Friday 25th of May 2018

a special counsel to oversee the allegation Russia interfered with the US prez elections will come up with a fat zero...


Besieged from all sides, the Trump administration appointed former FBI director Robert Mueller as a special counsel to oversee the federal investigation into allegations Russia and Donald Trump's campaign collaborated to influence the 2016 presidential election.

The appointment came as Democrats insisted ever more loudly that someone outside Mr Trump's Justice Department must handle the politically charged investigation.

An increasing number of Republicans, too, have joined in calling for Congress to dig deeper, especially after Mr Trump fired FBI director James Comey who had been leading the bureau's probe.

"My decision [to appoint a special counsel] is not the finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination," Deputy Attorney-General Rod Rosenstein said in a statement.

read more:


transcripts are available...

Russian President Vladimir Putin has offered to provide a record of US President Donald Trump's meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, in which it is alleged the President revealed classified information.

Key points:
  • Mr Putin says Russia is ready to hand a transcript of Mr Trump's meeting to officials
  • US officials said on Monday Mr Trump had disclosed classified information to Russia
  • Israeli officials declined to say whether they are the source of information Mr Trump shared

At a press conference alongside Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni, Mr Putin referred to "political schizophrenia" in the US and laughed off allegations that Mr Trump revealed classified information to Mr Lavrov.

But he said Russia was able to provide a "record" of the conversation.

A Kremlin aide, Yuri Ushakov, later said Moscow had in its possession a written record of the conversation, not an audio recording.

Mr Putin said Mr Trump was not being allowed to do his job properly.

"It's hard to imagine what else can these people who generate such nonsense and rubbish dream up next," Mr Putin said.

read more:

the blue pill...

In an extraordinary moment this week, Russian leader Vladimir Putin offered Washington a challenge to discover the truth over sensational US media claims that President Trump had leaked top-secret information to Russia. Washington rebuffed Putin’s offer.

It was akin to the iconic scene in the sci-fi movie, The Matrix, in which protagonists are offered a red or blue pill. Consuming the former leads them to awaken to the truth, however painful that awakening might be from shattering erstwhile illusions. Ingesting the alternative blue pill allows one to continue in a state of illusion, albeit in the form of slavery to The Matrix.

The US media this week went into overdrive with claims that President Donald Trump disclosed highly classified information during his meeting last week in the White House with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Those claims of Trump talking about highly sensitive intelligence on the Islamic State terror group in Syria were rejected by the White House and separately by the Kremlin.

Trump’s top National Security Adviser General H.R. McMaster has since repeatedly denied US media reports of Trump’s alleged indiscretion in front of his Russian guests. McMaster called them “false.”

read more:

a crisis of its own making...

America is in crisis. It is a crisis of greater magnitude than any the country has faced in its history, with the exception of the Civil War. It is a crisis long in the making—and likely to be with us long into the future. It is a crisis so thoroughly rooted in the American polity that it’s difficult to see how it can be resolved in any kind of smooth or even peaceful way. Looking to the future from this particular point in time, just about every possible course of action appears certain to deepen the crisis.

What is it? Some believe it stems specifically from the election of Donald Trump, a man supremely unfit for the presidency, and will abate when he can be removed from office. These people are right about one thing: Trump is supremely unfit for his White House job. But that isn’t the central crisis; it is merely a symptom of it, though it seems increasingly to be reaching crisis proportions of its own.

When a man as uncouth and reckless as Trump becomes president by running against the nation’s elites, it’s a strong signal that the elites are the problem. We’re talking here about the elites of both parties. Think of those who gave the country Hillary Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee—a woman who sought to avoid accountability as secretary of state by employing a private email server, contrary to propriety and good sense; who attached herself to a vast nonprofit “good works” institution that actually was a corrupt political machine designed to get the Clintons back into the White House while making them rich; who ran for president, and almost won, without addressing the fundamental problems of the nation and while denigrating large numbers of frustrated and beleaguered Americans as “deplorables.” The unseemliness in all this was out in plain sight for everyone to see, and yet Democratic elites blithely went about the task of awarding her the nomination, even to the point of employing underhanded techniques to thwart an upstart challenger who was connecting more effectively with Democratic voters.

At least Republican elites resisted the emergence of Trump for as long as they could. Some even attacked him vociferously. But, unlike in the Democratic Party, the Republican candidate who most effectively captured the underlying sentiment of GOP voters ended up with the nomination. The Republican elites had to give way. Why? Because Republican voters fundamentally favor vulgar, ill-mannered, tawdry politicians? No, because the elite-generated society of America had become so bad in their view that they turned to the man who most clamorously rebelled against it.

The crisis of the elites could be seen everywhere. Take immigration policy. Leave aside for purposes of discussion the debate on the merits of the issue—whether mass immigration is good for America or whether it reaches a point of economic diminishing returns and threatens to erode America’s underlying culture. Whatever the merits on either side of that debate, mass immigration, accepted and even fostered by the nation’s elites, has driven a powerful wedge through America. Couldn’t those elites see that this would happen? Did they care so little about the polity over which they held stewardship that their petty political prejudices were more important than the civic health of their nation?

So now we have some 11 million illegal immigrants in America, a rebuke to territorial sovereignty and to the rule of law upon which our nation was founded, with no reasonable solution—and generating an abundance of political tension. Beyond that, we have fostered an immigration policy that now has foreign-born people in America approaching 14 percent—a proportion unprecedented in American history except for the 1920s, the last time a backlash against mass immigration resulted in curtailment legislation.

And yet the elites never considered the importance to the country’s civic health of questions related to assimilation—what’s an appropriate inflow for smooth absorption. Some even equated those who raised such questions to racists and xenophobes. Meanwhile, we have “sanctuary cities” throughout Blue State America that are refusing to cooperate with federal officials seeking to enforce the immigration laws—the closest we have come as a nation to “nullification” since the actual nullification crisis of the 1830s, when South Carolina declared its right to ignore federal legislation it didn’t like. (Andrew Jackson scotched the movement by threatening to hang from the nearest tree anyone involved in violence stemming from the crisis.)


read more:

his defeat of the blonde bimbo meant civil war...


President Donald Trump says the decision to appoint a special counsel to oversee the inquiry into Russian influence on his election "hurts our country terribly".

He said the US was being made to look "divided, mixed up", media reported.

Earlier, he tweeted that the decision was "the single greatest witch hunt of a politician in American history".

Former FBI director Robert Mueller has been selected to lead the inquiry.

"I believe it hurts our country terribly, because it shows we're a divided, mixed-up, not-unified country," Mr Trump told CNN and CNBC.

read more:


From the day he defeated Hillary Clinton, Trump was going to be the anti-Christ. Most of the media (the MMMM -- the Mediocre Mass Media de Mierda -- minus the MMMMM -- the Murdoch Mediocre Mass Media de Mierda) plus the various elites from Washington swamps to the Hollywood hills, plus the career politicians, plus the majority of the people would feel obliged to attack The Donald because he defeated their blonde bimbo. 

He has supporters, nonetheless. So how is this going to play out? Trying to prove that Russia interfered in the US Presidential elections is fraught with so many pitfalls, holes and impossible dreams that no-one in their right mind would go there. The first thing to consider is HOW would the Russians be able to manufacture a victory for Donald Trump? Basically impossible. Not even with propaganda, as the US did with using George Soros in Ukraine plus adding about US$5 billion to finance the "revolution".

Whether Putin preferred Trump to Clinton is irrelevant considering that 90 per cent of the US psyche has been primed to hate the Russians. 

Below the plimsol line, in the murky waters, laid the former Australian -- Mr Murdoch. Here is a master manipulator of minds, simple minds. If you want to find a culprit for the defeat of Hillary, the Princess Warrior, do not go further than the Murdoch media empire. Forget the Ruskies. Murdoch could manipulate the mind of people with simplistic images 100 times more powerful than 1000 words editorials in the NYT, the WP and all the Liberal media combined.

The trick, as usual for Mr Murdoch, is not to convince all the people, but to convince some of the people in key numbers. And please don't be fools. Even in the DNC, there are enough dumb strategists to fall for the trick learnt from the dog of a man whose uncle knew someone who was the descendant of the Roman who had an affair with Jesus Christ's sister.

I don't think that Uncle Rupe expected so much venom from the defeated, who claim to be the saviours of the whatever sacred text of the US Constitution which they themselves have disregarded in the past. In this regard, I think that Uncle Rupe is playing it cool, until the dirt subsides into the mud... But it's taking a long time as the mad crowds are maddening some more, stirred by the "liberal" media (MMMM).

The Evangelical Christians had no choice but to vote for Trump, despite no liking him. And here lies another quandary for the bleeding hearts. 

Pursuing the "Russian" angle of Trump's victory can only show that the US is admitting it is weak and opened to foreign manipulation and that the average Russians are cleverer than the best intellectual US mind. It's convenient though. This focus on the Russians is designed to unite the American people to believe that they did not shoot themselves in the foot -- which they did. 

When the "Russian" probe prove fruitless, more anti-Russian sentiment will have to be stirred by the "liberal thinking mobs" in order to prevent any NAVEL GAZING that would show the rot came from within the US... See:


a crisis of its own making... above...



no collusion between his trump's campaign and Russia...


WASHINGTON — President Trump insisted on Thursday that there was no collusion between his presidential campaign and Russian officials.

Mr. Trump, speaking in the East Room of the White House, said he respected the appointment of a special counsel to investigate ties with Russia.

“But the entire thing has been a witch hunt,” he said. “And there is no collusion between, certainly, myself and my campaign — but I can always speak for myself — and the Russians.”

The president also said the questions surrounding his campaign and Russia were divisive.

“I think it divides the country,” Mr. Trump said. “I think we have a very divided country because of that and many other things.”

The president then pivoted to listing what he called the achievements of his administration, from creating jobs to restoring America’s standing in the world, and noted he was embarking Friday on the trip to the Middle East.

Read more:


On this score, Trump will be proven correct: there was no collusion between his presidential campaign and Russian officials. But the bleeding hearts will still push the Russian angle because "Russia is the enemy"...

read his defeat of the blonde bimbo meant civil war...


the CIA is far more dangerous than trump...


Back in my time in the CIA, there were two places in the headquarters building one could go that were free speech zones—places where it was safe to vent about senior management without necessarily being admonished or even reported. They were the Historical Intelligence Collection room off the library, where no one ever went to look at the books, and the office supplies storage room in the basement. The supplies room had a lot of dark corners and concealing shelves where it was possible to be anonymous and it was completely unsupervised in the belief that true-blue CIA officers would never stoop to taking even a single pencil more than was actually needed to get the job done.

I don’t know if those rooms still exist, but I sometimes think of them when the subject of government conspiracies come up. I have this vision of two or three conspirators huddled in the corner behind the staplers back in 1975 discussing how one would go about eliminating the likes of Senator Frank Church, who at that time was heading a major congressional investigation into CIA improprieties.

If there had been such a gathering, I would imagine that the Washington Postwould have found out about it on the next day as intelligence officers are gregarious and like to talk. This has been my principal problem with the debate in some quarters about the 9/11 Commission. Their report did indeed miss many important angles in order to protect certain governmental interests, but if there had been a genuine conspiracy involving what must have been hundreds of people to demolish the Twin Towers with explosives, it surely would have leaked long ago.

Two months ago, I would have dismissed as fantasy any thoughts of a conspiracy based in America’s national security agencies to bring down Donald Trump. But now I am not so sure. Many of my friends who are former intelligence officers are increasingly asking questions. It is worth pointing out that none of us are fans of what the White House has been doing and saying—quite the contrary. Still, alerting the country to concerns over what might be a developing soft coup orchestrated by the intelligence and law-enforcement agencies to nullify the results of a national election in no way equates to trying to protect Donald Trump and his uncouth and ill-informed behavior. It is rather a defense of the Constitution.

Donald Trump said on Wednesday that “This is the single greatest witch hunt of a politician in American history!” He might be right. He was referring to Deputy Attorney General Rob Rosenstein’s appointment of the highly-respected Robert Mueller as independent counsel to investigate “any links and/or coordination between Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump, and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.”

Trump’s bombast puts everyone but his most tone-deaf supporters on edge, but there are two points that he has been making repeatedly that are essential to any understanding of what is going on. First, the investigation into Russia and the Trumpsters has been a high priority at FBI and also in Congress for nearly a year. Yet so far no one has produced evidence that anyone broke any law or even that someone did something wrong. Second, and more importantly, the vilification of Trump and Russia has been driven by a series of leaks that come from the very top of the national security apparatus, leaks that appear not to have been seriously investigated.

This involvement of FBI and CIA in the campaign, whether inadvertently or by design, was particularly evident in the various reports that surfaced and were leaked to the press during the campaign and right up to the inauguration. The leaks of that type of information, to include technical intelligence and Special Access Program “codeword” material, require top-level access as well as the ability to arrange clandestine contacts with major players in the media, something far beyond the reach of most employees at CIA or the FBI.

Similar leaks have been appearing since that time. I confess to finding Monday’s detailed account of what President Trump discussed with Russian Ambassador Sergey Lavrov, which included corroborating material that likely did more damage than the information that was actually shared, highly suggestive of the possibility that something like a conspiracy is, in fact, functioning. Given the really tight-security control of that transcript after it was determined that it contained sensitive information, one might reasonably assume that the leaks to the media came directly out of Donald Trump’s own National Security Council or from the highest levels of the office of the DNI, CIA, or FBI.

Yesterday, the anonymous sources struck again, revealing that “Michael Flynn and other advisers to Donald Trump’s campaign were in contact with Russian officials and others with Kremlin ties in at least 18 calls and emails during the last seven months of the 2016 presidential race.” That sort of information had to come from the top level of the FBI and would have been accessible to only a few, but even though the leaks of what constitutes highly-classified information have been recurring for many months, no one has been fired or arrested.

The emphasis on Russia derives from the government and media consensus that Moscow was behind the hacking of Democratic National Committee (DNC) computers that led to the exposure of what the DNC was doing to destroy the candidacy of Bernie Sanders. There is also a related consensus that the Russian hacking was intended to damage American democracy and also to help the Trump campaign, a narrative that the president has described as a “made-up thing,” a view that I share. All of these assertions are regarded as unquestionably true as measured by inside-the-beltway groupthink, with even the White House now conceding that there was Russian interference in the election.

Sometimes the hysteria over Russia produces over-the-top stories in the mainstream media, including last week’s completely speculative piece wondering whether the entourage of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had sought to sneak a recording device into the White House during his White House visit. It was the type of tale that might have been inspired by a leak from someone in the National Security Council who personally observed the context of the meeting and was able to provide corroborating details.

Nevertheless, in spite of the overwhelming groupthink, it has been repeated ad nauseam by people like myself that no actual evidence has been produced to support any of the claims being made about Russia and Trump. There is more evidence that the White House was penetrated by Ankara—through the good services of Michael Flynn—than by Moscow, but Congress has not called for an investigation into Turkey’s lobbying. Ray McGovern, a former senior CIA analyst, is even speculating that the Agency might have been the actual hacker into the DNC, leaving a trail behind that would have suggested that it was done by the Russians. His concern arises from the recent WikiLeaks revelation that the CIA had developed cyberwarfare capabilities to do just that.

McGovern, like myself, is also asking why former CIA Director John Brennan has not been summoned by the Senate Committee looking into Russia-gate. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has testified twice, while former FBI Director James Comey, current NSA Director Mike Rogers, and former Justice Department senior official Sally Yates have all appeared once. Brennan’s absence is conspicuous as he was the senior national security official most closely tied to the Obama Administration, may have had the tools at hand to fake the Russian connection, and has also been plausibly linked to “encouraging” British Intelligence to provide damaging information on Michael Flynn.

I now suspect that there is indeed a group at the top of the U.S. national security system that wants to remove Donald Trump and has wanted to do so for quite some time. If that is true, I believe that they have been operating with that goal in mind for at least the past year. It is not a traditional conspiracy or cabal in that it does not meet and conspire together, but I suspect the members know what they are doing in a general sense and are intervening whenever they can to keep Trump off balance. Their program is simple: convince the nation that the president and his team colluded with the Russians to rig the 2016 election in his favor, which, if demonstrable even if not necessarily true, would provide grounds for impeachment. They are motivated by the belief that removing Trump must be done “for the good of the country” and they are willing to do what they consider correcting a mistake made by the American voters. They are assisted in their effort by the mainstream media, which agrees with both the methods employed and the overall objective and is completely on board with the process.

Saving the country from Trump is certainly an attractive notion. I suspect the Comeys, Clappers, and Brennans, together with a host of former senior officers who appear regularly on television, if they were involved, see themselves as great patriots. But they must understand that the blunt instrument they are using is far more dangerous than the current occupant of the White House. A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more threatening to our democracy than anything Donald Trump or even the Russians can do.

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.


apparently, pokémon was the trojan horse...

In a report as explosive as a Golem using Self Destruct, CNN has accused Russian agents of using Pokémon Go to “exploit racial tensions and sow discord among Americans.” The only issue with their allegations is that they’re about as flawed and wishy-washy as one of Team Rocket’s myriad plans to capture Pikachu.

On Thursday, CNN published an article entitled "Even Pokémon Go used by extensive Russian-linked meddling effort" by Donie O'Sullivan and Dylan Byers.

"Don't Shoot Us," an organization whose website claims its purpose is to "improve the situation in the US and the lives of its citizens" by posting "recent videos of outrageous police misconducts," is the target of the latest CNN Hex Maniac hunt. Supposedly, Don't Shoot Us capitalized on the Pokémania of summer 2016 by encouraging players to use the game to spread awareness of police brutality.

The campaign was pretty simple. Pokémon Go has "gyms," locations where players can battle their Pokémon and receive in-game rewards for victory. Don't Shoot Us encouraged players to claim gyms close to police crime scenes with Pokémon bearing nicknames of "US police brutality victims." Then screenshot it, email it to Don't Shoot Us, and become eligible for an Amazon Gift Card.

If this was an attempt at election interference, it was a pretty shoddy one. For starters, players cannot see the nicknames other players give their Pokémon. Secondly, Pokémon Go has virtually no social features, so the screenshots couldn't even be shared in-game. CNN also admitted that they had no evidence anyone actually entered the contest.

read more:

putin had nothing to do with it. uncle rupe did...


Mr Trump said Mr Putin had reiterated that he did not meddle in last year's US presidential elections, which brought Mr Trump to the White House.

"He says he didn't meddle. I asked him again. You can only ask so many times," Mr Trump said.

"Every time he sees me, he said: 'I didn't do that.' And I believe, I really believe that when he tells me that he means it."


read more:


Read from top...


a big fat zero...

MOSCOW (Sputnik) - US President Donald Trump on Friday bashed the Justice Department for appointing a special counsel to probe claims of his collusion with Russia after a year-long inquiry by a House committee found no proof.

"House Intelligence Committee rules that there was NO COLLUSION between the Trump Campaign and Russia. As I have been saying all along, it is all a big Hoax by the Democrats based on payments and lies. There should never have been a Special Councel appointed. Witch Hunt!" he tweeted.

As Sputnik reported earlier, the US House Intelligence Committee “did not find any evidence of collusion, conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians,” according to the 253-page report on “Russian meddling” that was declassified in a redacted version Friday.


Read more:


Read from top...

a democracy reduced to cinders by tweet-tweet...

"We spent $30 for two tweets, and those two tweets destroyed their democracy,”  RT’s editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan quipped on Twitter, summarizing the report. “And we criticized both Hillary and Trump, but Hillary more often. And that’s offensive.”

Understandable bewilderment aside, let’s look at the two stories in question. The first one was a five-point listicle about affairs, such as Whitewater, Travelgate, Benghazi and Hillary’s emails - all of which have been reported on by the mainstream US media. In each instance, the Clintons were not charged. Did the headline read a bit like Fox News? Sure. Was it also true? Yes.

The second promoted tweet was on a Sunday before the election, reporting about the 33rd batch of emails from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s personal account, which were being released by WikiLeaks. And no, RT did not get advance warning on any of the drops, despite some serious tinfoil-ruffling by various US media and Clinton campaign officials. We just watched out for them very hard, because that’s journalism.

That particular batch of emails contained no bombshells, though. One message accused Chelsea Clinton of using her parents’ foundation funds for her wedding. Another included Hillary’s aide Philippe Reines urging staff not to joke about the private server emails, “because email retention = Benghazi.”

Then there was a 2008 message addressed to Podesta, David Brock of Media Matters and Tom Matzzie of, saying that Arianna Huffington was “enthusiastic” about Progressive Media USA, but that it would be more useful if HuffPo would “echo our message without any perceived conflicts.”

Yet Congress would have you believe that RT promoting these two stories to the tune of $30 (and getting very little for the money) somehow broke American democracy.

Read more:


Read from top.