Saturday, February 10, 2018

Rob Urie: Why ‘Russian Meddling’ is a Trojan Horse

Prior to the 2016 presidential election, if one were to ask what single act could seal a new Cold War with Russia, align liberals and progressives with the operational core of the American military-industrial-surveillance complex, expose the preponderance of left-activism as an offshoot of Democratic Party operations and consign most of what remained to personal invective against an empirically dangerous leader, consensus would likely have it that doing so wouldn’t be easy.
The decision to blame Russian meddling for Hillary Clinton’s electoral loss was made in the immediate aftermath of the election by her senior campaign staff. Within days the received wisdom amongst Clinton supporters was that the election had been stolen and that Donald Trump was set to enter the White House as a pawn of the Russian political leadership. Left out was the history of U.S. – Russian relations; that the largest voting bloc in the 2016 election was eligible voters who didn’t vote and that domestic business interests substantially control the American electoral process.
Graph: The Democrats’ choice to blame external forces, e.g. Russian meddling, for their electoral loss in 2016 ignores evidence of that none-of-the-above is the people’s choice. The largest voting bloc in the 2016 election was eligible voters who chose not to vote. In contrast to the received wisdom in political consultant circles, choosing not to vote is a political act. The U.S. has the lowest voter turnout in the ‘developed’ world for a reason. Source:
More than a year later, no credible evidence has been put forward to establish that any votes were changed due to ‘external’ meddling. As the Intercept has reported, since the election progressive candidates seeking public office have been systematically subverted by establishment Democrats in favor of those with connections to big-money donors. And the Democratic Party leadership in congress just voted to give Mr. Trump expanded spying powers with fewer restraints. Congressional Democrats are certainly behaving as if they believe Mr. Trump was duly elected. And more to the point, they are supporting his program.
The choice of Russia would seem bizarre if not for the history. Residual propaganda from the first Cold War— itself largely a business enterprise that provided ideological cover for American imperial incursions, had it that substantive grievances against the American government, in the form of protests, were universally the product of ‘external’ enemies intent on sowing discord to promote their own interests. This slander was used against the Civil Rights movement, organized labor, anti-war protesters and the counterculture of the 1960s.
Therefore, the choice by the Clintonites to invoke a new Cold War by bringing Russia into the American electoral mix is not without a past. Students of history may recall that in the early 1990s Mikhail Gorbachev was given assurances by senior members of George H.W. Bush’s administration that NATO would not be expanded to Russia’s border in exchange for Russia’s help re-integrating East and West Germany. It was Bill Clinton who unilaterally abrogated these assurances and moved nuclear-armed NATO to Russia’s border.
In 2013 the Obama administration ‘brokered’ (Mr. Obama’s term) a coup in the former Soviet state of Ukraine that ousted the democratically elected President to install persons favorable to the interests of Western oligarchs. At the time Hillary Clinton had just vacated her post as Mr. Obama’s Secretary of State to prepare for her 2016 run for president, but her lieutenants, including Victoria Nuland, were active in coordinating the coup and deciding who the new ‘leadership’ of Ukraine would be.
An analogy would be if Russia moved troops and weaponry to the Mexican border with the U.S. after giving assurances that it wouldn’t do so and then engineered a coup (in Mexico) to install a government friendly to the interests of the Russian political leadership. One needn’t be sympathetic to Russian interests to understand that these are provocations. Given U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons stockpiles, the provocations seem more reckless than ‘tough.’ Then consider Mr. Obama’s, later Trump’s, move to ‘upgrade’ the U.S. nuclear arsenal toward ‘tactical’ use.
This is to suggest that it certainly makes sense that the Russian political leadership would want to keep American militarists, a/k/a the Clintons and their neocon ‘crazies,’ out of White House. But as of now, the evidence is that the Russians changed no votes in the 2016 election. As far as inciting dissent— the charge that protests were organized by Russian ‘interests,’ not only does this reek of prior misdirection by the FBI and CIA, but there is no evidence that any such protests had an impact on the outcome of the 2016 election.
Given Mr. Trump’s belligerent (unhinged) rhetoric toward North Korea, if enhancing geopolitical stability was the Russians’ goal, Mr. Trump must be a disappointment. Unfortunately for Mr. Trump’s critics (among whom I count myself), there is a lot of ‘theory’ from American think tanks that supports crazy as a strategy. And it was after Mr. Trump’s provocative posture toward North Korea became widely known that senior Democrats voted to give him additional NSA powers with fewer restrictions.
The most cynically brilliant outcome of the ‘blame Russia’ campaign has been to neuter left activism by focusing the attack on Donald Trump rather than the interests he represents. As evidence, the proportion of Goldman Sachs alumni in Mr. Trump’s administration approximates that in Mr. Obama’s and what was expected for Mrs. Clinton’s. If the problem is Donald Trump, then the solution is ‘not Trump.’ However, if the problem is that the rich substantially controlAmerican political outcomes, how would electing ‘not Trump’ bring about resolution?
As it is, within days of the 2016 election Mr. Trump, his supporters plus the political opponents of Mrs. Clinton were recast as stooges of the Kremlin. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney had required loyalty oaths from their stalwarts. But even a loyalty oath wouldn’t prove that one isn’t a stooge of the Kremlin. And the larger problem with the theory (of Russian meddling) is that the U.S. electoral system was already thoroughly corrupted by economic power.
As students of the scientific method know, you can’t ‘prove’ a negative. Condoleezza Rice used this knowledge in 2003 to sell the George W. Bush administration’s calamitous war against Iraq through the charge that the proof that Saddam Hussein had an ongoing WMD program is that he hadn’t handed over his WMDs. As history has it, Mr. Hussein couldn’t hand over his WMDs because he didn’t have any to hand over. How then would critics of Mrs. Clinton ‘prove’ they weren’t / aren’t acting on behalf of foreign interests?
The answer lies with Democratic Party loyalists. Much as Bush – Cheney supporters were impervious to logical and evidentiary challenges to the rationales given for the war against Iraq, Clintonites believe what they believe because they believe it. For those with an interest and some knowledge of empirical research, read the myriad articles touting ‘proof’ of Russian meddling and find a single instance where such proof is provided. Or with an eye toward not being the half of Republicans who still believe that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, bring the proof forward if it exists.
Here is the disclaimer taken from the National Intelligence Estimate (link here).
The National Intelligence Estimate, initially claimed to be based on input from 17 intelligence agencies, later reduced to selected representatives from three of the agencies (NSA, CIA and FBI), provides no proof for claims of Russian meddling and states quite openly that it is conjecture. Amongst these agencies, one (NSA) is known for illegally spying on Americans and lying about it to congress, the second (CIA) provided fraudulent ‘evidence’ to drag the U.S. into a calamitous war against Iraq where it ran illegal torture camps and the third (FBI) has such a checkered history that is was called ‘Gestapo’ by former U.S. president Harry Truman.
Here is James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, lying to congress about NSA spying. Here is Trevor Timm in the Columbia (University) Journalism Review explaining the many ways former head of the NSA and CIA Michael Hayden has lied to congress and the American people. Here is a brief history of COINTELPRO and FBI attempts to disrupt and discredit the Civil Rights movement. At the time that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was accusing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. of being a communist (link above), the term approximated being an agent of Russia.
(Here is a compendium of links related to claims made in this piece: Promise by U.S. that NATO wouldn’t expand to surround Russia. Bill Clinton expands NATO to Eastern Bloc to surround Russia. Barack Obama admits U.S. role in Ukraine coup. James Clapper committingperjury. Victoria Nuland discusses overthrowing the democratically elected government of Ukraine and installing U.S. puppets. Backstoryof CIA and Robert Sheer that supports argument Propornot is government operation with ties to Ukrainian fascists.)
There is circumstantial evidence that the first list of ‘Russian-linked’ websites published by the ‘credible’ media, that of Propornotpublished in the Washington Post (in their ‘Business’ section) to which a disclaimer was subsequently added, was the work of Ukrainians with links to the CIA. The Propornot website (link above) is worth visiting to get a sense of how implausible the whole enterprise is. On it former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Ronald Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts, is listed prominently as a puppet of the Kremlin. And deep-research political website Washington’s Blog made the honor roll as well.
More recently, the New York Times cited the German Marshall Fund as an authority on Russian meddling. The German Marshall fund (U.S.) is headed by Karen Donfried, a former Obama Administration official and operative for the National Intelligence Council. The National Intelligence Council supports the Director of National Intelligence. Here (again) is James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, lying to congress about NSA spying. Derek Chollet, Executive Vice President of the fund, is the former Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Obama administration and a senior member of Hillary Clinton’s Policy Planning Staff.
The question for the Left is why liberals and progressives would align themselves with Hayden, Clapper, the FBI, CIA and NSA, and suspect organizations like Propornot and the German Marshall Fund when most have spent their entire existences trying to undermine and shut down the Left? The (near-term) cynical brilliance of the Democrats’ strategy is through revival of the Cold War frame of national interests that was always a cover for imperial business schemes. As the Intercept articles (links above) have well- uncovered, this is all just business for the Democrats anyway. Can you say class warfare?
Assuming for a moment that not everyone is playing the Democrats’ one-dimensional checkers, if the Russian political leadership really intended to ‘undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order,’ as the NIE puts it, it is doing Mrs. Clinton a disservice to suggest that she wasn’t up to the job. From the Clintons’ 1994 Crime Bill to deregulating Wall Street to support for George W. Bush’s calamitous war against Iraq to the U.S. / NATO destruction of Libya, Mrs. Clinton has ‘undermine(d) the U.S.-led liberal democratic order’ just fine.
Likely not considered when the Russian meddling hypothesis was originally put forward is what happens next? The initial charge that America’s ‘sacred democratic tradition’ was soiled when the Russian political leadership hacked the election has run up against the apparent fact that no votes have been found to have been changed. The charge that AstroTurf protests organized by the Russians led to dissent smells a lot like the last half-century of FBI / CIA lies against / about the Left. And the charge that narcissistic plutocrat Trump has been ‘compromised’ misses that he was already compromised by the circumstances of his birth and upbringing. This is the problem.
The Democrats, in their wisdom, have given a gift to the U.S. intelligence ‘community’ that provides political cover for closing down inconvenient commentary and disrupting inconvenient political organizations. A political Left with a brain would be busy thinking through strategy for when the internet becomes completely unusable for organizing and communication. The unifying factor in the initial ‘fake news’ purge was criticism of Hillary Clinton. Print media, a once viable alternative, has been all but destroyed by the move to the internet. This capability needs to be rebuilt.
Bourgeois incredulity that Donald Trump still has supporters could be seen by an inquisitive Left through a lens of class struggle. Yes, his effective supporters are rich, just as the national Democrats’ are— the term for this is plutocracy. But back in the realm of human beings, rising deaths of despair tie in theory and fact to the wholesale abandonment of the American people by the political class. An inquisitive Left would be talking to these people, not at them. The Russian meddling story is a sideshow with a political purpose. But class struggle remains the relevant story.
More articles by:
Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book Zen Economics is published by CounterPunch Books.

Dave Martin: The Nunes Memo and Vince Foster

The memorandum prepared by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes contains a couple of names that are very familiar to those of us who have followed the cover-up in the case of the death of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr., from its beginning.  Here are the key passages:
         The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff, which focuses on Page’s July 2016 trip to Moscow. This article does not corroborate the [Christopher] Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News. The Page FISA application incorrectly assesses that Steele did not directly provide information to Yahoo News. Steele has admitted in British court filings that he met with Yahoo News—and several other outlets—in September 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS. Perkins Coie was aware of Steele’s initial media contacts because they hosted at least one meeting in Washington DC in 2016 with Steele and Fusion GPS where this matter was discussed.


         Steele was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI defines as the most serious of violations—an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI in an October 30, 2016, Mother Jones article by David Corn.  Steele should have been terminated for his previous undisclosed contacts with Yahoo and other outlets in September—before the Page application was submitted to the FISC in October—but Steele improperly concealed from and lied to the FBI about those contacts.

What is revealed here is that the (former?) British intelligence agent, Steele, is as thick as thieves with a couple of intelligence assets in the American news media, Michael Isikoff and David Corn.  You may search their names on my home page to see the full ugly picture of their KGB-like activities while they play the role of journalists, but we will hit some of the highlights for you here.

Michael Isikoff

One of the quotations at the top of “The Press and the Death of Vincent Foster” is from Isikoff in the August 15, 1993, Washington Post:

Foster's attempt to seek legal help is described in more than 200 pages of Park Police and FBI reports into his death that have not yet been publicly released. ...those reports leave no doubt that Foster was suffering from a worsening depression....

In other words, the FBI had used Isikoff as a conduit for what they wanted the American people to believe was the cause of death, giving him the privilege of viewing the evidence, which they denied to the public.  He duly delivered for them.  It is very similar to how they used his work to hoodwink the FISA court.  Here’s my description of Isikoff in the referenced article:

          Michael Isikoff of first The Washington Post and then with the Post Corporation's Newsweek magazine may be described as the lead mainstream reporter on the Foster case. Five days before this article appeared there had been the above-mentioned joint news conference [announcing the suicide conclusion]. The gathered journalists had not been told on what basis murder had been ruled out and no written substantiation for the suicide conclusion had been released. Furthermore, no indication was given of when or if any report would be released. Journalists were told simply that they could file Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for any supporting documentation should they wish to see it.

America's news organs demonstrated total satisfaction with this conclusion announced as though by imperial decree. They did not clamor for a report substantiating the conclusion. They did not even report the fact that the Park Police and the FBI offered no real substantiation for their suicide conclusion and that there was no public report or any prospects for one in the foreseeable future. Rather, here we have The Post in its first Sunday edition after the official announcement telling us that reports that neither they (ostensibly) nor we have been able to see leave "no doubt" about a key disputed question in the case. This is press dereliction of responsibility to the public of the highest order.

Isikoff was the reporter of the news on Wednesday, July 28, 1993, eight days after Foster’s body was discovered in Fort Marcy Park in McLean, Virginia, that a note had been found in Foster’s office with the names of some psychiatrists on it.  Two days later, he was the co-writer with the late Ann Devroy of a much longer article that said that the note with the psychiatrists names on it had been found by police searching Foster’s car, and to this day neither Isikoff nor the The Post has given any explanation for why the change in the supposed discovery location.  When you’re making a story up, I suppose it doesn’t really make any difference.  But speaking of making things up, that Isikoff and Devroy article also had this big-time whopper:

Police who arrived at Foster's house the night of the death were turned away after being told Lisa Foster and family members were too distraught to talk. Investigators were not allowed to interview her until yesterday. "That was a matter between her lawyers and the police," [White House spokesman David] Gergen said, and the White House "had no role in it."

The article is still up online, and you can read it here.  I write about all of it in the first installment of “America’s Dreyfus Affair: The Case of the Death of Vincent Foster.” Not only was Gergen lying about the police being turned away from the Foster house that night, butIsikoff and the folks at The Post had to have known that it was a lie.  It came to light about a year later when the Park Police testified before a Senate committee that they were not only not turned away, but they interviewed Lisa and other family members at length, and The Post’s reporter, Walter Pincus, had written much earlier that he was also at the Foster house that night, while neglecting to mention that the police were also there.

Isikoff was later treated as something of a white knight by the press for leaking the Monica Lewinsky story to the up-and-coming Matt Drudge when his then Newsweek bosses supposedly wouldn’t let him publish it in the magazine.  In reality, what was going on was that the Lewinsky story was being hyped as a distraction away from the Foster case, while Drudge was built up as a legitimate source of alternative news.  As a bonus, Starr was made to appear to be a conservative zealot out to get the Clintons so that when his drawn-out whitewash of the Foster murder was eventually published, it would be more readily believed.  “Even Kenneth Starr concluded that it was a suicide.”

But what kind of court of law would even take seriously an article in the press, especially one in Yahoo News?  How about one that includes a judge who was an active participant in the Foster cover-up?  We are talking about John D. Bates, one of two members of Kenneth Starr’s team whom President George W. Bush appointed as federal judges.  The other was Brett Kavanaugh, who took over as lead investigator for the conscience smitten Miguel Rodriguez, who resigned in disgust. One can’t help but believe that the primary qualification for the federal bench that both men exhibited was that they had shown that they would go along with the cover-up of a crime of the most heinous sort.  In 2006, Chief Justice John Roberts appointed Bates to be a member of the FISA court.  That is not to say that he was responsible for allowing the surveillance of Carter Page, heavily based upon a spurious dossier and a news report, but with him as an example, we see what sort of people are likely to be making such decisions.

David Corn

David Corn played a far less prominent role in the Foster-case cover-up than did Isikoff, but it was in my covering of the case that I first encountered him.  I explain it in my article, “How to Become a ‘Made Man’ in the Media,’ in which Corn plays one of the two title characters:

I first became aware of Corn when we both attended a press conference in Washington, DC, in the spring of 1995 in which Christopher Ruddy announced the findings of three investigators that tended to support Ruddy’s theory that Foster had not died at the place where the body had been found.  Ruddy’s loudest and most aggressive antagonist at that news conference was Corn, then working for The Nation magazine.  

I have since come to realize that the scene I witnessed there was nothing more than a show, with Ruddy playing the rightist and Corn the leftist.  The “investigation” that Ruddy was touting, I have since figured out, was little more than a charade, as I explain briefly in the recent article, “Latest Foster Cover-Up Book Not Completely Worthless.”  Corn’s objections, as I recall, did not address the real weaknesses in what Ruddy was reporting, but simply amounted to the usual “conspiracy theory” denunciation. 

Corn has continued to play his role of leftist Clinton-couple defender, as we see in his Mother Jones article of a year ago, “Here Come the Crazy Clinton Conspiracies of the 1990s.”

Actually, at that 1995 press conference, Ruddyborn in 1965, was more at the stage of his career for the spook-vetting process than was Corn.  Corn was already 36 years old and had written the book Blond Ghost: Ted Shackley and the CIA’s Crusades.  Kevin Barrett’s assessment of Corn and that book is summed up in this passage:

Corn is obviously CIA all the way—otherwise why would he cover up Shackley’s connection to the JFK assassination? Why would he write an exhaustive “biography” of Shackley that omitted Shackley’s extensive links to CIA drug running? And most important of all, why would Corn be working overtime against 9/11 truth?

I had long since arrived at a similar evaluation of Corn, as we can see in my 1998 article, “Rotten Goulden/Corn,” in which I pair him with the obvious CIA journalist, Joseph Goulden.  In sum, if there is any such thing as a journalist who works for the CIA—and if there has ever been any such thing as Operation Mockingbird—then surely Corn is one of them.

A further indication of the fact that Isikoff and Corn work for the same central employer of journalists is that they even collaborated on a book, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War.  Reading this customer review of the book by one R. Heubel, one gathers that it is as phony as the New York Times review of it:

I see this is a best-selling book by two prominent journalists. It is shocking, then, that there is no mention in the book of either the "Downing Street Memo" from July 2002 which documents the fact that Bush, at least as far back is middle of 2002 (and many contend even earlier - when the Bushies came into office in January 2001 - wanting war with Iraq), had decided to go to war with the small details like the "cause" or "justification" for the war to be left up to the spin-meisters and Karl Rove.

Neither is the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) mentioned in the book. The PNAC is the Neo-Con, war-mongering think-tank which had advocated war with Iraq as far back as 1997-98.

It is sad that the Mainstream Media and the journalistic establishment have almost completely ignored the Downing Street Memo and the Project for a New American Century in their coverage and analysis of the Iraq war and the Bush administration. An even better book in this regard is 
Armed Madhouse: From Baghdad to New Orleans--Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone Wild [by Greg Palast].

FBI Cover-Up

One other important player in the cover-up of the Foster murder is on display in the Nunes memo, and that is the FBI itself.  The story that the fake conservative critic, Christopher Ruddy, pedaled, and the one that you see on display in the first two of a three-video collection here, is that the FBI was kept out of the Foster investigation and that the Park Police bungled it because of their incompetence.  The title of the third video, though, says it all, “The Vince Foster Cover-up: The FBI and the Press.” That video is showcased at,where one will discover that the same FBI agents were involved in every so-called “investigation,” from the one by the Park Police, right through those by Robert Fiske and Kenneth Starr.  It was an FBI cover-up all the way, abetted by the press, not unlike countless scandals before and since, from the JFK assassination to TWA 800 to 9/11 to the Boston Marathon bombing, and on and on.  One might just as well call cover-ups of the malfeasance of the Deep State the primary function of the FBI.  We should hardly be surprised, then, to find them up to their eyeballs in the latest high-level rottenness.  The only surprising thing is that someone in the Congress has shown the backbone to begin to call them out over it.  It also makes one wonder whether Isikoff and Corn are working for the CIA or the FBI, or if it matters.

David Martin
February 5, 2018


Another media/Deep State figure involved at the ground floors of the Foster cover-up has emerged in the wake of a criminal referral related to the FISA-warrant scandal by Senators Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham.  According to Grassley and Graham, someone connected to the U.S. State Department was involved in the supplying of spurious Russia-connected information on Trump.  After Rep. Trey Gowdy characterized the person to Martha MacCallum of Fox News, MacCallum guessed, “Sidney Blumenthal?”

“That’d be really warm.  You’re warm.  Yeah,” responded Gowdy

According to Judicial WatchBlumenthatl is also connected to a second dubious dossier that repeats many of the unverified claims in the Steele dossier.

A good summation of Blumenthal’s role in the Foster cover-up, and much more, is to be found in my 2015 article, “Sidney Blumenthal, Vince Foster, and the Deep State.”  Here is an excerpt:

[As Washington correspondent for The New Yorker], Blumenthal did not write critically of the Clinton scandals, but he did indeed report on perhaps the biggest controversy of all, if his writing on the matter can properly be called reporting.  It was that writing, in fact, that first brought him to my attention.  The following passage is from my first installment of “America’s Dreyfus Affair: The Case of the Death of Vincent Foster”: 

[Walter] Pincus's theme of [Vincent] Foster as fragile victim of the merciless press was picked up on by Sidney Blumenthal in his August 9 [1993] New Yorker article: 
Foster sought perspective through a number of conversations with Walter Pincus, a reporter for the Washington Post, whose wife is from Little Rock. "He couldn't understand why the press was the way it was," Pincus said. "It was a sense that people would print something that was wrong, and that other people would repeat it. I'd say, 'Youcan't let the press get your goat; you have to go on. This is how the game is played.' He'd say, 'Fine.' " 

The article is titled simply “The Suicide,” and it can most fairly be described as a very vigorous sales job for the notion that Deputy White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr. committed suicide because this experienced courtroom litigator couldn’t take the public scrutiny of his new job in Washington.  While masquerading as an objective journalist, Blumenthal, it is clear, was already doing the work for which he would be openly paid within the year when he went to work for the White House; he was acting as a shill for the Clintons.

Foster’s body had been discovered at an obscure Civil War relic named Fort Marcy Park off the George Washington Parkway on the Virginia side of the Potomac River late in the day on July 20.  The nearest federal facility to it is the CIA headquarters complex perhaps a mile away as the crow flies, a fact never mentioned in the press.  I had lived in Fairfax County, where the park is located, since 1982 and I had never heard of it.  Foster, who had only been in town a few months living in Georgetown, had reported for work as usual on that Tuesday and was reported to have had a cheeseburger for lunch at his desk.  Then, according to the known narrative at the time, he had left the office and wasn’t seen again until his body was discovered around 6 pm in a remote spot in this remote park that there was no record of his having previously visited.

It is quite obvious that Blumenthal hadn’t bothered to check out the park and the unlikely spot where they tell us Foster chose to blow his brains out with an untraceable nondescript .38 caliber revolver made up of the parts of two guns, because he wrote in his New Yorker piece that the park overlooks the Potomac River.  It does not.  It’s somewhat near the river, but you can’t see it from there.  Chain Bridge Road runs between the park and the river, and you can’t see the river from that road either until you get near to the Potomac-crossing bridge that gives the road its name, a bit further to the south.

It would appear that practically the entire stable of Deep State media hacks who served the Clintons so well in the past have been trotted out in the effort to bring down Donald Trump.

David Martin
February 7, 2018

Dr. Eowyn: Address Book on Anthony Weiner's laptop includes George Soros, the Rothschilds, journalists and professors

Somebody, likely a “white hat” in the FBI, leaked the address book in the laptop computer of Anthony Weiner, aka Carlos Danger — former NY Democrat Congressman, convicted pedophile, and husband of Hillary’s closest aide Huma Abedin.

The FBI had confiscated Weiner’s laptop in a raid in September 2016, while investigating Weiner’s sexting to an underage girl, for which he was convicted and sentenced to 21 months in Federal Medical Center, Ayer, Massachusetts.

Four days ago, on Feb. 6, the address book of 639 names and their addresses and phone numbers was uploaded to Sqawker.

Included in the list are:
  • George Soros.
  • Lynn de Rothschild, the CEO of E.L. Rothschild, a holding company she owns with her third husband, Sir Evelyn Robert de Rothschild, a member of the very powerful Rothschild family.
  • Republican Party consultant Roger Stone.
Note that both Soros and Rothschild are buddies of Hillary Clinton:
As you would expect, since Anthony Weiner is Jewish, there are innumerable Jewish names among the 639.

Know thy enemies: I’ve sorted Weiner’s 639 contacts into 3 groups. Many individuals have overlapping roles, as in the case of academics who go in and out of government, and former government officials becoming academics.

Note that Weiner alphabetized his address book by his contacts’ first name, instead of their last name.

(1) Media: journalists, FILM makers, publishers, Actors

  1. Adam Gopnick, The New Yorker.
  2. Alan Rusbridger, The Guardian.
  3. Alex Gibney, documentary film-maker and owner of Jigsaw Productions.
  4. Allison Silver, New York Times.
  5. Ann Pincus, Center for Public Integrity, a non-profit investigative journalism organization.
  6. Anthony Barnett, Open Democracy.
  7. Anthony Lewis, journalist (d. 2013).
  8. Ariana Huffington, co-founder and editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post.
  9. Arnaud de Borchgrave: This one is a shocker. Arnaud de Borchgrave is a neo-conservative journalist, former editor-in-chief of The Washington Times, and a founding member of NewsMax.
  10. Bill Murray, Public Affairs TV.
  11. Bill Richardson, Public Affairs TV.
  12. Brad Whitford, West Wing actor.
  13. Brant Janeway, Penguin Group.
  14. Caroline Marks, The Daily Beast.
  15. Celestine Bohlen, Bloomberg.
  16. Christiane Amanpour, journalist.
  17. Christoper Dickey, Newsweek and Daily Beast.
  18. Chrstine Ockrent, Belgian journalist.
  19. Dan Rather, former CBS anchorman.
  20. Danielle Mattoon, New York Times.
  21. David Brock, Media Matters.
  22. David Carr, New York Times.
  23. David Rosenthal, Simon & Schuster publishing co.
  24. David Talbot,
  25. Desiree Adib, Air America Radio.
  26. Dotty Lynch, CBS News.
  27. Doug Page, Chicago Tribune.
  28. Ed Vulliamy, Observer.
  29. Edward Felsenthal, Daily Beast.
  30. Eleanor Randolph, New York Times.
  31. Elisabeth Sifton, HuffPo, former senior VP of Farrar Straus and Giroux publisher.
  32. Eric Bates, Rolling Stone.
  33. Eugene Robinson, Washington Post.
  34. Evan Smith, Texas Monthly.
  35. Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek.
  36. Frank Mankiewicz, National Public Radio.
  37. Frank Rich, New York Times.
  38. Garry Trudeau, political cartoonist.
  39. Garry Wills, journalist/author.
  40. Gary Kamiya,
  41. George Packer, The New Yorker.
  42. Greta Van Sustren, Fox News.
  43. Hamilton Fish, The New Republic.
  44. Harry Thomason, Hollywood TV-film producer-director.
  45. Henry Louis Gates, PBS, Harvard U. professor.
  46. Isabel Hilton, journalist, Open Democracy.
  47. Jacob Weisberg, Slate.
  48. Jake Tapper, CNN.
  49. James Fallows, The Atlantic.
  50. James Harding, Financial Times and former BBC.
  51. James Pinkerton, Financial Times.
  52. Jane Mayer, New Yorker.
  53. Jann Wenner, Rolling Stone.
  54. Jeff Seroy, Farrar Straus and Giroux publisher.
  55. Jeffrey Toobin, New Yorker.
  56. Jim Naughtie, BBC.
  57. Jon Lovett, Hollywood producer and screen writer.
  58. Jonathan Larsen, Air America Radio.
  59. Judy Blodgett, Discovery CEO.
  60. Julian Borger, The Guardian.
  61. Julie Sender, Balcony Films.
  62. Katrina Vanden Huevel, The Nation.
  63. Ken Slotnick, Florentine Films (makes documentaries for PBS).
  64. Kerry Lauerman, Salon.
  65. Lally Weymouth, Washington Post.
  66. Laura McClure, Salon.
  67. Lisa Chamberlain, Financial Times.
  68. Lucy Carrigan, Air America Radio.
  69. Lynn Sweet, Chicago Sun Times.
  70. Martin Kettle, The Guardian.
  71. Mike Allen, Time magazine.
  72. Narda Zacchino, San Francisco Chronicle.
  73. Nick Goldberg, Los Angeles Times.
  74. Paul Glastris, Washington Monthly.
  75. Richard Cohen, Washington Post.
  76. Richard French, RNN TV.
  77. Rick Berke, New York Times.
  78. Robert Cohen, New York Times.
  79. Ryan Lizza, New Yorker.
  80. Scott Turow, novelist.
  81. Tom Baldwin, The Times.
  82. Tom Edsall, National Journal.
  83. Walter Pincus, Washington Post.

(2) Academics, intellectuals, and think tanks

  1. Andras Hamori, Carnegie Endowment.
  2. Andrew & Leslie Cockburn, Army War College.
  3. Arturo Valenzuela, rabbi, Duke University (and former assistant secretary of state for Western hemisphere affairs in the Obama administration).
  4. Becky Gardner, The Guardian.
  5. Ben Gerson, Harvard Business Review.
  6. Benjamin Haas, Harvard Business Review.
  7. Bill Schneider,
  8. Caroline Heldman, Occidental College.
  9. Cass Sunstein, Harvard Law School, Obama’s administrator of White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
  10. Charles Tiefer, U. of Baltimore.
  11. Charlie Kupchan, Council on Foreign Relations.
  12. Dan Freifeld, NYU.
  13. David Greenberg, Rutgers U.
  14. David Lesch, Trinity U.
  15. Derek Shearer, Occidental College.
  16. Douglas Brinkley, Rice U.
  17. EJ Dionne, Brookings Institute.
  18. Elaine Kamarck, Harvard U.
  19. Gayle Smith, American Academy in Berlin.
  20. James Galbraith, U. of Texas.
  21. Robert Riech, U.C. Berkeley, Bill Clinton’s former Secretary of Labor.
  22. Gary Sick, Columbia U.
  23. Geoffrey Cowan, U. of Southern California.
  24. George Weidenfeld, Orion Books.
  25. Jack Bass, College of Charleston.
  26. Janet Napolitano, president of U. of California, Obama’s secretary of Homeland Security.
  27. Jessica Stern, Harvard U.
  28. Jim Steinberg, U. of Texas.
  29. John Sifton, Human Rights Watch, One World Research.
  30. Joseph Stiglitz, Columbia U
  31. Juan Cole, U. of Michigan.
  32. Lari Martinez, Florida International U.
  33. Larry Diamond, Stanford U.
  34. Laura Tyson, U.C. Berkeley, chair of Bill Clinton’s White House Council of Economic Advise
  35. Martha Camp, Princeton U.
  36. Michael Janeway, Columbia U.
  37. Michael Sheehan, NYU.
  38. Michael Vachon, Soros Fund Management.
  39. Michael Waldman, NYU.
  40. Paul Krugman, Princeton U.
  41. Peter Beinart, City U. of New York.
  42. Peter Singer, Princeton U.
  43. Peter Steinfels, Fordham U.
  44. Philip Bobbitt, U. of Texas.
  45. Ralph Whitehead, U. of Massachusetts.
  46. Richard Parker, Harvard U.
  47. Robert Pape, U. of Chicago.
  48. Robert Scheer, U. of Southern California.
  49. Robert Jay Lifton, psychiatrist and notable author.
  50. Ron Steel, U. of Southern California.
  51. Sarah Chase, Harvard U.
  52. Sean Wilentz, Princeton U.
  53. Sheldon Hackney, U. of Pennsylvania.
  54. Stephen Holmes, New York U.
  55. Stephen Schlesinger
  56. Ted Widmer, Brown U.
  57. Timothy Garton Ash, Oxford U.
  58. Todd Gitlin, Columbia U.
  59. Tom Frank, U. of Chicago.

(3) Clinton and Democrat Party operatives

  1. Andrew Shapiro, Senator Hillary Clinton.
  2. Ben Jones, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
  3. Bruce Lindsey, Bill Clinton’s White House assistant, current chair of the Clinton Foundation.
  4. Bill Gates (unnamed assistant of).
  5. Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, member of Ford Foundation board of trustees.
  6. Cheryl Mills, secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff.
  7. David McKean, secretary of state John Kerry’s assistant, former U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg (2016-2017).
  8. Deborah de Shong, DNC.
  9. Denis McDonough, Obama’s White House chief of staff.
  10. Doug Band, Bill Clinton’s White House deputy assistant and counselor.
  11. Ed Miliband, leader of UK’s Labour Party.
  12. Ellen Chesler, Soros NY.
  13. Gara LaMarche, Democracy Alliance, former VP of Soros’ Open Society.
  14. Gary Hart, former US senator, McGovern’s VP running mate, Obama’s US special envoy for Northern Ireland.
  15. Harold Ickes, Bill Clinton’s White House deputy chief of staff.
  16. Henry Waxman, former Congressman.
  17. Hillary Clinton.
  18. Howard Wolfson, Democratic Party political strategist.
  19. Huma Abedin.
  20. James Carville.
  21. James Rubin, Bill Clinton’s assistant secretary of state.
  22. Jason Miner, DNC.
  23. John Podesta.
  24. John Rich, World Nuclear Association, founded in 2001 on the basis of the Uranium Institute.
  25. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, chair of American Bridge, non-profit that raises funds for Democrat Party.
  26. Lanny Davis, Bill Clinton’s White House special counsel.
  27. Laura Graham, COO of Clinton Foundation.
  28. Lynn de Rothschild.
  29. Marc Dunkelman, Clinton Foundation.
  30. Mickey Cantor, Bill Clinton’s secretary of commerce.
  31. Paul Begala, Bill Clinton’s adviser.
  32. Philippe Reines, Sen. Hillary Clinton’s senior adviser in Obama State Dept.
  33. Richard Blumenthal, US senator.
  34. Richard Holbrooke, Obama’s special envoy, Bill Clinton’s UN ambassador.
  35. Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton’s treasury secretary, current chair of Council on Foreign Relations.
  36. Sarah Hurwitz, speech writer for Michele Obama, Hillary Clinton and other prominent Demonrats.
  37. Soros.
  38. Stephanie Streett, Clinton Foundation.
  39. Steve McMahon, Democratic media consultant.
  40. Susan McCue, worked for Sen. Harry Reid.
  41. Tamera Luzzato, former chief of staff to Senator Hillary Clinton, now Pew Charitable Trust’s senior vice president of governmental relations.
  42. Terry McAuliffe, Gov. of Virginia.
  43. Tony Blinken, Obama’s deputy secretary of state.
  44. Wes Boyd,