this for a moment — to what end is this being done? Why is Soros so interested in fomenting leftist rage? Is it designed to overthrow Trump? To initiate mob action and frighten conservatives into silence? Or do the globalists have a greater and more important goal in mind?
I have been writing often on the idea of 4th Generation Warfare the past month, and I think my readers are now well versed in the concept of the “three-steps-ahead” style of tactics, as well as the concept of manipulating an opponent to destroy himself, rather than fighting him directly. These are not new methods, the globalists have merely taken them to the next level.
But how do 4th Gen warfare tactics apply to the current Right vs. Left scenario in the U.S.? Well, everything is not as obvious as it seems.
As I outlined in-depth in my article Clinton Versus Trump And The Co-Option Of The Liberty Movement, globalists and the leftist media have been, in a strange way, quietly cheering for Trump, but only as a tool for absorbing the liberty movement (what they still call the “Tea Party”). This glee is made rather evident in an article published by Bloomberg in August titled The Tea Party Meets Its Maker.
There is a point I have been trying to make for most of the year that I think has been consistently missed by many in the liberty movement. That point being that the greatest danger to conservatives is NOT militant Leftists, but how we RESPOND to militant Leftists. That is to say, I believe the globalists are using the Left as a cattle prod to enrage conservatives and lure us into abandoning our principles in the name of defeating Marxists.
Consider this; the argument among most liberty analysts has been that the numerous anti-Constitutional programs put in place by the Obama administration in the past eights years would eventually be used by the political Left and the globalists as weapons to subdue and destroy conservatives and patriot groups. While Obama certainly tested the waters of tyranny over and over again, up to and including using executive orders to assassinate American citizens without trial, it is clear that those extensive powers afforded to the White House are no longer in the hands of the left; they are in the hands of Trump.
Obama even signed the “Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act” into law AFTER Trump had already won the White House. Trump has now inherited this power as well, which seems to give government the authority to harass or even silence news sources they deem “fake news.” While many liberty activists cried foul and warned of a “coup” designed to shut down alternative news sites and thwart Trump’s inauguration, I warned that there was a much more dangerous scenario in play.
What will conservatives do in the face of the leftist mob funded by globalists and growing ever more vicious? Well, what do the globalists expect us to do? I think they expect us to look at all the government powers we once admonished as unConstitutional and say “hey, maybe these laws and executive orders are not so bad after all…”
I think the globalists are handing us the incredible temptation of far reaching bureaucratic power, and they expect us to abuse that power, as almost anyone would.
As an alternative analyst I am privy to trends in the liberty movement and in conservative circles that might not be immediately obvious to casual readers. Already, I am witnessing calls among conservatives to abuse government power to defeat the Left. I have seen comments such as:
“Trump should use the NDAA to imprison these leftists indefinitely…”
“The only solution is to throw the leftists into FEMA camps…”
“Trump needs to shut down the leftist media…”
“Sometimes it is okay to bend the rules of the constitution if you have the right president…”
And comments like this are popping up everywhere in liberty media boards. Now, I recognize that some of this talk is being posted by paid disinformation agents and provocateurs, but, I have heard regular conservatives and patriots, people who are long time proponents of the Constitution, echo similar sentiments.
I often use the analogy of the “One Ring” from The Lord Of The Rings to describe big government power. I really can’t find a better fictional symbol. Anyone who comes into possession of the “one ring” is eventually corrupted by it. Many good people believe that its darker energy can be contained and directed for good purposes, but they, too, are ultimately undone by it. The only answer, the only solution, is to abandon the ring, or to destroy it.
Overt government power is very much the same; it corrupts any person or group that comes in contact with it. Every group thinks that if only THEY were in possession of government that they would do things differently. This is a delusion. No person or group is benevolent enough to handle this responsibility, and this includes conservatives. Many groups would commit egregious and heinous crimes to take government for themselves, or keep it for themselves, all the while so many Saurons (globalists) laugh and smack their lips as the masses battle over numerous rings of power.
As I have noted time and time again for the past several months, Trump is the perfect tool for scapegoating conservative movements for the economic crisis the elites have already engineered. But, this is only one part of the agenda. In the midst of chaos generated by financial calamity, the morals of an entire society can become “malleable”. The most important target of the globalists is not only conservatives, but the conservative philosophy. They don’t just want to annihilate conservatives today, they want to annihilate conservatives for all time.
The globalists cannot accomplish this task without our help. They NEED us to adopt an attitude of moral relativism, much like the Left. They need us to turn into totalitarians. They need us to become the monster we claim we want to defeat. Only then can conservative principles be demonized for all time. Only then will history look back on us as a stain on the human record.
This is the globalist’s long game.
While Leftists are being encouraged to mutate into wild frothing packs of rabid dogs, conservatives will be encouraged either through temptation or manipulation to respond in kind. The Left’s propaganda train asserts that we are “fascists.” Obviously, we are the furthest thing from this. But, with enough violence and aggressive censorship on their part, we might end up saying “Okay, you want to see fascism, we’ll show you fascism!”
The social justice cult has no idea what they are being led into. The globalists are going to throw them to the wolves, and WE are the wolves.
It is important to note that the Left is also not the only instigator for conservatives to turn totalitarian. Islamic terrorism is always a perfect rationale for increased government intrusion in the name of safety. And the worst part is, the threats from the Left and the threats from Islamic extremism are in most cases quite legitimate, and they seem to be working hand-in-hand more each day. The progressive interference with steps towards more rational immigration policies and their steady defense of Sharia Law leads many conservatives to see them as one in the same threat. No foreigner is entitled to citizenship in the U.S., but leftists live in a fantasy world of open borders. The left’s refusal to entertain reasonable and selective immigration will eventually push conservatives towards more drastic measures, which is the ultimate point.
Very few Americans like Communists, and very few Americans like Muslim zealotry; the justification for totalitarian measures to disrupt such threats is relatively easy for many people.
This is why I am going to make my next prediction of a major geopolitical event to close out this article — I believe there will be a large scale terrorist attack within the next three months, beyond the mob actions of the Left already in progress.
It will either be similar in scope to 9/11, or, it will be a succession of many smaller attacks occurring over the course of a few days to a couple of weeks. I believe that the current dispute over border controls and immigration denial will come immediately into play. Trump will blame Leftists for obstructing his efforts for secure immigration. Leftists and the media will blame Trump for “radicalizing” Muslims with his immigration policies, or perhaps even accuse him of staging the attacks himself. Trump will begin taking extraordinary measures beyond the Constitution to ensure immigration denial and the thwarting of the Left, and conservatives will applaud him for it.
Again, conservatives are being led by globalists into the temptations of power. The only way for us to fight back is to maintain our principles and refuse to support ANY government measure that is unConstitutional, even if it is to be used against our enemies. The only way that the heritage of liberty can be defeated is if the proponents and champions of liberty forsake it. We beat the globalists in the long run by standing by our ideals and fighting back within the bounds of the principles we hold dear. Dominance through government is never the answer.
Shepard Ambellas
