« How Do Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles Work? - Space.com | Main | A roadster in Mars orbit? »

01 December 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I have a very low opinion of Mueller. He is a legal thug, politicizing and weaponizing criminal justice in America.
Without fair and blind administration of justice, our country's
days are numbered.

Robert Mueller Is An Amoral Legal Assassin: He Will Do His Job If You Let Him-by Barbara Boyd



"Clapper got away when he lied to Congress under oath but Flynn gets nailed."

RETIRED General Clapper is another one who needs to watch his peas and q's, these high and mighty Generals and Admirals tend to forget they are still (and will always be subject to) the UCMJ and the Component Service they retired from. The Air Force could always reach out and TOUCH RETIRED General Clapper if and when they choose for his criminal misconduct.

General Hayden and General Petraeus are two others who are also and will always be subject to the UCMJ. Both if I recall also lied to Congress and Federal Authorities on more than one occasion and were involved in cases comrpomising U.S. National Security.

It's sad that criminal prosecutions like the these tend to more than not be pursued or not because they are politically feasible, not because of justice.

Case in point now I'm rambling, but the Baltimore PD fiasco of where they offed one of their own who was set to testify against their corruption, won't let the Federal Authorities (spelled FBI) in the door. The thing they don't understand is that the FBI can always make a ding-a-ling to NSA and get all the background info they need to breakdown and crush the Baltimore PD's barricade.


A couple of observations:

1. I agree that the statement of the offense to which Lt. Gen. Flynn plead guilty supports the analysis there is no evidence of collusion. Meanwhile, it has become patently obvious that the Special Counsel investigation led by Mr. Mueller is about politics and not about counter-intelligence or enforcing the criminal law.

Mueller Investigation: Politics, Not Law Enforcement or Counterintelligence: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454293/robert-mueller-trump-russia-investigation-michael-flynn-obama-administration-foreign-policy-israel

2. Andrew C. McCarthy who wrote that opinion piece was a Federal prosecutor. Yesterday, in a series of tweets, he observed:

1/3 Common misconception: Prosecutors entice cooperation with minor charge and threaten to drop hammer w/ big charges later if cooperation not adequate. No: That would front load benefit of deal before cooperator has provided info/testimony.

2/3 Competent prosecutors make cooperator plead guilty to big charge. Coop’r thus over barrel: if he doesn’t cooperate, will be sentenced without leniency on big charge he has already pled to. This incents coop’r to earn leniency.

3/3 If Mueller had collusion case, he’d make Flynn plead guilty to big charge and earn sentencing leniency by cooperating. Instead, Flynn pled to small charge - process crime, likely no jail time - on promise of future cooperation. So there is no collusion case.

3. The media reporting, starting with ABC News, has been absolutely dreadful. Last night World News had to issue a major correction to the report by Brian Ross, who has a history of being wrong. Today, he was suspended for four weeks. Wow, he gets time off without pay over the Christmas and New Year's holidays.

4. On January 13, 2017, during a State Department briefing:

Obama State Dept. spokesperson on 1/13/2017: We have "no problem" with Trump transition making contact with foreign officials from any country https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2017/01/266932.htm

"QUESTION: So there’s nothing – this building doesn’t see anything necessarily inappropriate about contact between members of the incoming administration and foreign officials --


QUESTION: -- no matter what country they’re from?



MR TONER: No. And again, this has been ongoing. I mean, we stand ready if they want to work through the State Department to contact some of these individuals, but we have no comment or no problem with them doing such on their own."

5. Let's not forget, the Flynn affair started when someone illegally leaked intercepted communications to the Washington Post.

So, Flynn ends up pleading guilty to a charge of making false statements to the FBI, while the person or persons who illegally leaked those communications remains at large.


Gotta ask, does the above sound like something resembling a justice system? Reads more like a dry description of state sponsored black-mail.


The Twisted Genius

Publius Tacitus,

I read your article several time as well as the full statement of offenses and I cannot follow your logic in concluding this exonerates Trump of possibly violating election laws by soliciting or receiving anything of value from foreign nationals leading up to the 2016 national election. Of course there's nothing there that can be construed as supporting such a violation either. The charges against Flynn have absolutely nothing to do with the election. Trump says this will all be over in 28 days. That statement is as much bullshit as all the claims of exoneration and guilt. I don't expect this to approach conclusion until next Summer. And I don't know how it will turn out.

I see Mueller approaching this as an intelligence operation. He has all the SIGINT available. We don't so we don't know what conclusion that SIGINT points towards. Mueller doesn't want to draw his conclusions solely on SIGINT. He wants HUMINT. That requires him to acquire sources. Flynn is now one of those sources. He spotted, assessed, developed and recruited him. That's all this plea deal was, the acquisition of a source. Maybe this source will pan out. Maybe he won't. I'm pretty sure he'll acquire more sources beyond Papadopoulos and Flynn before this is all over.



What VV said is not a talking point. You, too, have bought the voodoo economics? If you are not in the top 5% then you are screwed. Read the bill, don't accept anything you hear from the servants of the orligarchs.

This is the tax cut that make everybody poorer, except for the top 5%.

Publius Tacitus

There is no SIGINT on this. I've spoken with people who know. There is zippo. This is a simple case of the NSA and the CIA, under Rogers and Brennan respectively, that conspired with the DNI to interfere in US politics. You insist this was an "acquisition of a source." For what? The information he has is laid out in the plea agreement. You have no experience with criminal matters like this and are way out of your depth. You miss the more fundamental point. If Trump was colluding in some fashion with the highest levels of the Russian Government then why does he have to rely on Flynn? There was no collusion. That was the point of this whole investigation.

Larry Kart

Your claim is that all the facts that you now know of are the only facts that there are here and/or the only ones that Mueller now knows of or is likely to uncover. No, I'm not Kreskin, nor of course do I know what facts Muller already knows or is going to uncover as he moves along, but I think that your claim is likely in time to be mistaken. Mine could be too, of course -- we shall see.

blue peacock

John Frank says:

5. Let's not forget, the Flynn affair started when someone illegally leaked intercepted communications to the Washington Post.

So, Flynn ends up pleading guilty to a charge of making false statements to the FBI, while the person or persons who illegally leaked those communications remains at large.

Publius Tacitus says:

This is a simple case of the NSA and the CIA, under Rogers and Brennan respectively, that conspired with the DNI to interfere in US politics.

Will there be an investigation of the leak of the intercepted communications between Flynn and Kislyak? If not, it would imply that there was a conspiracy to discredit a newly elected POTUS at the highest levels of the intelligence agencies. If they get away scot free this time, what would they do next time?


Caitlin Johnstone points out the critical part of Assistant US Attorney Andrew C McCarthy’s analysis:

McCarthy argues that if Mueller was accepting a plea from Flynn to implicate anyone in a greater conspiracy, Mueller’s case would necessarily have relied on having Flynn plead guilty to that plot instead of a mere process crime:

“Nevertheless, as I explained in connection with George Papadopoulos (who also pled guilty in Mueller’s investigation for lying to the FBI), when a prosecutor has a cooperator who was an accomplice in a major criminal scheme, the cooperator is made to plead guilty to the scheme. This is critical because it proves the existence of the scheme. In his guilty-plea allocution (the part of a plea proceeding in which the defendant admits what he did that makes him guilty), the accomplice explains the scheme and the actions taken by himself and his co-conspirators to carry it out. This goes a long way toward proving the case against all of the subjects of the investigation.
That is not happening in Flynn’s situation. Instead, like Papadopoulos, he is being permitted to plead guilty to a mere process crime.”


italics AVAUNT ?



Mueller was apparently aware of the deep seated emotional need of one of his subordinate investigators to adulterously belly-slap with his married lover but managed not to turn over to the House the reason he demoted him was partisan communications between the two pro-Hilary lovers. Now these two are not in any way judged to be impartial against the Trump investigation. The Hilary investigation, however? Well they did have a deep seated emotional need for something but a second need? Naw, they didn't want Hilary elected bad enough to bungle an investigation.


Mueller felt a need to keep the information from the House Intelligence Committee, at least until after it was published in the WAPO/NYT (months after he demoted Mr. Strozk). The timing is surely just coincidental and not related to partisanship or plain incompetence.

David Habakkuk


It has become common practice, unfortunately, for disingenous claims about ‘SIGINT’ to be used in ‘perception management’ or ‘StratCom’ operations.’

Immediately prior to the opening of Sir Robert Owen’s farce of an inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, a report appeared in the ‘Telegraph’ which opened:

‘American spies secretly intercepted communications between those involved in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko and provided the key evidence that he was killed in a Russian-backed “state execution”, The Telegraph can disclose.

‘The National Security Agency (NSA) obtained electronic communications between key individuals in London and Moscow from the time that the former spy was poisoned with radioactive material in central London. The evidence was passed to the British authorities.

‘A source familiar with the investigation confirmed the existence of American “intelligence material”. They said it would have been “inadmissible” in court, but that the British authorities were “confident that this was a state execution”.’

(See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/investigations/litvinenko-inquiry-the-proof-russia-was-involved-in-dissidents-m/ .)

What this report – one of a number which appeared in the British MSM saying essentially the same thing – actually tells us is that the leadership of the NSA must have been complicit in covering up the truth about how Litvinenko lived and died, a fact which becomes of very considerable interest given the crucial role that Christopher Steele is playing in ‘Russiagate.’

When key elements in the leadership of the American and British ‘intelligence communities’ were colluding in attempting to use the Ghouta ‘false flag’ as a pretext to destroy the Syrian government and hand the country – together with its CW arsenal – over to jihadists, bogus claims about ‘SIGINT’ were once again central.

I cannot confirm the claim in Ken Timmerman’s piece in the ‘Daily Caller’ on 29 August 2013 that the ‘loops of lies’ began with an actual intercept by the Unit 8200, the Israeli ‘SIGINT’ operation, that exonerated the Syrian government, and had its meaning twisted to suggest that it was ‘slam dunk’ evidence incriminating it.

(See http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/29/verify-chemical-weapons-use-before-unleashing-the-dogs-of-war/ .)

However, Timmerman’s claim that ‘The doctored report was picked up on Israel’s Channel 2 TV on Aug. 24, then by Focus magazine in Germany, the Times of Israel, and eventually by The Cable in Washington, DC’ can be partially corroborated by the – publicly available – reports referred to, all of which fit with his account.

Also interesting is the fact that after the former British Ambassador Craig Murray pointed out on 31 August 2013 that if the material was real, it could have been expected to have been picked up by the RAF/GCHQ station on Troodos, and to have featured in the Joint Intelligence Committee ‘assessment’ claiming Assad’s responsibility was close a ‘slam dunk’, a piece of fiction appeared in the ‘Sunday Express.’

Headlined ‘Senior Syrian military chiefs tell captain: fire chemicals or be shot’, this ‘penny dreadful’-style nonsense, worthy of Christopher Steele, claimed that the British had had intercepts from Troodos and other sources in our own ‘SIGINT’ operations establishing Syrian government responsibility. It also provided a patently preposterous answer to the obvious question as to why the material had not appeared previously.

(See https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/08/the-troodos-conundrum/ ; https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/425981/Senior-Syrian-military-chiefs-tell-captain-fire-chemicals-or-be-shot .)

In relation to the attempt to cover up the leaks of material from the DNC to ‘WikiLeaks’, once again GCHQ have been wheeled in, and again with a patently preposterous account. This seems to have broken surface in a ‘New York Times’ story on the unclassified report released to the public on 6 January by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, entitled ‘Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections.’ Its conclusion is I think worth quoting at length:

‘Yet the attacks, the report said, began long before anyone could have known that Mr. Trump, considered a dark horse, would win the Republican nomination. It said the attacks began as early as July 2015, when Russian intelligence operatives first gained access to the Democratic National Committee’s networks. Russia maintained that access for 11 months, until “at least June 2016,” the report concludes, leaving open the possibility that Russian cyberattackers may have had access even after the firm CrowdStrike believed that it had kicked them off the networks.

‘Intelligence officials who prepared the classified report on Russian hacking activity have concluded that British intelligence was among the first to raise an alarm that Moscow had hacked into the Democratic National Committee’s computer servers, and alerted their American counterparts, according to two people familiar with the conclusions.

‘Mr. Trump was briefed by senior intelligence officials for nearly two hours on Friday, describing the briefing in a statement as “a constructive meeting and conversation with the leaders of the intelligence community.”

‘It is unclear whether they highlighted the British role, which has been closely held, in the briefing. But it is a critical part of the timeline, because it suggests that some of the first tipoffs, in fall 2015, came from voice intercepts, computer traffic or human sources outside the United States, as emails and other data from the D.N.C. flowed out of the country.

‘“The British picked it up, and we may have had it at about the same time,” said one cyberexpert who has been briefed on the findings. British intelligence – especially the signals intelligence unit, GCHQ – has a major role in tracking Russian activity.’

(See https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/politics/russia-hack-report.html .)

The version as set out in a convenient diagram has the FSB starting hacking the DNC in June 2015, and the GRU starting in March 2016. If one goes back to the original breaking of the story, in the ‘Washington Post’ on 14 June 2016, it is claimed that DNC leaders ‘were tipped to the hack in late April’ – not by any outsiders, but because their own ‘information technology team had noticed some unusual network activity.’

Supposedly, ‘within 24 hours’ of the same evening, ‘CrowdStrike’ had installed software on the computers, and identified the FSB-sponsored hackers, who had broken in the previous summer, and the GRU-sponsored ones, who had done so in ‘late April’ – it was, supposedly, this breach that ‘set off the alarm.’

So, apparently, Admiral Rogers had been given the vital tip-off by the then head of GCHQ, Robert Hannigan, months earlier. If there was any truth in this story, obviously, the former would have to be among the most incompetent and negligent intelligence chiefs in modern history. (It is rather comparable to the suggestion that Litvinenko thought he was likely to have been the victim of a Russian assassination attempt on 1 November 2006 and Steele et al had to be told by the police almost three weeks later.)

The evidential value of this ‘NYT’ account is actually that it is clear evidence of the complicity of GCHQ in the conspiracy to subvert the constitutional order in the United States. So it makes more credible, rather than less, the suggestions that the organisation was used to circumvent constitutional restraints on surveillance by its co-conspirators on your side.

On top of this, we already knew that a if not the crucial figure both in the investigations of the Clinton e-mails and into the supposed Russian interference in your election was Peter Strzok – note the Polish surname. And we now learn that he was taken off the latter job this summer, after it was discovered that he and the FBI lawyer with whom he was having an extra-marital affair had exchanged – to quote the ‘Washington Post’ – ‘politically charged texts disparaging President Trump and supporting Hillary Clinton’.

A long, sycophantic, ‘NYT’ piece on Comey back in April produces some – almost certainly mendacious – material on the involvement of Strzok with the dossier produced by Steele.

(See https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/22/us/politics/james-comey-election.html?mtrref=www.google.com .)

But here, one comes back to the fundamental point about Steele. It can easily be demonstrated that he is a ‘perception management’ artist who forges evidence, and corrupts supposedly impartial judicial investigations. On this, I gave chapter and verse in comments in an earlier thread.

(See http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/11/harper-a-reminder-of-the-obscene-power-of-the-israel-lobby.html?cid=6a00d8341c72e153ef01b8d2bf295b970c#comment-6a00d8341c72e153ef01b8d2bf295b970c .)

As it happens, much of the dossier again reads like the kind of ‘penny dreadful’ fabrication in which Steele specialises – although that does not mean that he actually wrote all or indeed any of the material, and a couple of pieces do sound as though they may have had a genuine source (which does not mean a reliable one.)

A question then arises, as to whether Strzok is a gullible dupe, or a co-conspirator with Steele and others. Is this simply another traumatised East European who cannot be trusted impartially to assess evidence relating to the country which oppressed his forbears – or is he deliberately and consciously disseminating falsehoods?

That is the kind of question to which a genuinely impartial investigation ought to address itself. The likelihood of Mueller doing so would not seem to me very good. However, it is possible that he sees the writing on the wall, in which case, to mix metaphors, the rat may find an ingenious way to ensure that the ship sinks without him on board.


Since you mentioned the case of Litvinenko, I remembered that Arafat was rumored to have died of Polonium poisoning. That case got ´muddled´ and removed from public interest. But doubts remain.

English Outsider

" If you are not in the top 5% then you are screwed." That implies that the top few per cent will be OK.

Disagree. There are two main scenarios. One is collapse of the financial system. Impossible to say how likely that is. The CB's have been defying gravity for so long that sometimes it seems our grandchildren will be admiring the trick of it still.

The other scenario is a reasonably slow continuation of the decline in the quality of life for most accompanied by repressive measures to encourage the malcontents to put up with it.

In either scenario the top few per cent we have now won't be the top few per cent we'll have then. The circle of power will be smaller and those in it will have to be rougher than those now at the top could manage. This is something the present elite haven't yet grasped. We all go down together either way.

Since America is the greatest financial and economic power in the West Trump's reforms represent the only chance for the West of avoiding either of those two main scenarios. Let the top few per cent think of Trump's reforms as buying the peasants off, or as putting the economy on a sounder footing. It doesn't really matter how they think of it. The main thing is that his reforms give them a better chance of survival too.

It seems to me, as an outsider, that the main resistance to Trump, in Europe as well as in his own country, comes from those who dislike the idea of swamp draining. I hope they'll come to understand that the swamp they are so resolutely defending faces just as insecure a future as is faced by the rest of us.


In due respect the FBI did have SIGNIT on Flynn when he lied to them. So Flynn lies most likely because he was stupid and trying to hide his discussions with Foreign Powers as he probably thought they were not ethical. What bothers me is why the FBI that day or shortly thereafter not tell Flynn they had his discussions verbatim as it seems like a gotcha moment and not an honest discussion between both parties.
Probably the thing most people scratched their head on was Trump's blind lack of a bad word on Russia during the campaign which has gotten us to today and this Russia Collusion story which I agree is bogus. I look at Flynn and his influence on Trump during the campaign for this position as only Flynn had serious ties to the Russians. The only benefit that has brought us is the decimation of ISIS a good thing. So Flynn will sing like a bird to muck up the waters.
So you say there is Zippo onSIGNIT but the NSA has every bodies email, texts and phone calls if true then where are the American Patriots (outside of yourself) pointing us further towards Clapper, Brennan and Rogers ( who I thought was a good guy) as they seem buried further under this morass.


Apparently they are looking in to Kushner's real estate deals from 10 years ago. Trump does appear to have had enough. I get the impression with mid terms coming up, a strong economy and the tax cut passed he might be politically strong enough to do something. The question is what, and what is Sessions doing?

Babak Makkinejad

Ozal was poisoned too.


I was an interrogator, OK? I have some experience reading people's attitudes and actions to see what they imply. There is something there that these people are scared to death of.



IMO, there can't be an impartial investigation into all the convoluted interconnections and machinations among US and British intelligence. Who would do it? Clearly not the DoJ or Mueller who are thoroughly compromised. The big problem is that any impartial investigation will blow the lid on the depth of lawlessness among the top echelons of these agencies. Which obviously cannot be permitted. Hence the farce of such investigations as the Owen's inquiry.

The fact that Trump and his AG Sessions can't mount a serious investigation into the nexus of the Clinton campaign, the DNC, Fusion GPS, Steele, MI6, the Steele dossier, GCHQ, Peter Strzok, Comey, Brennan, Rogers, Clapper even when there is evidence of a conspiracy to destroy a legitimately elected POTUS is significant. It is clear as you have pointed out in many of your posts that there are many linkages between all these parties to disseminate disinformation and subvert the rule of law.

This Zero Hedge post points to more smoke on these connections:

According to Fox News:

House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Strzok as a key figure in the chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate.

The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed that the project was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. -Fox News


David Habakkuk


That is a critical issue, which deserves a more considered response than I have time to give it this afternoon. As regards the British end, it is linked to a question which ‘different clue’ put to me about Mrs Thatcher’s attitude to trade unions, which is also quite difficult to answer.

Part of the answer to both questions has to do with the fact that what became the general response of American, and British, élites to the retreat and collapse of Soviet power was a euphoria about the – actually unexpected – general global acceptance of the fact that the Bolshevik Revolution had led into a ‘dead end.’ This then led to the view that the whole socialist tradition had been irretrievably compromised.

This view – with much of which I am actually in sympathy – then led, not unnaturally, but disastrously, to the belief that the appropriate strategy was to attempt to maintain a global order based essentially on a unilateral American hegemony (with we Brits as ‘junior partners.’)

Involved with this was a continuation of the strategy of using anti-Russian elements within the former Soviet Union – both in parts which were now independent, like Georgia and Ukraine, and in parts that were not, like Chechnya – to further weaken Russian power. Also involved was the idea of creating an order in the Middle East that would be friendly to Israel by projects of ‘régime change.’

Implicit in both agendas was a need for ‘perception management’ and ‘StratCom’ – applied both to the targeted areas, and to overcome resistance at home to projects which often seemed to have little to do with the concerns of most people. Implicit also was the familiar problem – that religious and ethno-nationalist fervour are strong motivations for people to fight, while ‘moderate’ political aspirations are not.

In my previous comment, I should have brought out that Yuri Shvets was crucial to processing the tapes of conversations involving the former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma supposedly recorded by Major Melnichenko. An interesting discovery from the Inquiry – see para 4.51 of Owen’s report – was that in 2002 and 2005 the transcription work was done in London with Shvets coming over here from Alexandria.

On the first occasion, key material related to the Kolchuga ‘passive detector’ system – which had been devised in Soviet times to make it possible to identify Western planes without sending out a radar signal targeting the facilities doing so for destruction.

What Shvets and co did was to take an excerpt in which Kuchma discussed a possible sale to Iraq, and ‘doctor’ it so as to suggest that a sale had been concluded. The – preposterous – claim that the very brief segment was unedited was then validated by the former FBI audiotape expert Bruce Koenig, who ran a private security company called BEK-TEK.

(For an example of the credulity of even rather good journalists, see https://www.publicintegrity.org/2002/04/15/3197/special-report-kuchma-approved-sale-weapons-system-iraq .)

As a ‘StratCom’ move, this was brilliant, as it both generated support for the ‘Orange Revolution’ in Ukraine, and for the toppling of Saddam.

What happened in 2005 was that excerpts which did in fact reflect the fact that the intelligence apparatus created by Mogilevich was used by both Russian and Ukrainian intelligence were edited, so as to validate a preposterous scenario according to which this notorious mobster, while an agent of the FSB and under Putin’s personal ‘krysha’ had been attempting got supply a ‘mini atomic bomb’ to Al Qaeda.

Again, the whole strategy was to link ignorant preconceptions about what was happening in the former Soviet space to fears relating to the Middle East and jihadism. A crucial further purpose was to distract attention from the – catastrophic – role of elements in both the British and American ‘intelligence communities’ in magicking up the jihadist ‘genie’.

(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence">https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence">http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence )

Actually, if you look at the material produced in evidence to the Inquiry closely, one can see a definite ‘edit’ and a likely one without much trouble. Also relevant is the fact that there is that ‘page 5 Text in Italian’, and the name of the translator – Olena Maherovska. A quick Google check will establish that her ‘Police Clearance’ and ‘Counter Terrorist Check’ in relation to her work as an interpreter date from 14 February 2014, and that she is an enthusiastic Ukrainian (‘Galician’) nationalist.

(See http://www.nrpsi.org.uk/interpreters/Olena-Maherovska-11991.html https://www.facebook.com/olena.maherovska .)

To cut a long story short, these materials were originally intended to be used by Steele and his associates in support of the attempts to blacken Romano Prodi as a KGB/FSB agent, to install ‘Galician’ nationalists in power in Ukraine, in support of people of the aspirations of people like Berezovsky and Khodorkovsky to reinstate the ‘semibankirshchina’ in Moscow, and to install people like Ibn al-Khattab in power in Chechnya.

A – not entirely unpredictable – result of all this is that the supposed pliable instruments ran out of control all over the place, and this has had to be covered up.

Given however that the conspiracies behind this clearly involved leading elements in the CIA and MI6, and also the NSA and GCHQ, and the FBI, MI5, and Counter Terrorism Command, most of them have to rally round and do their utmost to subvert the constitutional order in the United States.

And, much of the time, they can rely upon traumatised East Europeans to help them destroy all that was best in America.

Meanwhile, what has also been destroyed in a widespread willingness, among educated Russians, to accept that the Cold War was, in essence, a Russian ‘own goal.’

In place of this ‘narrative’ – which was very common indeed in the late ‘Eighties, although it was beyond the capacity of American and British intelligence to notice the fact – we now have ‘narratives’ based upon the premise that the Cold War had little to do with communism, but with a fundamental hatred of Russia which had nothing to with ideology.


David Habakkuk

"...we now have ‘narratives’ based upon the premise that the Cold War had little to do with communism, but with a fundamental hatred of Russia which had nothing to with ideology." Are you in agreement with such narratives? I have said before that the indoctrination of American officers at the Russia school at Garmisch produced people who are clearly imbued with a deep hatred of Russia. LTC (ret.) Ralph Peters is one such. IMO this hatred was transmitted by exiles who were employed as instructors there and at West Point, and perhaps other places. Leavenworth? pl

Publius Tacitus

You are showing your ignorance. The FBI did not have "SIGINT on Flynn." Why? Because the FBI does not collect sigint. They do wiretaps and only when they have the permission of a judge to do so. There was no probable cause justifying collection against Flynn. I do not know why Flynn lied. So, i will not speculate on that.
The Russian Collusion story was started by the Clinton campaign. The first indication that this would be their strategy came in an email two years ago (December 2015) between Brent Budowsky and John Podesta.
Your last paragraph is so obtuse that I won't even waste time commenting. I encourage you to try to emulate Habbakuk's responses. Always thoughtful and intelligent.


Excepting in the fantasies of leftists, progressives and Marxists who desire to delegitimize the Trump administration, the alleged offense of "collusion", as investigated by the special counsel is not a crime or politically actionable.


If Flynn is convicted and received a Presidential Pardon, would that protect or reinstate his pension & benefits?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad