Thursday, January 12, 2017

Ron Paul: Trump's War with the CIA



During the 2016 presidential campaign, the MSM made no secret of their partiality for Hillary Clinton.

Relations between Trump and the media came to a head yesterday, over a CNN report that the Russian government has “compromising” information on Trump — information that is detailed in a “classified” 35-page dossier, a synopsis of which was handed to Trump when he met last week with four top intelligence officials (Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers).

The dossier allegedly had been compiled by a former British intelligence (MI6) official for Trump’s GOP primary campaign opponents, and later for Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Another media outlet, Buzzfeed, published the dossier, including the salacious allegation only a pimply-faced teenager living in his mom’s basement would conjure — that Trump, during a visit to Moscow, had hired hookers to urinate on a bed Obama had slept in.

The CNN report completely fell apart less than 24 hours after it was published:
  • Trump denounced it as “fake news” and a “political witch hunt”. In his press conference yesterday morning, Trump called CNN “fake news,” and Buzzfeed a “failing pile of garbage”.
  • The Kremlin denies having a “compromising” dossier on Trump and calls the intelligence report a “complete fabrication”.
  • A poster on 4chan claims to have concocted the Trump “golden showers” story, which he sent to Rick Wilson — the GOP consultant who called for assassinating Trump — who sent it to the CIA, which then put it in their official classified intelligence report on the election. (ZeroHedge)
  • Carl Bernstein, who co-wrote the CNN report, said the MI6 spookChris Steelehad given the dossier of memos to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who is overtly anti-Trump. McCain, in turn, handed it to the FBI. (New York Post)
  • In a phone conversation with Trump yesterday (Jan. 11) evening, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called the 35-page dossier “a private security company document” that “is not a U.S. Intelligence Community product”. Clapper said the intelligence community (IC) “has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions.” He also said he does not believe the leaks came from within the IC. (DNI Clapper Statement on Conversation with President-elect Trump)
Despite Clapper’s “make nice” phone call to Trump, it’s no secret that the intelligence agencies of the Obama administration, with their allegations of Russia hacking and intervening in the election to favor Trump, are hell-bent on subverting the November 8 election.

Trump, for his part, has said that he will reform the intelligence agencies, beginning with the CIA.

chuck-shumer

On January 3, 2017, responding to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow‘s description of  Trump as “taking these shots, antagonisms, taunting the intelligence community,” Sen. Chuck Shumer (D-NY) said something quite ominous:
“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you. So, even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he’s being really dumb to do this.”
Is that a threat?

Former Senator Ron Paul (R) thinks so.

In the “Liberty Report” on January 5, 2017, Paul had an interesting exchange with Daniel McAdams, Executive Directive of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

9:28 mark: McAdams says Chuck Shumer is “plugged in pretty well to the deep state,” then quotes what Shumer said on MSNBC, that Trump is “really dumb” to take on the intelligence community because the latter “have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you.”

McAdams observes, “That is very chilling,” and asks Paul if what Shumer said is “a threat” at Donald Trump.
Paul: “This is not a lie. I think he [Shumer] is speaking the truth there — better watch out. I think Trump knows about it. That’s why he has private security.


Paul also had plenty of other interesting things to say about the CIA:
“They’ve gotten us into so much trouble. The evidence is so overwhelming that they’ve been involved in many assassinations, not only…the Kennedy assassination, maybe both Kennedys’ for all we know.”
Paul said the CIA is so secretive that “even as a member of Congress,” he couldn’t find out “what was really going on and sometimes I don’t even know what was going on…. I don’t think they give us information. They hide information from us…and they mislead us.” So Paul applauds Trump’s plan to look into and shrink the intelligence agencies. But he warns that Trump’s reform will be met with “great resistance”.

McAdams said something that I’ve read on other blogs and sites, that there are factions within the intelligence agencies. McAdams said that parts of the CIA “have been in open warfare against Trump through the campaign. So many ‘anonymous’ leaks from intelligence officials.” Implying that Trumps knows what he’s up against, McAdams noted that Trump has “surrounded himself very closely with military types, military officers,” and that there’s an “ongoing tension between Pentagon intelligence analysis and what the CIA does,” as in Syria “where the CIA troops are fighting the Pentagon troops on the ground”.

Paul said there are 17 intelligence agencies altogether and that “the deep state is involved”. Paul also said that he does not believe the Obama administration’s claims that Russia hacked and intervened in the 2016 election — “I don’t think they have the evidence”. He points out that it is the U.S. government and the CIA that repeatedly intervene in other countries’ elections — as many as 81 elections since WWII and 50 assassinations.

McAdams points out the hypocrisy of John McCain accusing Russia of intervening in our election when McCain “went to Ukraine and actually participated in the overthrow of an elected government” and “did the same thing and went into Syria and met with a bunch of terrorists” because McCain wants to overthrow the Assad government.”
8:45 mark: Paul said Trump “will have problems achieving” reform of the intelligence agencies “because there’s so many obstacles and he won’t know who really represents the CIA unless he is well attuned to the deep state because the real orders and assassinations” are given to the CIA by the deep state.

In its post, “The Final Takedown of Trump Begins in Earnest,” State of the Nation concludes:
“There can be only one reason for the fake dossier that was fabricated by rogue elements within the U.S. intelligence community. To use it as a pretext to delegitimize the presidency of Donald Trump by traitors within the Obama Administration and DNC, as well as rogue intelligence agencies.
That this unvetted fraud was then quickly disseminated throughout the global MSM provides further evidence of a highly organized coup against the president-elect. […] 
Make no mistake about it: from now until Inauguration Day will be the most dangerous times for Donald Trump and his transition team. The very future of the United States of America now hangs in the balance as never before.”
H/t FOTM‘s josephbc69
~Eowyn

Death Rattle of Mainstream Media: Multiple Corporate Outlets Now Labeling Each Other “Fake News”



Thanks to CNN and BuzzFeed, a war now rages among corporate media outlets, a true study in irony, as the New York Times and Guardian hurl accusations the two outlets are guilty of publishing Fake News — the same Fake News all of the aforementioned have cited in unabashed attempts to discredit legitimate alternative media.
CNN first published an article citing without including information ostensively ruinous to President-elect Donald Trump’s political career — but BuzzFeed took that ball and ran — publishing documents believed to have originated from an unnamed British intelligence officer and admittedly unsubstantiated and unverified.
Careless reporting by the mainstream press, in other words, has reached critical mass — and known publishers of Fake News are now calling each other to task for egregiously vapid journalism.
“BuzzFeed Posts Unverified Claims on Trump, Igniting a Debate,” the Times’ headline asserts, while — going a step farther — the Guardian’s article is entitled, “BuzzFeed publishes unsubstantiated Trump report, raising ethics questions.”
CNN first reported on the dossier allegedly obtained from the unnamed British intelligence official, but left out the more lurid and revealing details from the 35-pages BuzzFeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith later decided were fair game for publication — despite“serious reason to doubt the allegations.”
BuzzFeed reported Tuesday, “The dossier, which is a collection of memos written over a period of months, includes specific, unverified, and potentially unverifiable allegations of contact between Trump aides and Russian operatives, and graphic claims of sexual acts documented by the Russians. BuzzFeed News reporters in the US and Europe have been investigating various alleged facts in the dossier but have not verified or falsified them. CNN reported Tuesday that a two-page synopsis of the report was given to President Obama and Trump.”
Mainstream outlets scrambled over each other to ride the viral wave when BuzzFeed’s article garnered over one million views in short succession — and 3.5 million less than 24 hours later — but none of those organizations bothered to restrain themselves in the interest of investigating the dossier further.
Incidentally, the Times was among them — and in its scathing critique, curiously notes,
“The reports by CNN and Buzzfeed sent other news organizations, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, scrambling to publish their own articles, some of which included generalized descriptions of the unverified allegations about Mr. Trump. By late Tuesday, though, only BuzzFeed had published the full document.”
As if reporting on unsubstantiated claims without providing the documents you’re citing somehow excuses the Times’ capricious abandonment of journalistic due diligence. Nevertheless, the article contends,
“BuzzFeed’s decision, besides its immediate political ramifications for a president-elect who is to be inaugurated in 10 days, was sure to accelerate a roiling debate about the role and credibility of the traditional media in today’s frenetic, polarized information age.
“Of particular interest was the use of unsubstantiated information from anonymous sources, a practice that fueled some of the so-called fake news — false rumors passed off as legitimate journalism — that proliferated during the presidential election.”
Again, the Times reported on the exact information BuzzFeed did — but didn’t provide the contentious document for the public to evaluate — so, in essence, it’s accusing itself in the mix.
According to each outlet — either parroting another or making its own assertion — the 35 pages had been passed around behind the scenes in both the media and intelligence communities. That fact alone, if indeed true — which would be hard to glean from this imprudent crowd — raises questions on the decision to publish so close to inauguration day.
In addition, that intel officials have indeed had possession of the dossier but have yet to verify its contents sufficiently to provide comment to the press intimates the striking potential the documents are inauthentic — or the information isn’t accurate. CNN might have held back from publishing those pages, but its article contained the equally dubious claims,
“Some of the memos were circulating as far back as last summer. What has changed since then is that US intelligence agencies have now checked out the former British intelligence operative and his vast network throughout Europe and find him and his sources to be credible enough to include some of the information in the presentations to the President and President-elect a few days ago.”
BuzzFeed, in what might come to be an act of journalistic suicide, said to hell with it — took CNN’s report as a cue, and ran the laughably flawed document — admitting at the time that by doing so it was essentially publishing Fake News.
And now the New York Times and other corporate press seem to believe eschewing the blame for contributing to the mess — under the pretense of plausible deniability for refusing to publish the actual dossier to back their allegations — is as simple as publicly castigating the original outlets they copied.
Glenn Greenwald adroitly summarized this media shit show, writing for The Intercept,
“All of these toxic ingredients were on full display yesterday as the Deep State unleashed its tawdriest and most aggressive assault yet on Trump: vesting credibility in and then causing the public disclosure of a completely unvetted and unverified document, compiled by a paid, anonymous operative while he was working for both GOP and Democratic opponents of Trump, accusing Trump of a wide range of crimes, corrupt acts and salacious private conduct. The reaction to all of this illustrates that while the Trump presidency poses grave dangers, so, too, do those who are increasingly unhinged in their flailing, slapdash, and destructive attempts to undermine it.”
Hell bent on pinning blame for its own journalistic failures throughout the election cycle, corporate media began targeting alternative outlets as Fake News and Russian propaganda for its stellar reporting on the contents of leaked documents deleterious to Hillary Clinton.
But because the mainstream press constitutes little more than a mouthpiece for the U.S. political establishment, independent journalists — aware of this nonsense — have continually called out the errant and viral reports from outlets like the TimesCNN, and Washington Post.
Indeed, the backlash over falsely labeling independent reporting Fake News has been so intense, the outlet that championed and initiated the use of that term — the Post — came forward this week to pompously declare its retirement.
Indisputably, however — and particularly as the American public watches this unseemly and mortifying abandonment of journalistic integrity play out — mainstream media is now little more than a picked-over carcass of its former self.
To believe anything a corporate press this errant and devoid of the standards, principles, and rectitude its roots were founded on — unless purely for entertainment’s sake — would plainly be foolhardy. Garnering reliable information from mainstream presstitutes is like agreeing to play Russian roulette with facts.
It’s time to admit the patently obvious — mainstream media is dead.

CNN Fake News: U.S. intelligence memo says Russia has ‘compromising’ information on Trump

Dr. Eowyn 

This is breaking news, for which there’s no verification other than what CNN claims to be true. Bear in mind that CNN is totally biased in favor of Hillary Clinton. See:
If this is true, the implications are very serious. It will give the Democrats the weapon for which they’ve been desperately searching to scuttle Trump’s presidency before he’s even inaugurated. What will happen after that is anyone’s guess because the resulting Constitutional crisis will be something America has never encountered.
Here’s the story.
This afternoon, a CNN report by Evan Perez, Jim Sciutto, Jake Tapper and Carl Bernstein alleges that last week when Trump met with U.S. intelligence chiefs* for a briefing on Russia’s hacking and intervention in the November 8 presidential election, among the classified documents presented to Trump was a hitherto-undisclosed 2-page memo that the Russian government has compromising information of a personal and financial nature on Trump.
*The intelligence chiefs who briefed Trump are Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers.
While the CNN report does not say it, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to draw out the implications of this bombshell if it is true — which is that Moscow can use the compromising information to blackmail a President Trump.In fact, CNN claims that Russia has damaging information on both Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, and on Trump and the GOP, but chose to reveal only the information on Hillary & Dems while withholding Trump’s because Moscow meant to harm Hillary’s candidacy and help Trump’s.
The 2-page memo is a synopsis of 35 pages of memos that “originated as opposition research, first commissioned by anti-Trump Republicans, and later by Democrats.”
How does CNN know this? —
  1. CNN was told this by unnamed “multiple high ranking intelligence, administration, congressional and law enforcement officials, as well as foreign officials and others in the private sector with direct knowledge of the memos.”
  2. CNN claims to have actually “reviewed” the 35-page compilation of memos from which the 2-page synopsis was drawn. Paraodoxically, despite having “reviewed” the memos, CNN does not disclose what is contained in those memos.
Here is what CNN says about the synopsis and the source memos:
  • The 2-page synopsis was not an “official part” of the intelligence report about Russian hacks because it “was considered so sensitive,” but was “only shared at the most senior levels of the government” — President Obama, President-elect Trump, and eight Congressional leaders, including Harry Reid and John McCain.
  • At the same time, just about anyone of importance in D.C. already knows “some of the allegations” that “are circulating among intelligence agencies, senior members of Congress and other government officials in Washington“.
  • In addition to compromising information on Trump, the synopsis also includes “allegations that there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.”
  • Some of the allegations made in the source memos are from an unnamed “former British intelligence operative” — “a former MI6 agent, who was posted in Russia in the 1990s and now runs a private intelligence gathering firm.” The man and “his vast [intelligence] network throughout Europe” were checked out by US intelligence agencies and found “to be credible enough”. Initially, the British spook’s investigations related to Trump were funded by groups and donors supporting Trump’s GOP primary campaign opponents. Once Trump became the nominee, the spook’s further investigation was funded by groups and donors supporting Hillary Clinton.
  • Some of the allegations were first reported publicly in Mother Jones one week before the election.
So what did Mother Jones report one week before the election?
From Mother Jones, January 10, 2017:
“In late October, Mother Jones’ David Corn first reported that a former Western counterintelligence official [who asked not to be identified] with nearly two decades of experience on ‘Russian intelligence matters’ had been assigned the task of looking into Trump’s dealings with Russia as part of an opposition research effort initially funded by a Republican donor. This official was so alarmed by what he discovered that he passed the intelligence to the FBI.”
What did this unnamed “former Western counterintelligence official” discover which he judged to be “sufficiently serious” to share with the FBI?–
  • The Russian government “has been cultivating, supporting and assisting Trump for at least 5 years,” all “endorsed by Putin,” in order “to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance.”
  • Trump “and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals.”
  • Russian intelligence “compromised” Trump during his visits to Moscow and could “blackmail him.”
  • Russian intelligence had also compiled a dossier on Hillary Clinton based on “bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls.”
According to a HuffingonPost reporter named Andrea Chalupa in a tweet on Oct. 31, 2016, intelligence circles say Russia’s FSB (Federal Security Service) “filmed Trump in an orgy” when he was in Russia.
andrea-chalupa-tweet
Calling Trump and the Republican Party traitors to Russia, Colin Taylor of the rabid Occupy Democrats blog gets on his moral high horse and hysterically declares:
“Trump is unqualified to lead this nation and has done nothing since his victory to show us otherwise, or to even indicate that he intends to govern at all. Now that we know he has been compromised by a foreign government, we cannot allow him to be sworn in.”
Here are my observations:
  1. CNN says that the Trump transition team, FBI spokespeople, and the Director of National Intelligence all declined to comment. Furthermore, the officials who spoke to CNN “declined to do so on the record,” i.e., reveal their names, because of “the classified nature of the material.” All of which means that unless the parties who have direct knowledge of the memos talk, at this point we only have CNN’s word — and we all know how reliable and believable CNN is. [sarc]
  2. Why is the information contained in the 2-page synopsis so much more “sensitive” and “classified” that the synopsis was not an “official part” of the intelligence reports that have been published and publicized, and must remain so secret that the “multiple intelligence officials” who spoke about this to CNN refuse to be named?
  3. Since the information about Trump had been discovered months ago by the unnamed former British spook, and conveyed to Trump’s GOP primary opponents, Hillary Clinton and her campaign officials, the FBI, and even Mother Jones, and given how “compromising” and “damaging” the information is to Trump, why didn’t all those people, especially Hillary, reveal the information to the public?
  4. Since the allegations contained in the damning memos are “widely circulated” in D.C. and known to Obama and Congressional leaders including Harry Reid, why did they wait till now to “leak” the memos to CNN?
  5. If the “compromising information of a personal nature” about Trump is a sex tape of him in an orgy, why would this disqualify him from the presidency when President Bill Clinton’s oral sex with and shoving a cigar up the anus of a White House intern in the Oval Office didn’t disqualify him?
When I began writing this post hours ago, there was nothing about this on Trump’s Twitter feed. I just checked it again. Trump is calling the CNN report “unverifiable” “fake news” and “a total political witch hunt”.
trump-tweet-on-cnn-report-1-10-2017trump-tweet-on-cnn-report-1-10-2017a
Until we are shown the actual 2-page synopsis as well as the 35 pages of source memos, I call this B.S. — yet another desperate ploy of the Obama administration and the complicit “fake news” MSM to subvert the 2016 election.
In addition to CNN’s obvious partisan bias, the network also has a track record of deception and fake news.
See also:

UPDATE (JAN. 11, 2017):

H/t FOTM‘s Anon, Will Shanley, and Artist.
Here’s a link to the 35-page dossier from which the 2-page synopsis was generated, which BuzzFeed irresponsibly published even though the document is totally unverified. WikiLeaks observes that it “is not an intelligence report. Style, facts & dates show no credibility”.
A poster on the online chat forum 4Chan, which deletes the chatter after a day, claims that the infamous “golden showers” scene (that Trump made people urinate on a bed Obama slept in) in the 35-page source memo dossier allegedly compiled by a British intelligence officer from which the 2-page synopsis was drawn, was a hoax and fabricated by a member of the chatboard as “fanfiction”, then sent to Rick Wilson, who sent it to the CIA, which then put it in their official classified intelligence report on the election. (ZeroHedge)
In other words, what CNN reports to be Russia’s “compromising information” on Trump is a HOAX.
Shame on CNN! Shame on the CIA and other U.S. intelligence organizations! And shame on the Four Stooges: Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers.
This CNN fake news incident reveals, once and for all, how utterly corrupt and incompetent U.S. intelligence agencies have become under Obama. They have lost all credibility. Trump already has said he’ll reform the agencies, beginning with the CIA.
9 more days until inauguration…. Please pray for Trump’s safety. Please pray for America.

UPDATE 2 (JAN. 11, 2017):

russia-denies-compromising-info-on-trumpUPDATE 3 (JAN. 11, 2017):

WSJ (via ZeroHedge) says the name of the mysterious former MI6 spook is Chris Steele, 52. His LinkedIn page, which is now scrubbed, said he’s currently Director at Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd., London, UK.
WSJ asked Andrew Wordsworth, co-founder of London-based investigations firm Raedas, who often works on Russian issues, if the 35-page Trump dossier is credible. Wordsworth said the memos in the Trump dossier were “not convincing at all. It’s just way too good. If the head of the CIA were to declare he got information of this quality, you wouldn’t believe it.” Wordsworth said it wouldn’t make sense for Russian intelligence officials to expose state secrets to a former MI-6 officer because “Russians believe once you are an agent, you’re an agent forever.”
~Eowyn