Thursday 29th of February 2024

the death of reality...

halper and co...

One Gus can only snigger at a Peter Hitchens. Either he is naive, which he is for being a serious devout religious nincompoop, or he is disingenuous for elegantly writing nonsensical crap. His columns are self-serving and based on supporting official governmental fantasies. He believes he is persecuted in the mediocre-mass-media because he’s too good and represents the truly conservative voice, while he is more mierda than the mediocre-mass-media itself. Here he explained his victimisation for being a right wing conservative:

"People like me – though still allowed to speak – are allowed on to mainstream national broadcasting only under strict conditions: that we are 'balanced' by at least three other people who disagree with us so that our views, actually held by millions, are made to look like an eccentric minority opinion.”
Hitchens, in 2011


Hitchens believes in the sanctity of the USA, that of the Church and of the morality in the Poms' MI5 or six or whatever number existed. He hates communism, which he has been vaccinated against by being a communist himself in his youth, dragged along by his most sobering, yet rarely sober, brother. Here Peter long-windedly (he must be paid by the numbers of words) explains his views why things are not as bad as they are in Russia:

I am surprised by how easily some people are persuaded that a point is wrong when it is dismissed as ‘Whataboutism’. Why, when the person making the case is claiming a moral fault, is it not legitimate to point out that he himself has the same fault?

The Bible is pretty clear on this.

In The Gospel according to St Matthew Chapter 7, vv 3-5, Our Lord says : ‘And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
‘Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.’

The same metaphor appears in almost identical words in the Gospel according to St Luke, vv 41-2 . It seems odd, when moralising in a society whose morals are supposed to be Christian (indeed, on what other basis can we approve or disapprove of any action?), to classify the preaching of Jesus Christ as either a fallacy or as ‘whataboutery’.

The term ‘whataboutism’ seems to have first appeared in the Cold War, when the USSR might point to the American treatment of the black minority there, when attacked for being a police state with labour camps.

But this was feeble. The two things are not the same. Certainly the USA is very far from being a perfect society, and its treatment of African-Americans has been ( and to some extent remains) highly unsatisfactory.

Hum… yes, being a poor black person regularly beaten or shot at by white police is not as bad as being sent to gulags for being an intellectual. At least being a dissenting intellectual, you know your fate. Being a black person, you have no idea when they will kill you for no other reason but the colour of your skin. 
I don’t think there is a “whataboutism” here anyway.
Maybe Hitchens stopped understanding Karl Marx after reading the first paragraph. No-one is trying to compare these form of repressions, one which is done by sheer control (the former USSR, and less now in the Russian state) and one which is achieved by money, propaganda and subtle manipulations of the laws, especially those outlawing communist thinking and in the decimation of organised labour in the USA, a decimation that we see creeping here in Australia by various means, including a slanted Royal Commission. 
Thus there is a certain grand delusion in Peter Hitchens diatribes. In his most recent outpour he deplores that he has been used as one of the characters in a series of books about the fictional decadence of MI5.

Here he goes:

I suspect I wouldn’t much like Mick Herron, author of the increasingly acclaimed ‘Slow Horses’ series of thrillers. There’s an undercurrent of boring, self-satisfied conventional leftism in his work, which most of his readers probably don’t notice because they are like that too. It’s a pity, because in many ways the books are very good. The later books of ‘John le Carré’, where he develops a tedious anti-Thatcherite and anti-American tone, would likewise be better without this self-indulgence. Is Mr Herron’s political stance (if I have read it correctly) important? We’ll see.

My complaint isn’t, by the way, made because of his persistent use of a fictional Tory politician, with certain close resemblances to a well-known national figure of our times, as a sort of villain with secrets to hide. I’m interested that he gets away with this, but any fiction set in modern times and using real people as background is quite likely to resort to this sort of thing.

Though my complaint is connected. It’s more because one of his early characters, by no means an admirable one, bears a faint resemblance to me – a right-wing newspaper columnist who tends to blame the late Roy Jenkins for many of the country’s present ills.

Of course, this person turns out to be a secret Nazi, who has been ruined by the exposure of this fact, but we all know (don’t we?) that this is what people like me are: secret Nazis.


So what is his beef with Mick Herron? Hitchens (Peter) does not like to see his beloved secret services turned into failable devious characters. I don’t think he’d like to watch the series “Berlin Station”. No, our spies never place a foot wrong and only kick deserving arses. So Hitchens sees red:

The preposterous idea at the heart of these books is that MI5, which Herron wrongly describes from time to time as the ‘Secret Service’, has a grim outstation staffed by failures, incompetents and loose cannons (‘Slow Horses’) who have been exiled forever from his fictional Security Service’s fictional smart headquarters at Regent’s Park. They can never go back there. They must remain forever in this place of exile.

In this miserable, shabby building,  jeeringly known as ‘Slough House’ though this isn’t its name, they are given wretched make-work tasks, to drive them mad or persuade them to resign. Their individual failings – drug abuse, gambling, wild ultra-violence, delusions of grandeur, are lovingly enumerated. Only one of them is there unjustly but this too is deemed to have been his fault. If he had been any good, he wouldn’t have allowed himself to be stitched up.  In charge of this failure factory is the grotesque, obese, flatulent chain-smoker, boozer and consumer of  horrible food Jackson Lamb, who presumably has this post because he knows too much about his senior colleagues to be fired, but also cannot be allowed back into the Regent’s Park headquarters.

Goodness. This literature by Herron looks like decaying horses’ mouth

I suppose that Hitchens has never heard of the Iraqi war and the preposterous way we have been made to believe that the “Intelligence was flawed”. The intelligence was FABRICATED for the purpose of war, nothing else. It was bullshit that had been concocted by MI-something for the consumption of MI5, six and the other MI intelligence services, under the orders of the CIA-subsection 7. Sorry. I do not know about the real name for this last one, but I know that somewhere in the CIA there were some fantasists employed to write a brief for the President and his UK and Australia mates to go to war and kill off Saddam.
Killing Saddam? Well, not directly. After being caught, Saddam was delivered by the US to a fair tribunal mostly composed of Shia who had been repressed for yonks by Saddam. Saddam being a Sunni dictator, he was not going to get any favours, especially when the Yanks were “hoping” ALOUD that he would be hanged since they did not want him to be exiled and start a revolution somewhere… But this led to a major US dilemma. This placed Iraq in the hands of Iran-friendly Shia
"Something had to be done”. 
The next stage was to stir Syria where the majority is Sunni but controlled by the Shia. Something called "Arab Spring" was set up...This ended up with the formation of ISIS (IS, Daesh, whatever) which was to take over Syria and parts of Iraq. Now, any of this does not happen without a bit of push and shove from secret departments at the US CIA and the various MI (name your number) in the UK. And the supply of US/UK weapons to “moderate” rebels who channelled some of these weapons to Daesh… 

As well, the disinformation (propaganda) from these secret service outfits, yet again is used to manage the public's perceptions: Gaddafi is “about” to kill “his” people. Assad “gasses beautiful children”. It takes a lot of organisation and fiddle to maintain this level of crap, in the same manner that “Saddam has weapons of mass destruction". Documents have to be forged. Who does forge these documents or “dossiers"? Your guess of the CIA and other UK secret services is as good as mine… 

On another front, it takes various channels of secret communications and intent to set up stuffs like the White Helmets, supported by the US (till a few weeks ago when the "cash was stopped"— possibly for having been exposed as a crock), the UK and the Saudis who are the main sponsors of Daesh and its derivative formats, Al Qaeda and al Nusra. In Syria, the White Helmets are an obvious surface-pusher of crap — also called “fake news” that are useful for the Western propaganda cause. But there are others. None of this would happen should the truth be told as is or not completely “be manipulated to suit the desired outcome" — manipulated by indecent secret services of whatever colour. 

So between Saddam and the USA, if you want some whataboutism, this come close. Both killed MANY people in Iraq. The US probably killed more with sanctions and wars. The difference is the weaponry. The arsenal of disinformation in the USA is magnificent. And their weapon supply-lines to “rebels” have been profitable to all those involved. The best part of weapons is their “obsolescence”. Once used, a bomb “has to be replaced” by more. Brilliant!
So what comes next?

BERLIN (Reuters) - The head of Britain’s MI5 spy agency said on Monday Britain’s case that Russia was responsible for the poisoning of a former spy, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter had strengthened in recent weeks.
Andrew Parker told reporters in Berlin that the investigation was continuing, but he did not want to signal to Russia “what we know and what we don’t know.” 

He noted the British government provided sufficient information to convince all 28 European Union members about its position several weeks ago. “The case has if anything got stronger since then, but I can’t explain why it is I say that today,” he said.

Fuck! What is this about?

Well, the Skripal “fake news” mostly peddled by MI5 since the beginning has been in need of a "refresh". Too many holes in the fancy “evolving” story have been exposed, and the mediocre mass media needs to be fed more crap, to stem the possible doubt creepin in.

But other journalists, not in the main-stream-media-of-shit, tell the story with a more questioning balanced approach, including this article:

What would you have expected to happen?

The basic question one must ask is as follows: Given the scenario outlined in the Government claim, what would you have expected to happen? Here are four basic things one would reasonably have expected:

1. Sergei and Yulia Skripal found dead in or near Mr Skripal’s house, followed by a coroner’s verdict stating that they had died from heart failure or suffocation, as a result of fluid secretions filling their lungs.

2. Or – in the slim chance that they survived – a period of months in hospital with irreparable damage to their central nervous systems, and symptoms including cirrhosis, toxic hepatitis, nerve damage and epilepsy.

3. A massive manhunt, both in Salisbury and in the rest of the country, especially in respect of the couple who appeared on a CCTV camera in Market Walk, of whom it was originally claimed were the Skripals, but who were clearly not the Skripals.

4. Mr Skripal’s house entirely closed off, with surrounding streets immediately evacuated, and the parts of Salisbury City Centre where the pair were known to have visited also evacuated.

What actually happened?

So much for what we would have expected to see. Now, more than two months after the incident, we can ask the question: What actually happened?

1. After they allegedly came into contact with the very lethal A-234 nerve agent, far from dying on the spot, Sergei and Yulia Skripal spent the next four hours driving into the City Centre, having a drink, and then going for a meal. They then sat on a bench, and at some point thereafter exhibited what appeared to be hallucinations, suggestive of poisoning by an opioid or non-lethal chemical weapon, rather than a nerve agent.

2. Rather than being hospitalised for months and suffering irreparable damage to their central nervous systems, just over four weeks later, Yulia Skripal telephoned her cousin, Viktoria, and assured her several times that “Everything is okay”. Crucially, she stated that “Everyone’s health is fine, there are no irreparable things.”

3. There has been no manhunt, and the couple who appeared on the CCTV camera in Market Walk have not been identified publicly, nor have there been any appeals for information about them.

4. Far from the streets around the house being evacuated, many photographs show police officers without any protective clothing standing just a few feet away from the door handle, which allegedly still had A-234 of “high purity” on it. Neither was the City Centre evacuated, but people who thought they might have come into contact with the substance were advised by Public Health England (PHE) to wash their clothing in a washing machine, and wipe personal items such as phones, handbags and other electronic items with cleansing or baby wipes.

What Would Holmes Have Made of it?

If you laid all that out in front of Sherlock Holmes – the claims, the expectations, and the reality – and asked him what he made of it, he would no doubt reply along the following lines:

“On the assumption that the substance known as A-234 is several times more toxic than VX, which all credible references to it claim that it is, then given that the Skripals did not die on the spot, and having survived do not appear to have any of the lasting and irreparable side-effects of being poisoned by this substance, it can be stated with reasonable certainty that they were not poisoned by it.

Furthermore, given the symptoms that they displayed on the bench, according to eye-witness testimony, in all probability, Mr Skripal and Yulia were poisoned by a substance which can cause hallucinations, such as the opioid, Fentanyl, or an incapacitating, but non-lethal, chemical such as 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate (BZ). This theory is given credence by the fact that Salisbury District Hospital originally believed the incident to be a case of Fentanyl poisoning.”
And now we’re going to walk on a few more toes… Including those of our Mr Downer who's got the hide and demeanour of a nasty old Aussie crocodile, the tears of which could be hypocritical. His relationship with a deep private secret service can only make us suspicious that he deals in disinformation and some spying apart from being a “diplomat” (an annoying one at that). For example, I counted more than 8,000 times his repeats of “Saddam has weapons of mass destruction” mantra before the war on Saddam, 2003.

So what’s the beef about Downer?:

Following two weeks of mounting speculation over the FBI’s so-called “mole” inside the Trump campaign, the New York Times and Washington Post published separate accounts on Friday detailing the infiltration of the Trump campaign – a scheme revealed in a Wednesday report by the New York Times in which “at least one [Obama's] government informant met several times with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos.” The Wednesday report also disclosed the existence of “Operation Crossfire Hurricane” – the FBI’s code name for their early Trump-Russia investigation.
Thanks to Friday’s carefully crafted deep-state disclosures by WaPo and the Times, along with actual reporting by the Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross, we now know it wasn’t a mole at all – but 73-year-old University of Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, a US citizen, political veteran and longtime US Intelligence asset enlisted by the FBI to befriend and spy on three members of the Trump campaign during the 2016 US election.

Okay, where is our Mr Downer I hear you shout. Hey, wait for it. These things are constructed by the professional fibbers of the “secret services", promoted by media barons, repeated by second rate journalists and digested by screaming shock-jocks. Here you are, Downer seems to be a small cog in an anti-Ruskie set up, but he is the main wheel on which the FBI relies to feed rubbish to Mueller.

Two months before the 2016 election, George Papadopoulos received a strange request for a meeting in London, one of several the young Trump adviser would be offered — and he would accept — during the presidential campaign.
The meeting request, which has not been reported until now, came from Stefan Halper, a foreign policy expert and Cambridge professor with connections to the CIA and its British counterpart, MI6.

Halper’s September 2016 outreach to Papadopoulos wasn’t his only contact with Trump campaign members. The 73-year-old professor, a veteran of three Republican administrations, met with two other campaign advisers, The Daily Caller News Foundation learned.

These contacts are notable, as Halper’s infiltration of the Trump campaign corresponds with the two of the four targets of the FBI’s Operation Crossfire Hurricane – in which the agency sent counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and others to a London meeting in the Summer of 2016 with former Australian diplomat Alexander Downer – who says Papadopoulos drunkenly admitted to knowing that the Russians had Hillary Clinton’s emails.
Interestingly Downer – the source of the Papadopoulos intel, and Halper – who conned Papadopoulos months later, are linked through UK-based Haklyut & Co. an opposition research and intelligence firm – founded by three former British intelligence operatives in 1995 to provide the kind of otherwise inaccessible research for which select governments and Fortune 500 corporations pay huge sums.

Downer – a good friend of the Clintons, has been on their advisory board
[Haklyut & Co.] for a decade, while Halper is connected to Hakluyt through Director of U.S. operations Jonathan Clarke, with whom he has co-authored two books.

Can you smell the faded limp flower on top of the rubbish heap? Do I need to spell it for you? Halper was a former spy under Ronald Reagan. He hated the way “conservatism” had been highjacked by the neocons to feed a naive George W Bush with the neoconic ideals… which included the war on Saddam, the morality of which had to be made credible for the masses, through the mediocre mass media de mierda… It worked. So Halper, disillusioned with the Republicans, was now working for the “Clinton side”, including the FBI.

The main narrative of the moment is to get rid of Trump, the bumbling billionaire who is showing a poor image of the USA abroad (while Trump is also winning some points by bullying other nations and making some nifty gambles) to be replaced by who? By Mike Pence. Mike Pence is the ideal neocon by excellence. So there is a tug-o-war between the Republicans pushing for the removal of Trump by also siding with the annoyance of the Democrats, against the Republicans seeing that Trump is the bees-knees…

Meanwhile, the Donald, under orders from Bolton is preparing to bomb Iran (Question: are the 5th and 6th fleet just out on a Sunday promenade?), to the great dismay of the Europeans who cannot see the reason for this interruption in their business…

Hey, you twerps, the USA ALWAYS want to weaken Europe. The Iran thingy is not so much about Iran, but about WEAKENING Europe. Having to remove your profitable enterprises from Iran brings you down a few notches, economically, and turns you into more intense arse-kissers of the USA. At the same time, it's "Make America great again" by bringing the Boeing jobs, now in Iran, back to America. All Win-win for Trump. Whether he stays or not, Bolton and his minions will still rule. The Neocons have their pigeon called Donald.

This is where Gus Leonisky and Peter Hitchens might agree: the MI5 agency is not really decrepit with bad agents not knowing what they are doing and indulging in drugs (they might but this is not the point).

What Gus can add is that the POMS secret services actually are full of psychopaths working on deceitful intent to supply the psycho government with ammos to deceive the UK public while trying to destroy other nations. We need to worry.

Your CIA/MI6 analyst on Sunday
Gus Leonisky

the military intelligence of the UK...

The role of MI5, as defined in the Security Service Act 1989, is "the protection of national security and in particular its protection against threats such as terrorism, espionage and sabotage, the activities of agents of foreign powers, and from actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means".

Our work is guided by the government's overall strategy to counter threats to the UK's national security. For more information on this strategy, see:

The national security strategy – a strong Britain in an age of uncertainty

The strategic defence and security review: securing Britain in an age of uncertainty.

Gus says: The most important role of MI5 is disinformation
I am not sure about the veracity of the following info but it makes sense:

MI1 Code breaking, MI2 Russia and Scandinavia, MI3 Eastern Europe, MI4 Aerial Reconnaissance, MI5 Domestic Intelligence, now The Security Service, MI6 Foreign Intelligence, now the Secret Intelligence service, MI7 Propaganda and censorship, MI8 Signals Intelligence, MI9 Undercover operations supporting POW, MI10 Weapons and technical Analysis, MI11 Field Intelligence, MI12 Military Censorship, MI13 Remains Classified, MI14 German Intelligence, MI15 Aerial Photography, MI16 Scientific Intelligence, MI17 Secretarial section, MI18 Remains Classified, MI19 Extraction of information from foreign POWs MI20 - MI25 remain Classified.

It is important to also remember that most of these where small departments and at the end of world war 2 they were mostly all merged into MI5, MI6, GCHQ and other agencies. most British intelligence agencies still remain classified to the general public.The only reason this information has been released is that these agencies have all now terminated activity and new agencies have replaced them.

Captain S.S DG of MI section 25.

the pentagon accuses russia for the pentagon shit...

While the Pentagon accuses Russia of fomenting false fears of a Daesh/ISIS threat in Central Asia – see Sputnik’s article on this — new reports of an American push to attack Russia militarily via Uzbekistan and Tajikistan and are now emerging.  We’re reposting here Catehon’s May 19 article on this topic by Andrey Afanasyev.

Sources in the Russian law enforcement agencies, citing data from closed communication channels with the Defense Ministries of China, Pakistan and Afghanistan, say that the operation to prepare a large-scale hybrid offensive against Russia through Tajikistan and Uzbekistan is in the final phase.

Reports of this have been received earlier, in particular, this was mentioned at a recent security conference held in Tashkent. Then the head of the Tajik Foreign Ministry Sirodzhiddin Aslov openly announced the activation of terrorists in the region:

The activation of terrorist groups, their advancement to the northern regions of Afghanistan, especially in the territories bordering Tajikistan, the increase in the number of ISIS supporters, as well as the participation of a certain number of citizens of the post-Soviet republics in the terrorist groups and movements present in Afghanistan … causes our serious concern

This problem was also voiced at the Seventh Conference on International Security, held recently in Moscow. According to Russian intelligence agencies, at the moment the combat potential of the Islamic State ranges from 2500 to 4000 people. This is also confirmed by sources from the Ministry of Defense of China. The Chinese military claims at least 3,800 militants operating in 160 terrorist cells. Their greatest concentration is in the province of Nangarhar, in which the Islamic State increases the production and smuggling of drugs, as well as creates an infrastructure for the training of terrorists and recruits local people.

The plan

According to Russian and Chinese law enforcement agencies, militants fleeing the sea from Syria and Iraq follow a route from the Qasim port in the Pakistani city of Karachi to Peshawar, and are then distributed along the Nangarhar province in the east of the country. Representatives of the top leadership of the radicals are located in the Achin district.

In addition, it is noted that since late 2017 the leaders of the Islamic State managed to transfer from Syria and Iraq to Afghanistan an additional 500 foreign fighters, including more than two dozen women. A source in one of the Russian law enforcement agencies says:

All of them are also in the province of Nangarhar. They are citizens of Sudan, Kazakhstan, Czech Republic, Uzbekistan, France and so on.

Movement of militants to the north is planned to be organized in two directions. In Tajikistan, the radicals will penetrate the provinces of Nuristan and Badakhshan, and to Turkmenistan — through the provinces of Farah, Ghor, Sari-Pul and Faryab.

The executor

Governor of Nangarhar Province, Gulab Mangal, personally oversees militant activities in the region, which plans to expand its influence over other regions of the country at the expense of the radicals. In addition, he actively participates in the financial activities of the Islamic State, receiving significant profits. The network informs that any protest actions of the population dissatisfied with the activities of the Islamic State are “severely suppressed by the provincial authorities, including through punitive operations against whole settlements.”

Mangal has a long-standing relationship with the US intelligence services. In particular, he fought against the Soviet forces during the Afghan campaign of the USSR. Immediately after the US invasion in 2001, he was appointed as the head of the local government of the Pashtuns, the people to which he belongs. Also, Mangal is loved by the Western press. Most of the publications in the major American and British media contain exceptionally positive information about him, and the BBC called him “the hope of Helmand province,” which Mangal previously headed.

According to the Ministry of Defense of Afghanistan, in the near future the leadership of the Islamic State plans to expand the grouping by another 1,200 militants. Most of them will also be located in the province, under the control of Gulab Mangal and his people.

It is worth noting that the two largest US bases in Afghanistan are in the immediate vicinity of the Nangarhar province, which is hardly worth considering as a coincidence.

At the same time, the expert community points out that the pressure on Tajikistan and Turkmenistan will be only one of the vectors of the new hybrid attack on Russia. Director of the Center for Geopolitical Expertise Valery Korovin is confident that Moscow should prepare for a large-scale offensive of geopolitical opponents on all fronts: in Ukraine, possibly through Armenia, as well as a number of other post-Soviet countries:

The probability of an exacerbation in Central Asia

Why do Americans do this?

Destabilizing the situation in Central Asia, the US and its allies will achieve several goals at once. First, in this way, Washington can distract Moscow and Tehran from Syria. Secondly, if the operation succeeds, a focus of instability will be created along the path of the One-Belt-One-Road project, which is designed to strengthen the economic and logistical integration of Eurasia. Afghanistan also borders Iran in the west, which opens a new front against Tehran if extremely high. It will happen synchronously with the exacerbation in several directions. Starting with economic pressure through new sanctions, ending with “color revolutions” that will continue in the post-Soviet space, and direct aggression from American networks. Obviously, the United States did not seize Afghanistan, by rigging its military dictatorship there, in order to build democracy and civil society there. This is a springboard for the creation of terrorist networks, with the help of which the US is preparing an aggression against Iran and Russia.


Read more:

invading russia...

Entering Russia would become a “military nightmare” for any army, according to a rating of the hardest countries to invade compiled by Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet.

Military might, the size of territory and the difficulty of terrain are among the key factors that determine the country’s defensive capability, the paper wrote.

Based on these criteria, the Swedish journalists pointed out that “whoever considers the idea of invading Russia must be prepared to handle all kinds of terrain.” The enemy would face desolate mountains, impenetrable swamps, frozen tundra, turbulent rivers, and dark forests in Russia, they said, adding that hot summers and chilling winters would also pose a challenge.


Read more:


Read from top, especially comment above.

Gus says the Pentagon trick is not to invade Russia, but to DESTROY it by whatever means. Boom!...

I would not be surprised if the article in the Swedish paper was not a false "military" analysis to let the Russians that "they won't be invaded" soon. Bombed to smithereens? This is another story. Bewares...

when is a spy an informant? a former spy?

​Speaking to Radio Sputnik's Loud & Clear, Daniel Lazare, journalist and author of "The Frozen Republic," "The Velvet Coup" and "America's Undeclared War," noted that the press coverage of the briefings show US Democrats are putting on a unified front by stressing that Stefan Halper was an informant and not a spy.

"The Democrats, along with The New York Times and The Washington Post, insist that the spy in question, Stefan Halper, was not a spy but an informant — one is bad and the other is good," Lazare told show hosts Brian Becker and John Kiriakou. "So what they're calling an informant, the Republicans are calling a spy… they're talking about the same thing."


Read more:


Read from top.

the life of a well-paid fat spy...

According to NBC, the FBI informant on Russian interference in the US Presidential electoral election is no other than Stefan Halper. Today, this former CIA agent is a professor at Cambridge (United Kingdom) and heads a private intelligence company.

Halper is the son-in-law of Ray S. Cline, an eminent personality in the CIA during the sixties and seventies. During the election campaign in the 1980s, Halper worked for George H. Bush (father), a former Director of the CIA who went on to become Vice President to Ronald Raegan. Halper infiltrated the campaign team of the President Jimmy Carter, succeeding in extracting information on Carter’s relations with the new Iranian authorities. It was on the basis of this that Bush and Raegan obtained the support of the Islamic Republic and negotiated the “October surprise” (the liberation of CIA spies who were being held prisoners in the US embassy in Teheran) [1].

According to The Intercept, in 2016, i.e., during Donald Trump’s electoral campaign, Stefan Halper has on several occasions received substantial sums of money from the Obama Administration.

Anoosha Boralessa

[1] The Western imagination wrongly conceives these spies as “hostages”. The fact of the matter is that they had been caught red-handed in a secret section of the Embassy. Naturally, the US never accused Iran of violating their diplomatic privileges, for it was the spies that had been self-destructive and violated their own diplomatic status.


Read from top.

remembering lying susan rice, not in prison yet....

18 SEPTEMBER 2017 


Susan Rice, the former National Security Advisor, has admitted before the House of Representatives’ Intelligence Committee that during the transition period, she had spied on Donald Trump and his team when they were in Trump Tower, New York. She also admitted that she had had the names of Donald Trump, Jared Kushner, Michael Flynn and Steve Bannon deleted from summaries of the tappings.

Mrs Rice has guaranteed that her intention was not to find out the secret plans of the Team Trump. She just was trying to figure out what the United Arab Emirates was up to, and was hoping to gather relevant information from the content of an interview that the President Elect was supposed to have given to the Prince and heir to the throne of Abu Dhabi.

Until now, Susan Rice had always denied spying on Donald Trump and his team both in the transition period and also in the run up to the presidential elections. There have been several times when President Trump has denounced the illegal tappings that the Obama Administration had authorized against him, which the Press in the United States had qualified as completely fabricated.

President Richard Nixon had been forced to resign for spying on the Democratic Party’s electoral headquarters. However, in the case of Susan Rice, the Congressmen have not “acquired a conviction” that she had committed a federal crime and that she had tried to cover it up.

In contrast, President Obama’s team is presenting the tappings ordered by Susan Rice as wholly legitimate in the context of an investigation into possible Russian interferences. Furthermore, it is a fact that the United Arab Emirates has organized at the same time, a meeting in the Seychelles, between someone close to President Putin and Erik Prince (former director of Blackwater, military advisor to the Emirates and brother of the current Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos).


Read all at:

freaking out with the fake news about me...


FBI surveillance of former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page cost him business, income and even his girlfriend.

Page tells The Post that during the media barrage he faced in late 2016, he visited his girlfriend at her London flat, where she was “freaking out with the fake news about me.”

“Talking with her later in the evening after dinner, she told me that she didn’t want me staying there anymore, and that our relationship was over.

“So late that night,” Page continued, “I booked a last-minute hotel reservation as part of this early chapter of the redefinition of my life.”

Page believes the FBI’s mole, professor Stefan Halper, was secretly spying on him as part of a “politically motivated” investigation of Team Trump, using fake sympathy to gain his trust — all while fishing for dirt on Page’s ties to Russia, where he’d worked as an energy consultant.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out to be a trap,” Page said.

Halper contacted Page in early July 2016, weeks before the FBI claims it first opened an investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia.

The timing is significant because if Halper was being used as an informant before a case had been officially opened, it raises the possibility the Trump campaign was spied on for political — not law enforcement — reasons.

Page believes that’s exactly what happened, and agrees with the president’s characterization of the scandal as “Spygate.”

“It is particularly appropriate given recent developments,” the former campaign aide said.

Page said while he was under surveillance, Halper “portrayed himself as someone offering help” to him and the campaign, providing “insights and perspectives” on various foreign policy issues, including relations with Russia.

Page recalled the professor “expressed sympathy about what I had been put through with the defamation and smear campaign led by the DNC and the Clinton campaign,” which underwrote the dossier claiming Page conspired with the Kremlin to swing the election for Trump.

For instance, Halper penned a July 28, 2017 “Dear Carter” e-mail, assuaging him that new White House controversies may have taken pressure off him.

“I must assume this gives you some relief,” Halper wrote, adding that it “would be great to catch up.” Halper signed the note, “Stef.”

Since the breakup of his relationship and the decline of his consulting business, Page has gone on the offensive, sharing his side of the story as Washington politicians battle over the role that Halper, a British-American professor, played while informing on top Trump campaign officials starting in the summer of 2016.


Read more:

stefan halper is a longtime dirty CIA operative...


GLENN GREENWALD: Right. So it is an interesting case because obviously, in 2016, there were claims that there were members of the Trump campaign who were colluding with or had improper relationships with various business and political interests in Russia. And it is completely legitimate, in fact, obligatory, for the FBI to investigate those allegations, and using an informant to do so is an entirely proper way to investigate. They do it all the time. They do it to huge numbers of groups. In fact, on some level, it is one of the least invasive ways, is to have somebody with knowledge speak to the people who are being investigated and then report back to the FBI what it is that they have learned.

So the idea that this is a spy or that this is something improper is ridiculous. At the same time, there are a lot of questions about where these suspicions came from, about who it is who started them, about who was overseeing the investigation, where the dossier came from. And so the question of who this informant was is a matter of legitimate public interest.

And yet the Justice Department and the FBI did what they always do when they want to hide things, which is they claim, that, “Oh, if we learn who the informant is, it will jeopardize lives around the world. It will compromise intelligence assets. It will harm the national security of the United States.” They made it seem like the informant was some kind of covert, undercover CIA or FBI asset, whose name, if it were disclosed, would blow all sorts of secret covert operations.

As it turned out, now that we know the name, Stefan Halper, that turned out to be a total lie. Stefan Halper is a longtime dirty CIA operative who has ties to the Bush family and the Republican Party. He was behind one of the worst CIA scandals, which is in 1980, the Reagan campaign spied on what the Carter administration was doing by having CIA officials report classified information to the Reagan campaign so they knew what the Carter administration was doing, so they could use it against Carter in the 1980 campaign. And the person who oversaw that was Stefan Halper, working with the former CIA director and then vice presidential candidate George Herbert Walker Bush.

So Halper has been around Washington forever. His name has long been known as a CIA operative and as a Republican operative. And the idea that naming him would somehow jeopardize his life or the lives of other people was an absolute lie, but the Justice Department used it to successfully convince media outlets in the U.S. not to name him for many weeks. And it was only once The New York Times and Washington Post published enough information on purpose for us to learn his identity were we then able to figure out who it was.


Read more:


Read from top...


So where has this left Sater? A man who has been many things in his 52 years: a stockbroker, a criminal, a real estate developer, an intelligence asset and a hunter of terrorists.

For now, he remains at the centre of the biggest story of the century, with Mr Mueller circling.

"It feels stranger than anything you can ever imagine. It's just wild. You wake up in the morning, you look in the mirror and say, 'Wow, is this really happening?'"

"All I wanted to do was build the tallest building in Europe and make a tonne of money. If I could have gotten Trump and Putin on the same stage at the ribbon cutting, what a home run. 

"How was I supposed to know that those emails [to Michael Cohen] would put me into the biggest political controversy since Watergate."

For the record, Sater said he doesn't believe Mr Trump colluded with any foreign powers.

"I just wish that the investigation concludes properly, honestly, fairly, after everything has been figured out. It's my hope that somebody that I know and worked with did not collude and certainly I hope that that's the result," he said.


Read more:


"For the record, Sater said he doesn't believe Mr Trump colluded with any foreign powers"...

Does this mean Trump did not ask for any Russian help, but got oodles from the Aussie battler Mr Murdoch who hated Hillary's guts?...

So Mueller is wading into the normal world of "doing business alla Americana" which has been operating since Reagan in the modern world, and probably since Al Capone half-a-century before this... This "business alla Americana" is now being made official with Trump placing tariffs on his friends like a mafioso twists your arms or shake you upside down for the gold coins to fall out of your pockets...

When will Mueller lift he carpet on the Clinton's own secret fiddles?... Well, it's probable coming soon and this is where all this will go to as the tangle web is connected... and eventually someone like Sarkozy might blab to save his arse with his Gaddafi connection. Hum...

So Mueller is circling... and not a single Russian in sight... despite a lot of "Russia, Russia" mentioned on the Four Corner ABC program so far... The bounty hunter has made a deal to save his arse...


a secret basket of crabs...

  • A Pentagon whistleblower complained in October 2016 about “outrageous” contracts that were provided to Stefan Halper, the FBI informant who spied on the Trump campaign.
  • The whistleblower, Adam Lovinger, was stripped of his security clearance after complaining about Halper’s contracts.
  • Lovinger’s lawyer says Halper’s work for the Pentagon could have provided him the cover he needed to contact the Trump campaign.

Over a year before Stefan Halper was revealed as an FBI informant who spied on the Trump campaign, a Pentagon analyst complained to his bosses about “astronomically outrageous” contracts given to Halper, a former University of Cambridge professor.

That analyst, Adam Lovinger, has since been stripped of his security clearance; he says because he blew the whistle on the Pentagon contracts with Halper and Long Term Strategic Group (LTSG), a firm owned by a childhood friend of Chelsea Clinton’s named Jacqueline Newmyer Deal.

Lovinger flagged the contracts in 2016 to his boss James Baker, the director of the Office of Net Assessment (ONA), a small Defense Department unit known as the Pentagon’s think tank. Shortly after joining the National Security Council, Lovinger’s security clearance was revoked on May 1, 2017.

Baker, an Obama appointee, made four specific allegations against Lovinger. He claims that Lovinger made an unauthorized trip to Israel, that he took home unclassified academic papers, that he read classified documents on an airplane and that he had unauthorized contacts with the Indian government.

Lovinger has disputed the claims. He filed a whistleblower retaliation complaint in May with the Pentagon’s inspector general. On July 18, he filed an ethics complaint about Baker with the Pentagon’s senior ethics official.

The Washington Times first reported on Lovinger’s complaints about Halper’s contracts with ONA. The Daily Caller News Foundation previously reported on Lovinger’s claims about an $11.2-million contract that ONA struck with LTSG. (RELATED: DOD’s Inspector General Opens Probe Into Alleged Retaliation By Obama Holdover)

Halper’s work for ONA consisted of writing policy papers on geopolitical hotspots like China, Russia and India.

Government records show that Washington Headquarters Services, a subdivision of ONA, paid Halper a total of $1,058,161 for four contracts that lasted from May 30, 2012, to March 29, 2018.

Halper’s ONA work closely mirrors a pitch he made on Sept. 1, 2016, to George Papadopoulos, a former Trump campaign aide whom Halper contacted on behalf of the FBI.

In an email first reported by TheDCNF, Halper offered $3,000 and an all expenses paid trip to London to Papadopoulos to write a policy paper on energy issues in the Mediterranean Sea. (RELATED: A Meeting In London Aroused George Papadopoulos’s Suspicions)

Papadopoulos, an energy consultant with expertise on Cyprus, Turkey and Israel, accepted the offer and traveled to London, where he met with Halper several times.

Papadopoulos has told associates that during dinner one night, Halper randomly asked him about Russians and Hillary Clinton’s emails. Halper was accompanied by a woman named Azra Turk, whom he claimed was his assistant.

Papadopoulos delivered the paper to Halper in early October 2016. Halper sent a wire for $3,000 to Papadopoulos’s bank account.

Lovinger was unaware of Halper’s contact with Papadopoulos when he emailed Baker in October 2016 about ONA’s contracts with Halper.

The 12-year Pentagon veteran complained to Baker of “the moral hazard associated with the Washington Headquarters Services contracting with Stefan Halper,” The Times reported.

Sean Bigley, a lawyer for Lovinger, says Halper’s contracts were a mystery to ONA staff. In an interview with The DCNF on Thursday, he said Lovinger and others on staff questioned how Halper was “getting these astronomically outrageous contracts to do very little.”

Bigley also told The DCNF that Halper’s work for ONA could easily have provided him cover for his secret FBI and CIA activity.


Read more:



Note the Daily Caller is a neocon publication...


Read from top.

and still not a russian in sight...

Just like when the medieval executioners tortured their prisoners to scream out for "mercy", so today two former aides of US President Donald Trump are put being on the rack to extract a begging response. If they finger the president, then maybe mercy will be shown to the prisoners.

Trump's former lawyer and his campaign manager are facing lengthy prison sentences for financial fraud and political campaign irregularities. Michael Cohen could get five years in jail, while Paul Manafort faces a soul-crushing 80 years behind bars. A de facto death sentence, given his age.

The set-up here is so obvious and pathetic. Both men are being dangled by the feet ahead of their sentencing, with the blatant purpose of forcing them to incriminate Trump, and in that way, Trump's political enemies finally get their long-held objective of impeaching the president.

This is how the "American Dream" really operates. It's dirty, grim, and brutal, and has very little to do with democracy or rule of law. Forget the emblems of supposed American civility, the white-picket fences, apple pie in bourgeois comfort, old glory fluttering down at the courthouse, and all those other imaginary democratic virtues.

READ MORE: GUILTY: Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort Face the Music…

American politics has more in common with Francis Ford Coppola's classic movie, The Godfather, illustrating how organized crime is intertwined with politicians and lawmakers. Mob practices are more the currency of American politics than dainty civic duties. In reality, it's not the American Dream, it's the American Scream.

READ MORE: Trump Praises Manafort: 'Such Respect For a Brave Man!'

The impossibly perfect American Dream is nevertheless so powerfully ingrained and inculcated in the popular psyche by Hollywood and national myth-making propaganda, it is hard to see the brutal reality.

When the American military obliterated Japanese civilians with atomic weapons, or incinerated children in Southeast Asia with napalm, or when it organized death squads to mutilate peasants in Central America, such practices can be easily obscured because of the opium that is the American Dream and its seductive, illusory vanity.

Even when an American president is hideously assassinated in broad daylight by his own security services, the people are not awakened from the impossible "dream".

American politics is as dirty and as criminal as it gets. Assassinating foreign leaders, overthrowing governments, subverting and rigging elections, brainwashing the public with lying news media and think tanks, militarizing "allied" societies in the name of "protection". These are some of the realities that define the US capitalist power system, at home and abroad.

One of America's most celebrated presidents John F Kennedy began his term in the White House under sordid conditions. Talk about interference? It is well-documented Kennedy's election was secured by the Chicago-based Mafia, under crime boss Sam Giancana, rigging the ballots in key states to give Kennedy the decisive vote over rival Richard Nixon in 1960.

READ MORE: Truth and Lies: Media's Misdirection of Manafort Verdict and Cohen Plea

Admittedly, JFK seemed to undergo a genuinely personal and political evolution during his brief presidency, when he subsequently desired to normalize Cold War relations with the Soviet Union. His perceived betrayal of the Mafia and the US military-security apparatus probably cost him his life when he was assassinated in Dallas in November 1963, three years into his presidency. It is claimed that the CIA and Mafia worked together to organize the killing involving teams of snipers. The hapless Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged shooter, was only a patsy, which the "great and good" American media have used as an odious cover-up ever since.

READ MORE: JFK's 'Peace Speech' and The Road Not Taken

Anyway, let's get back to Trump. It seems obvious that the prosecution of his former aides is all about a vendetta against Trump, to get him out of the White House. The US political establishment, or deep state, has never accepted this "outsider" as the president. His stated preference to normalize relations with Russia is a particular red line. The whole "Russiagate" saga has been concocted in order to delegitimize Trump's election and to have him "taken out" as the figurehead for the deep state.

Prosecuting two of Trump's former associates was bound to dig up plenty of dirt. Because dirt is endemic to how American big business and politics operate. It should not be surprising that Trump and his former friends are inculpated for bank and tax fraud and paying off hookers. That's how the system pretty much works, and those transgressions are only the surface.

Look at how Trump's rival Hillary Clinton was involved in political bribery and vote rigging, as well as soliciting foreign interference from trying to get "Russian dirt" on Trump. Not just Clinton, but the senior law enforcement and intelligence services under the Obama presidency were also involved in this massive subversion of American democracy.

What's going on with Trump's two associates facing jail time is the Mob's equivalent of threatening to cut ears off a hostage unless the hostage squeals to betray another, more important target.

Already, it seems the coercion is working. Trump's ex-lawyer Michael Cohen is reportedly "ready to cooperating" with the so-called Russia probe led by former FBI chief Robert Mueller. Mueller is a long-time operator for the deep state with his own baggage of criminal skeletons, such as lying over the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction ruse to wage a genocidal war on that country. His appointment as the chief inquisitor to entrap Trump is therefore apt.

Cohen is said to have "interesting things" to tell the Mueller inquisition concerning Trump and allegations of collusion with Russia to get him elected. Those allegations are, for any sane person, a risible farrago of lies and fantasies. No evidence has ever been produced despite two years of investigation and prosecutions. The only crimes uncovered so far are financial fraud, American-style.

But, we can be sure, that Cohen, a sniveling, greasy attorney, will deliver "information" to hang Trump in order to save his own skin from five years in the clanger. Expect more and bigger lies about Russia.

By the way, there are no good guys in this squalid drama of American politics. Trump and his gang are as rotten as the rest of the barrel.

The former New York real-estate hustler may deserve some credit in that he at least is not psychotically anti-Russia. Another indirect credit to Trump is that the whole debacle he has provoked with the deep state goes to expose the profound decay and corruption in American politics.

Just to show how Trump is no better than the rest. This week he told media that he would consider lifting economic sanctions off Russia if Moscow made "concessions" on Syria and Ukraine. On Syria, the Trump administration wants Russia to use its leverage to get Iran out of the country in order to pander to Israeli concerns.

So there you have it. Just like the gangsters at home are leveraging Trump's associates with pain in order to get them to squeal and betray the president, we see the same sordid mentality and methods being played by Trump himself with regard to Russia. The sanctions he has slapped Russia with could be removed, he says, if Moscow does Trump's bidding on Iran.

The American Dream? It's a nightmare that screams with crimes and corruption. When will the people awake?

Read more:


Read from top... and read: preparing a pretext for more misery... in UNHCR refugees...

we know that downer lies...

George Papadopoulos sat down with Australian diplomat Alexander Downer

By political editor Andrew Probyn and political reporter Matthew Doran

Posted 50 minutes ago (when Gus picked up the story)

An Australian foreign minister with the airs of antipodean aristocracy turns spy for his birth land, using a prized diplomatic posting to pursue oil and gas interests in the Mediterranean.

He's introduced to an ambitious American up-and-comer through a diplomatic aide with Israeli contacts, and learns of a Russian attempt to nobble a presidential aspirant.

They meet in an upmarket London wine bar that boasts 150 different varieties, but decide that gin and tonic is their tipple of choice.

No, it's not the blurb on the back of an airport lounge page-turner. It's the story being spruiked by a convicted liar about Australia's former high commissioner to the United Kingdom, Alexander Downer.

The real story — or as close to it as can be gleaned — is also intriguing, but the motives ascribed to what went on are far less calculating. 

George Papadopoulos, sentenced to 14 days' prison earlier this month for lying to the FBI's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign, has had plenty to say about Australia's former top diplomat in London. 

He's suggested on Twitter that Downer is an operative of MI6, the British secret intelligence service, and that Downer's companion at drinks was a member of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service. 

Their meeting at Kensington Wine Rooms in May 2016 has become practically folkloric. It triggered a series of events that is now the subject of the Robert Mueller investigation that began two months later.

So what did happen?

"Alexander Downer did not randomly reach out to me," Papadopoulos told conservative commentator Sean Hannity on his nationally syndicated radio show in the US this week.

That's agreed on by all parties. At least sort of.

Erika Thompson, a career diplomat working as a political counsellor at the commission, had a boyfriend called Christian Cantor, the head of the political branch in the Israeli embassy. 

Papadopoulos also knew Cantor, describing him as someone "who just hated Trump, he hated his guts". 

Australian sources describe Cantor, who is now engaged to Thompson, as a "liberal internationalist" who'd be no Trump fan. 

"All of a sudden, [Cantor] decides one day to introduce me to his so-called girlfriend, who just happened to be an Australian intelligence officer and the assistant to Alexander Downer," Papadopoulos said.

Australian sources emphatically deny Thompson is an ASIS agent, but a "mainstream DFAT officer".

She asked Downer if he'd like to meet Papadopoulos, explaining he was known to Cantor and was part of the Donald Trump campaign. 

Downer thought it wasn't a bad idea; Trump wasn't yet the Republican nominee for the United States presidency, but close to being, and there were things to be learnt about the potential president.

So they met about 6pm on a Tuesday at the Church Street, Kensington wine bar chosen by Thompson. It was a mutually convenient venue; Downer lived south of Hyde Park, Thompson north. 

The three of them had a gin and tonic, maybe two, over an hour. 

Trump describes Papadopoulos as an 'excellent guy'

The 28-year-old Papadopoulos was very friendly. But he seemed someone rather inexperienced to be a senior foreign affairs adviser to a presidential candidate. 

Downer led the discussion. Papadopoulos was confident about Trump winning the nomination — but the Australians surmised that he would say that, being a "Trumponista".

Papadopoulos assured them that Trump wouldn't be an isolationist, as some had been warning. The American said Trump would be tough on trade when it came to China and Europe. This was good gear.

They talked about oil and gas. Trump had introduced Papadopoulos as "an energy and oil consultant, excellent guy" when he met The Washington Post's editorial board in March 2016, so the Australians knew it was a subject that might elicit chat.

Downer knew a fair bit about oil and gas in the Eastern Mediterranean, having been United Nations special adviser on Cyprus for six years from 2008, a period when Perth-based firm Woodside acquired a 30 per cent stake off the coast of Israel, which shares a maritime border with the island of Cyprus.

"Australian oil company, Woodside, was actively competing with American oil companies trying to do business in Israel and Cyprus," Papadopoulos tweeted on Thursday. 

"I was advising American companies at the time. No wonder Downer wanted to talk oil in London and then began recording me with his phone. Set up."

The Australian side denies recording the conversation. Diplomacy isn't done that way, it was explained to the ABC. 

It was all good intel, relayed back to Australia in a cable written by Thompson.

But it was what Papadopoulos had said about Russia, also detailed in the cable, that proved critical.

Downer had asked Papadopoulos about Trump's prospects, should he get to a general election, and the American was optimistic about his chances. 

But then he would be, wouldn't he?

He said the Russians might use some damaging material they had on Hillary Clinton, who was still some weeks from becoming the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee.

It was a remarkable tidbit of information to casually drop into conversation.

"I have no recollection, whatsoever, talking about emails," Papadopoulos said this week, referring to a trove of Clinton and Democrat-related emails that had been stolen by Russian intelligence. 

"I remember a lot about this meeting, and it was one of the most strange meetings I had in the campaign."

It's understood that Downer remembers no specific mention of emails either. 

News spreads from London to Canberra and DC

But the cable came back to Canberra about an aide to Trump saying the Russians had some dirt on Hillary Clinton and were prepared to use it. 

The Americans weren't informed immediately about what Papadopoulos had said to Downer, but when it became known that the FBI suspected a Russian hack of Clinton emails, the information was shared with the Five Eyes intelligence partner. 

Cantor is now back in Jerusalem, working as a branch head in the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Thompson, now his fiancée, is on leave without pay from DFAT. 

Downer is in London and has not been questioned by the Mueller inquiry. Some say it's very unlikely he ever will.

And Papadopoulos is still tweeting darkly, warning only yesterday that the British and Australian governments' "attempt to sabotage the Trump campaign" is about to backfire.

As for that 20-pound round of drinks shouted by Australian taxpayers at the Kensington Wine Rooms, it's now commemorated by a blue plaque.


Read more/see the pictures:

What an extraordinary story! We will believe anything... Alexander is a liar, as we've seen with his 8,500 claims of "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction". Alexander is a deceitful character as we have seen with the spying case on Timor Leste negotiating the Timor Sea agreement on oil exploration. Alexander is a nepotistic dork as we've seen with his daughter being taken into DFAT (which of course has "no connection with ASIO") while she might have been the "lesser candidate" for the job. Then she got dumped by the electorate and Alexander was "furious" about it... You are allowed to snigger... 
And even if Papadopoulos said "I have no recollection, whatsoever, talking about emails," this week, referring to a trove of Clinton and Democrat-related emails that had been stolen by Russian intelligence (What???). We know that the Wikileaks emails on Hillary and the DNC, DID NOT COME from the Russian Intelligence — but most likely from a mole within the DNC. 
Nice butter from this ABC "investigation" trying to make us swallow a tad more shit, with a bit of humour...
Read from top.

the siberian puppet was a fallacy...

The headline says it all really – it’s not exaggeration or spin on our part. For months, years even, we’ve been told that Trump is “the Siberian candidate”, or “Putin’s puppet” and “Russia’s Weapon”. The evidence was never supplied, but those who questioned the claim were mocked, derided and ignored.

None of that matters now…because today, in the New York Times, these words were published:

…no public evidence has emerged showing that his campaign conspired with Russia in the election interference or accepted Russian money.


Read more:


Read from top.

fishnet's faulty fabulism ..

Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, deserves a Purple Heart for multiple Sunday appearances on TV political talk shows. As the morning progresses his performances become more incomprehensible and unhinged.

Take last Sunday, when he turned up on CNN’s State of the Union show with Jake Tapper; Mueller’s report the topic du jour.

Rudy was appalled that the probe was kicked off as a result of Fishnets Downer passing on information from George Papadopoulos, one of Trump’s campaign team who subsequently did time in the clink.

Papadopoulos told Fishnets in a London wine house that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton. Australia’s high commissioner to Britain passed this on to authorities in Canberra who in turn passed it on to the FBI, which was one of the sparks for the Mueller investigation.

Rudy’s characterisation of these events last Sunday on CNN was fascinating. He said Papadopoulos was given one piece of information by a Maltese counterintelligence agent and he “repeats it to an Australian guy with a very shady background [who is] a big contributor to Hillary Clinton even though he’s an Australian”.

Tapper asks how can he contribute when he’s not an American? Rudy then concludes that Fishnets must be a United States citizen so his donations wouldn’t be illegal. “He raised money for [her] … for the [Clinton] Foundation.”

Surely, there needs to be another inquiry with a special counsel to investigate these fresh allegations about our man in London. 


Read more:



Read from top.

the plot thickens...

The “sexy bottle blonde” woman whom a former Trump campaign adviser says came on to him in a London bar was sent there by the FBI to investigate suspected campaign collusion with Russia, according to a new report Thursday.

The woman, who used the name Azra Turk, was working for the feds when she posed as a research assistant who wanted to discuss foreign policy with Trump adviser George Papadopoulos, the New York Times said.

Turk, whose real name is unknown, traveled to London to work with Cambridge University professor Stefan Halper, a longtime FBI informant whom the feds had told to set up a meeting with Papadopoulos, according to the Times.

But the feds learned nothing of value when Papadopoulos and Turk had drinks on Sept. 15, 2016, or when Papadopoulos later met with Halper at the Sofitel hotel in London’s West End, and Turk returned to the US, the Times said.

The revelation of the FBI’s role in arranging the meetings came amid claims by Trump and his supporters that US officials under then-President Barack Obama spied on his campaign.

Last month, Attorney General William Barr told a Congressional committee that he thought “spying did occur” and that he’d be looking into the “genesis” of the FBI probe that was later taken over by special counsel Robert Mueller.

Justice Department Inspector Gen. Michael Horowitz is conducting an internal investigation of the FBI’s activities that could wrap up as early as this month.

In a statement, Trump re-election campaign manager Brad Parscale said: “There is a word for this in the English language: Spying. Democrats and their media friends have expressed horror at the term, but there is no other way to describe it: The FBI spied on the Trump campaign in 2016.”

“As President Trump has said, it is high time to investigate the investigators,” he added.

During a closed-door interview with members of Congress last year, Papadopoulos described Turk as a “beautiful young lady” who seemed willing to trade sex for information.

Turk “never explicitly said I will sleep with you for this, but her mannerisms and her behavior suggested that she was flirtatious, and she was very open to something like that if I ended up providing what she wanted, whatever that was,” Papadopoulos told the lawmakers.

Papadopoulos — who later served 12 days in prison for lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian intermediaries during the campaign — also expanded on his encounter with Turk in his memoir, “Deep State Target,” published in March.

In the book, Papadopoulos recounts how Turk contacted him shortly after he arrived in London by sending a text message that said, “Let’s meet for a drink. I’m looking forward to meeting you.”

Papadopoulos said he wasn’t sure if the message was “suggestive” until he arrived at the bar Turk had picked out for them.


Read more:


Read from top....

meanwhile in ukraine...

The Ukrainian ambassador to the US has confirmed that a Democratic National Committee (DNC) contractor attempted to get information on Donald Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, to initiate hearings in Congress.

Alexandra Chalupa, a self-described human rights activist, approached the mission in 2016 showing interest in Manafort’s case. The ambassador, Valery Chaly, said in written answers to the Hill that his office was unaware of her connections to the DNC at the time and knew Chalupa “because of her engagement with Ukrainian and other diasporas in Washington D.C.”

“All ideas floated by Alexandra were related to approaching a Member of Congress with a purpose to initiate hearings on Paul Manafort or letting an investigative journalist ask President Poroshenko a question about Mr. Manafort during his public talk in Washington, D.C.,” the ambassador said. He insisted that the embassy refused to get involved in the US election.

Read more:



Read from top.

so what's the problem in having someone he can trust?...

Trump finds in Barr the attorney general — and shield — he long sought

Attorney General William P. Barr’s views on presidential power boost his status in the administration, even if he is not personally loyal to President Trump.

is this the end of downer or a sainthood?

US President Donald Trump asked Prime Minister Scott Morrison for help investigating the origins of the Mueller investigation into Russian election interference, the ABC has confirmed.

A White House source has confirmed that Mr Trump asked Mr Morrison to assist a Justice Department investigation being carried out by US Attorney General William Barr.

Australia's former high commissioner to the United Kingdom, Alexander Downer, helped trigger an initial FBI investigation into Mr Trump's links with Russia.

This morning Mr Downer said he knew nothing about the apparent phone call between the President and Prime Minister.

"I don't know anything at all about conversations that Scott Morrison has had with Donald Trump, I'm afraid these days is not the sort of thing I'm privy to," Mr Downer told Radio National Breakfast.

Mr Morrison's office is yet to respond to the reports.

More to come.


Read more:


Read from top.


The crazies are at it again...

joe knows nofin' as usual...

Australia's ambassador to the United States Joe Hockey has disputed a claim by a Republican senator that Alexander Downer played an orchestrated role in starting the Russia inquiry.

Key points:
  • Joe Hockey rejected Lindsey Graham's claims that someone "directed" Alexander Downer to set up a meeting with George Papadopoulos.
  • Earlier this week, Scott Morrison said Mr Downer's actions were not under investigation
  • Downer has rejected any suggestion he was part of an anti-Trump conspiracy


Senator Lindsey Graham has controversially suggested that Mr Downer, the former high commissioner to the United Kingdom, was "directed" to seek a meeting with Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos.

He wrote that "US intelligence communities" accepted "information from an Australian diplomat who was also directed to contact [Mr] Papadopoulos and relay information … to the Federal Bureau of Investigation".

That meeting, in a London wine bar, helped spark the Mueller inquiry into Russian election interference, which was repeatedly denounced as a "witch hunt" by the US President and his supporters.


Donald Trump's supporters often cite a conspiracy theory that the intelligence services of several countries, including Australia, had a secret plan to derail Mr Trump's election, and the origins of the Mueller inquiry are now the subject of a Department of Justice investigation under Mr Trump's Attorney-General William Barr.


Read more:


Read from top


Od course, "Entitled-man" Hockey would be defending his mate Downer-the-fishnet-Dork. They all come from the same stable of cultivated liars, idiots and ignoramuses of the Liberal (CONservative) Party of Australia — though Hockey is not high on the list of the cultivated... 

so, what damage could downer do to international relations?...

Despite multiple appeals, the document was redacted under Section 33(a)iii of Australia’s FOI Act because it “could reasonably be expected to cause damage to international relations”.

“Release of the full contents of this document could reasonably be expected to damage the bilateral relationship with the United States, and relationships with other partners with which we engage closely,” the document states.

But Mr Morrison left open the door to to US investigators interviewing Mr Downer, whose evening of gin and tonics with a Trump foreign affairs adviser sparked the saga.

“Well we will co-operate with these sorts of requests and you know that is a matter for DFAT and those individuals to facilitate,” he said.

The PM refused to be drawn into ex-Trump adviser George Papadopoulos‘ claim that Alexander Downer was a fool and a spy, or whether there was a transcript of the talks.

“Oh well it’s all very salacious commentary about a meeting which I’m sure whips up people’s interest but I’m not going to add to his own breathless commentary on these issues,” he said.

“I’ll leave the hyperventilation on these matters to others who are far better equipped to practise it.”

Mr Morrison criticised Labor’s attempts to suggest Australia release a transcript of the conversation.

“Look it’s disappointing that Mr Shorten and Mr Albanese have gone down this path. I think it shows signs of unresolved bitterness on Mr Shorten’s part,” he said.

“I think it’s a bit disappointing and I think the fact that Australia has a good relationship with the United States is not something that should be, I think, denigrated in the way they’ve sought to do that.

“I think that’s been a fairly opportunistic and frankly immature response.”

Mr Morrison also refused to budge on his refusal to confirm or deny he urged the White House to invite his friend, Hillsong Pastor Brian C Houston, to attend the state dinner.


Read more:


Read from top.



The “could reasonably be expected to cause damage to international relations”  excuse is either thin or thick... Thin, it's most likely that Downer wrote crap in his report — or thick, as he wrote the truth about what he did... And it's most likely that Downer has also been employed by ASIO as a dilettante spy and floating observer of diplomatic shit — as well as being a purveyor of fake news such as "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction" knowing bloody well that Saddam did not have any... Downer is bad news, despite looking like an idiot with a smile...

hapless halper...

Author of Russiagate Origins Book Claims the Scandal Was an FBI Plot to Help Clinton Win in 2016...


The claim centres on the role of Stefan Halper, a shadowy foreign policy scholar who was reported to have worked as an informant for the FBI at the time when the bureau was investigating the discredited claims of a Trump-Russia connection.

Investigative journalist Lee Smith, the author of the newly-released book ‘The Plot Against the President’, believes that the FBI’s operation ‘Crossfire Hurricane’ was actually designed to “assist” Hillary Clinton.

Speaking to Fox News' Maria Bartiromo on Sunday, Smith discussed the role of Stefan Halper in the Russiagate saga.

Halper, a White House aide-turned-Cambridge professor with close ties to the CIA and MI6, has been identified by several media outlets as an informant used by the FBI to find out if there were any links between the Trump campaign and Russia. Both Trump and Moscow have denied those claims, and a subsequent investigation by Special Counsel Mueller has failed to corroborate them as well.

At the behest of the bureau, Halper reportedly talked to several people involved in the Trump campaign to see if they knew anything about it.

Halper had received more than $1 million worth of contracts from the Defence Department’s Office of Net Assessment between 2012 and 2018 for “research” on social studies and foreign relations. There has been no word regarding payments from the FBI, which is financed separately from the Defence Department.

This summer, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley pressed the Department for all records pertaining to Halper’s contracts due to concerns over potentially “suspicious” contracting practices, but the officials missed the deadline for providing the information.

“What we see is these are not actual studies,” Lee Smith said of those contracts. “We hear that he was reportedly the FBI’s confidential source, sent against the Trump campaign.”

“What he really is – his history is – a political operative,” Smith continued. "This was a political operation designed to assist the Clinton campaign. We talk a lot about the FBI and [Department of Justice] and we’re right to focus on the very bad, likely criminal things they did. But it’s important to remember that the primary beneficiary was the Clinton campaign.”

It is understood that Halper, now 75, was picked as an informant because of his connections with former Trump Campaign chairman Paul Manafort. In the 1980s, he reportedly oversaw a spying operation that involved CIA agents gathering classified foreign policy documents from the Carter administration for then-Republican candidate Reagan.

Lee Smith’s book, which came out on 29 October, apparently met some resistance from Hillary Clinton’s entourage. Days before its release, Fox News reported that Sidney Blumenthal, a former aide to Bill Clinton and Hillary’s long-time confidant, had sent threatening letters to the publisher of the book to stop it from being released.

“The Clinton machine wanted to intimidate Lee,” a source familiar with the matter was quoted as saying. The publisher, however, reportedly found the threats “meritless” and went ahead with the release.


Read more:



Read from top.

the FBI sieve leaks...

US Attorney John Durham who is currently conducting an investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe should take a look at a role played by Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation in sparking and fanning the Russiagate scandal, says Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel.

The newly released House Intelligence Committee's transcripts shed some more light on Joseph Mifsud, the mysterious Maltese professor who apparently told then Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos in March 2016 that Moscow had "damning" Hillary Clinton emails. According to one of the transcripts, Mifsud was heard bragging he was a member of the Clinton Foundation.

Additionally, in a November 2017 interview with Italian newspaper La Repubblica the Maltese professor also admitted that he was in the organisation: "I am a member of the European Council on Foreign relations and you know which is the only foundation I am member of? The Clinton Foundation". At the same time, Mifsud flatly denied that he had told Papadopoulos about the Clinton emails.

Mifsud & Downer Both Tied to Clinton Foundation

The exposure has prompted a lively debate among social media users, who recollected that following the controversial conversation with Mifsud, Papadopoulos had a drink with the Australian high commissioner to the UK Alexander Downer, also known for his ties with the Clinton Foundation.


Read more:



Read from top.

secrecy protecting the rotten alexander's clique...

Bernard Collaery's once-thriving Canberra law practice now operates from the front room of his home.


Key points:
  • Bernard Collaery is being tried in secret for revealing national secrets
  • He blames federal Attorney-General Christian Porter for pursuing the prosecution
  • Mr Collaery says an open trial is important for democratic transparency


His barrister's wig and robe gather dust by the door, and his cosy workplace is infused with the smells of woodsmoke and cooking from the adjoining kitchen.

The 75-year-old lawyer, who's been a fixture of high-profile trials and inquests in the ACT for decades, says he can no longer perform his duties due to a secretive prosecution championed by the Federal Government.

"Our democracy is fragile at the moment," Mr Collaery told 7.30.

"Publicity is the soul of justice.

"It's not a coincidence that journalists, the media, lawyers are being attacked at the moment."

But being a "conservative" when it comes to law, he feels he can't practise his profession.

"I've got a lot of forced spare time," he said.

"I can't do jury work.

"I don't think someone charged with an offence, a conspiracy, can be at the bar table preaching about the law."

He blames Federal Attorney-General Christian Porter for ruining his career.


Read more:




Why is Bernard Collaery’s trial a secret?

STEVE BRACKS June 15th, 2020 


The Australian

The pandemic and the tragic unravelling of President Donald Trump’s America have combined to aid Canberra’s agenda to keep the prosecution of former ACT attorney-general Bernard Collaery out of the public eye.

There has been barely a mention in the media recently about an extraordinary cohort that included former prime ministers, presidents, ministers, generals and ambassadors who had provided affidavits to the ACT Supreme Court in support of Collaery’s submission that his trial for breaching the Intelligence Services Act should be held in public.

It is a year since the AFP raided the home of News Corp journalist Annika Smethurst and the ABC headquarters over separate reports sourced from whistleblowers.

Now we have the media banned from covering key elements of a whistleblower’s trial.

The charges against Collaery concern revelations that in 2004, the then foreign minister, Alexander Downer, approved an Australian Secret Intelligence Service operation to bug the room used by East Timor’s negotiators during maritime boundary negotiations with Australia.

The ACT Supreme Court pre-trial hearing was necessary because Attorney-General Christian Porter issued a nondisclosure certificate under the National Security Information Act.

The act was introduced in 2004, the year the bugging in Dili occurred, to allow national security information to be used in Australian courtrooms — under a regime of strict secrecy. It was a response to the war on terror.

It is sensible that alleged perpetrators of breaches of Australia’s “security” should be prosecuted without exposing our intelligence secrets.

But why is an Act, introduced to facilitate the prosecution of terrorists, invoked in the trial of a whistleblowing lawyer, who revealed Australia’s spying on East Timor during Timor Sea maritime boundary negotiations almost a decade and a half ago?

There was no national security threat to Australia or Australian citizens, and any damage to Australia’s relationship with our close, friendly, underdeveloped neighbour East Timor, has surely already occurred — and arguably been remedied by the median line-based maritime boundary treaty East Timor signed in March 2018. If anything, the government’s decision to prosecute Collaery and Witness K, just two months after the treaty was signed, has again tested and stressed Australia’s relationship with Timor-Leste.

Two of the new nation’s leading statesmen, my friends Xanana Gusmao and Nobel Laureate Jose Ramos Horta, both of whom have served as prime minister and president, swore affidavits in support of Collaery’s plea for an open trial.

Both were prepared to travel to Canberra to be cross-examined on their evidence until the COVID-19 pandemic made that impossible.

The pre-trial hearing started on May 25 — in the ACT Supreme Court.

The absurd degree of secrecy surrounding the prosecution means that we don’t know if Gusmao or Horta appeared by video link, or if they will appear at a later date when they can travel, or if their evidence has been accepted by the prosecution unchallenged.

Nor do we know if Collaery’s other high-profile witnesses, Australia’s former Indonesia ambassador John McCarthy, former foreign minister Gareth Evans and former defence chief Chris Barrie, have given evidence.

Illustration: John Tiedemann

The trio’s statements are not public, but Justice David Mossop told the court during an earlier pre-trial hearing that their affidavits were intended to directly challenge assertions by the Attorney-General that there would be a risk of prejudice to Australia’s national security if certain information was disclosed publicly during the trial.

Interestingly, given the past roles of Evans, McCarthy and Barrie, all three would have the highest level of security clearance. But again, we don’t know if this means they have been able to see and challenge the evidence against Collaery.

I suspect a primary motivation for the excessive secrecy surrounding Collaery’s prosecution is to protect former prime minister John Howard and Alexander Downer, who could both be called to give evidence about why the spying was authorised.

I can understand why they would be uncomfortable seeking to justify the bugging in open court.

How do you defend diverting ASIS officers from the war on terror to spy on the leaders of the desperately poor Timorese?

At the time of the bugging, the nation had only been in existence for two years and carried the physical and emotional scars of the brutal 24-year Indonesian occupation.

In what moral universe can you justify installing listening devices to add to Australia’s already massive advantages in negotiations with the Timorese for rights to $40bn-plus worth of oil and gas in the Timor Sea — on Timor’s side of the median line? Clearly the same moral universe in which Collaery is being tried in secret for reporting a crime by one of the richest nations in the world against one of the poorest.

The spying was a disgraceful episode in Australia’s history perpetrated by the Howard - government, and successive Coalition governments have continued to defend the indefensible.

The spying is out of the bag, and attempts to cover it up, and impose secret trials on moral men, only adds to Australia’s shame.

Steve Bracks was premier of Victoria from 1999 to 2007.


Read more: story/61168e207f3b89341db786b985338f35 




Read from top.



See also:



as scummo back-pedals at the speed of fading light, downer adds fuel to the slavery controversy, in australia...

protecting alexander's dark soul...

Bernard Collaery has said he longs to defend himself in an open court and labelled his secret trial a “disgrace”, as the former president of Timor-Leste likened Australia’s treatment of the Canberra lawyer to North Korean or Soviet-era “political trials”.

A national security episode of the ABC’s Q+A program on Monday highlighted the controversial prosecution of Collaery, who is facing the prospect of jail if convicted over his role as legal counsel to a former intelligence officer who exposed the Australian government’s bugging of Timor-Leste during oil treaty negotiations in 2004.

Colleary, who is accused of unlawfully disclosing secret intelligence information and conspiring with his former client Witness K, told the program on Monday night the case was a “disgrace to Witness K and a disgrace to myself”.

“I yearn for the day when I can defend Witness K and myself in open court,” he said. “This is the democracy that my father gave his life in the war for.”

The ABC broadcast a written statement from José Ramos-Horta, who said the prosecution and secret trial “brings to mind the North Korean and Soviet-era political trials”.

“Witness K and Bernard Collaery did no harm to Australia’s vital national security interests,” he said.

“If anything, they rescued Australia from moral depravity as they helped roll back a criminal, illegal order to carry out an illegal wiretapping of a friendly government. The case against them should be summarily dismissed.”


Read more:


Read from top.


more explosive alleged donald's antics...

Donald Trump was so obsessed with Barack Obama that he hired an actor to ‘play’ the former president in a video, so he could berate and bully him, an explosive tell-all book alleges.

A still photo from the apparent video appears alongside further details of Mr Trump’s fixation on Obama, in the pages of Michael Cohen’s Disloyal: A Memoir.

The President’s former attorney, Cohen is set to finally release his tell-all book this week about his time with Mr Trump, after winning a legal battle to finish writing it.

According to Cohen’s book, Mr Trump was obsessed with discrediting his predecessor Mr Obama, hung up on his race as much as his politics.

In public, he questioned his birthplace. In private, he called him a “Manchurian candidate” and slandered his Ivy League degree.

Cohen’s memoir goes as far as to allege Mr Trump used openly racist language when talking about Hispanics and Blacks.

“Tell me one country run by a black person that isn’t a sh-thole. They are all complete f—–g toilets,” Cohen writes, according to advance copies provided to US news outlets, including The Washington Post.


Read more:


And there's more!...


I believe that Trump won't pardon Michael Cohen...


Trump employed Cohen until May 2018, a year after the special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections began. The investigation led him to plead guilty on August 21, 2018, to eight counts including campaign finance violations, tax fraud, and bank fraud.[8] Cohen said he violated campaign finance laws at the direction of Trump and "for the principal purpose of influencing" the 2016 presidential election.[9] In November 2018, Cohen entered a second guilty plea for lying to a Senate committee about efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.[10][11]

On December 12, 2018, he was sentenced to three years in federal prison and ordered to pay a $50,000 fine after pleading guilty to tax evasion and campaign finance violations.[12] On February 26, 2019, he was officially disbarred by the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division.[13] He reported to the federal prison near Otisville, New York, on May 6, 2019.[8][14][15]

On May 21, 2020, Cohen was released from prison early due to concerns regarding COVID-19, to serve the rest of his sentence under house arrest.[16][17][18] On July 2, 2020, Cohen was observed dining at a Manhattan restaurant[19], and on July 9, 2020, was taken back into federal custody after refusing to agree to conditions of home confinement that included a prohibition on communicating with the media. Cohen filed suit complaining his re-arrest was an attempt to prevent him from releasing a tell-all book about Donald Trump.[20] On July 23 a judge found in his favor and ordered that he be returned to home confinement.[21]


Read more:


Read from top.

polishing alexander's turds...

In this week’s news, we are learning that Jordan Fuchs, the Georgia Deputy Secretary of State who was the Washington Post’s source for its blockbuster story on Trump’s call to the Georgia election investigator, gave false information about one of the calls, as discussed by Arthur Bloom.


By Stephen McIntyre

This seems like an appropriate segue to re-examine an equally grotesque and virtually undiscussed fabrication by notorious FBI official Peter Strzok, who, in a CBS interview and in his recent memoir Compromised, fabricated the damning assertion that Australian diplomat Alexander Downer’s submission of information to the U.S. embassy in London had been “triggered” by Trump’s “Russia, are you listening” quip, and that, accordingly, Trump “with his own words had brought [the Crossfire Hurricane] investigation on himself.”

But it was totally untrue. Although the key documents on Downer’s interviews, first with Deputy Chief of Mission Elizabeth Dibble and subsequently with Strzok and SSA Joe Pientka, remain concealed, it was possible (by sheer chance) to refute Strzok’s fabrication using the very limited open-source chronological information. Strzok quickly recognized his dilemma, promptly gave a new narrative that was, at least, not chronologically impossible, and everyone moved on as though nothing had happened. Neither CBS nor his publisher even bothered issuing a retraction or correction.

But the spectacle of Strzok’s “false memory” relating to one of the most critical Russiagate incidents—an incident at the very origin of Crossfire Hurricane—deserves careful consideration and re-examination.

The Chronology

Downer’s junior associate Erika Thompson, the political counsellor at the Australian embassy in London, had drinks with George Papadopoulos on May 6. (Christian Cantor of the Israeli embassy in London may also have been present.) On May 10, Downer and Thompson had a follow-up meeting with Papadopoulos. It is very unclear whether the now-canonical account of Papadopoulos’s story arose from the May 10 meeting at which Downer was present or from the May 6 meeting, on which Downer’s information was second-hand. The Mueller Report was singularly evasive on this seemingly simple point.

Downer sent a report on his meeting with Papadopoulos back to the Australian Foreign Ministry on May 11 and thought nothing more about the incident for a couple of months. (The existence of Downer’s report has been confirmed, but it remains totally redacted.)

On July 26, Downer—suddenly, urgently and outside of diplomatic protocol—went personally to the U.S. embassy in London and sought out the most senior official, Elizabeth Dibble, the Deputy Chief of Mission (as the Ambassador was not in the country at the time). 

Dibble promptly called in and briefed the FBI Legat (Brian Boetig) and most senior CIA official in London (Gina Haspel). Boetig promptly wrote up an FBI “Electronic Communication,” which quickly made its way to FBI Headquarters. On Friday, July 29, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe directed the Assistant Director, Counterintelligence (Bill Priestap) to open the counterintelligence investigation now known to us as Crossfire Hurricane. Priestap passed the direction to open the case on to his subordinate, Peter Strzok (then Section Chief, CD4) and additionally instructed him to proceed immediately to London to interview Downer.

Over the weekend, Strzok officially opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, filing the authorizing Electronic Communication memorandum on Sunday, July 31. The form, one of the few available documents on the affair, shows that it was both prepared by Strzok and approved by Strzok—not exactly the check and balance that one would have anticipated. Strzok contacted the FBI Assistant Legat in London (which appears to be Paul Woodbery) and asked him to arrange an interview with the Australian diplomats. 

On Monday, August 1, Strzok was informed by the London office that the Australians had agreed to an interview. That evening, Strzok and Pientka left for London on the overnight flight, arriving in London in the early morning of August 2. It took some additional time for terms of the interview to be ironed out, but by about 2 p.m. London time (10 a.m. Eastern), the interview was a go.  The interview seems to have gone on for about 2-3 hours. Strzok and Pientka were back in Washington on August 3. Crossfire Hurricane was already in full flight.

Strzok’s Story about Downer

All documents on the Downer interview were promptly placed under extreme classification and remain concealed to this day. Nor is there any relevant information in the available Strzok-Page texts, either because Strzok (uncharacteristically) didn’t gossip with Page about the meeting or, more likely, because any such texts have been withheld or expunged.

Strzok’s September 6, 2020, interview with CBS (and related brief comments in Compromised) gave the very first information on the critical Downer interview, including the very first official explanation of why Downer decided to report the Papadopoulos conversation to the U.S. embassy when he did—in Strzok’s words, what “triggered him.”

Exact words are important, so here are Strzok’s exact words in the CBS interview (transcription and emphasis mine):

Narrator: Papadopoulos was in London having drinks with an Australian diplomat. 

Strzok: Papadopoulos told them that somebody on the Trump campaign had received an offer that said the Russians have material that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton and to Obama and they offered to coordinate the release of that information in a way that would help the Trump campaign.

Narrator: The Australians didn’t make much of it until Trump made this appeal about Hillary Clinton’s emails: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.” Those Australian diplomats heard that and contacted the FBI.

Strzok:When they saw that speech by Trump, that triggered their memory of the conversation they had with Papadopoulos.

The CBS interviewer observed the implication that Trump had been hoisted on his own petard, as it was his own inflammatory statements that had originated the entire Crossfire Hurricane investigation, not malicious or mistaken conduct by others after all. Strzok agreed:

Interviewer: So, Donald Trump with his own words brought this investigation down on himself. 

Strzok: According to what theforeign government told us, yes.

In Compromised, Strzok similarly stated that Downer delivered his original information to the U.S. embassy “shortly after Trump’s Florida press conference”:

When we received the report about Papadopoulos’s revelations to the Friendly Foreign Government’s personnel—intelligence that they sent from their embassy to ours shortly after Trump’s Florida press conference…

In Downer’s recounting, Trump’s words jarred his memory of a series of conversations months earlier…

A vivid narrative from one of the most important figures in the opening of Crossfire Hurricane.

The Contradiction

Here’s the problem.

Trump’s “Russia, are you listening” quip was made at a July 27, 2016, press conference, while Downer’s tip was given to the U.S. embassy on July 26, one day earlier. (The July 26 date is provided in both the Mueller Report, published in April 2019, and the Horowitz Report, published in December 2019.) 

It was chronologically impossible for Trump’s quip to have actually triggered Downer’s tip.  

Worse, this implies that Strzok’s story about Downer telling him that he had been triggered by Trump’s speech was also untrue—either a false memory or fabrication—each as insalubrious as the other. 

Nobody in U.S. major media or its “fact checkers” noticed Strzok’s false information.

It was, however, quickly noticed by Hans Mahncke, a knowledgeable Twitter commentator on Russiagate, who issued the following challenge to Strzok on Twitter at 5:58 p.m. on Sept 6, 2020:

.@petestrzok told CBS that the Australians came forward because they were triggered by a Trump speech.

The problem is that the Australians came forward *before* Trump's speech. 

Strzok is lying or the Australians lied. Take your pick. 

Either way, this destroys the predicate.

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) September 6, 2020


Mahncke’s observation was picked up by Dan Bongino, who two days later (September 8, 2020) colorfully brought it to the attention of his large audience (citing Mahncke). In framing his comment as a choice between Strzok lying or Downer lying, Mahncke was allowing to the remote possibility that Australian ambassador Downer had lied to Strzok about what had triggered him. Because Strzok’s interview with Downer took place after Trump’s quip, Downer would have had knowledge of the quip when he met Strzok, even though he didn’t have knowledge of the quip when he provided the tip. So it is not chronologically impossible that Downer lied, only implausible. But it remains a remote possibility that Strzok himself never suggested, and which became moot when Strzok (as discussed below) walked back part of his false story.

Later on September 6 (9:11 p.m.), Jerry Dunleavy of the Washington Examiner published a short article (together with accompanying announcement on Twitter) that pointed out the impossibility of Strzok’s chronology:

NEW: Strzok claims Downer was spurred to tell U.S. about Papadopoulos convo (FBI cited to open Trump-Russia inquiry) after Trump said "Russia if you're listening…" But Mueller/Horowitz say Australia told U.S. on 7/26/16. Trump quip wasn't til next day…

— Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) September 7, 2020


While Dunleavy alertly noticed the chronological issue, unlike Mahncke, he didn’t connect the impossible chronology to Strzok’s false story about what Downer had told him. As discussed in the next section, Strzok capitalized on this oversight to construct a “limited hangout”—to borrow an apt phrase from Nixonian days.

Strzok’s September 11 Lawfare Interview

Three days later (September 11), Strzok did a lengthy interview on Benjamin Wittes’ Lawfare podcast as part of his continued promotion of his memoir.

In an open online question period following the interview, Wittes put the following question from Dunleavy to Strzok:

Wittes: Jerry Dunleavy of Washington Examiner writes: “Can Mr. Strzok clear up what seems to be a contradiction in his timeline of how the Crossfire Hurricane investigation began. He writes that the Australians were prompted to contact the U.S. about a May 2016 conversation with George Papadopoulos following Trump’s ‘Russia, are you listening’ comment in July 2016. But Mueller and Horowitz say that the U.S. was contacted by the Friendly Foreign Government on July 26. Trump’s comments were not until the next day, July 27, 2016.” Any help for Mr. Dunleavy?

Strzok appears to have been already aware of the chronological contradiction of his previous narrative, as he was ready with a smooth answer that purported to sanitize his prior false story, an answer that was given without any request for clarifying details and without the slightest stumble. Strzok crisply acknowledged the error, which, needless to say, he blamed on others: 

Strzok: Absolutely. I got that wrong. I was writing my book without the benefit of my notes. The FBI had those. And the IG report had not been issued. 

In his new version, Strzok said it was the Wikileaks dump of DNC emails on July 22 that “prompted their memory of the conversation” (not the Trump quip):

What happened was is that there had been a big dump through Wikileaks absolutely, as the IG report describes it. They saw that. That prompted their memory of the conversation. And then they began the process of contacting us overseas and giving us that information to us. 

Watch the pea here. Strzok didn’t say that Downer told him that the Wikileaks dump prompted his visit to the U.S. embassy. If Downer had done so, then Strzok’s story to CBS and in his book was even worse than we thought, as not only did he tell a false story about the prompt, but, in doing so, he concealed the actual story. Taken literally, Strzok’s assertion about what prompted Downer could be nothing more than his assessment—or “analytic conclusion,” to borrow a phrase from Igor Danchenko, EC—or, more accurately, speculation.  It defies logic that Strzok and Pientka wouldn’t have asked Downer what prompted his visit to the Embassy, but we don’t know whether they did. 

Strzok’s new narrative still tried to blame Trump for instigating the Crossfire Hurricane investigation:

My recollection is, and the reason why I mention that conversation about Trump’s speech about Russia, are you listening, when we finally in the Counterintelligence Division got that lead from the FFG, it was at the same time that Trump was making those comments. Which was really concerning. Because they dovetailed exactly with Trump asking for Russian assistance, Trump asking for the Russians to hack in and find her emails, whatever their technique, and that came in at the same time.

This aspect of the chronology is realistic. DCM Dibble briefed FBI Legat Boetig and CIA Head of Station (Haspel) on July 27. On July 28, FBI Legat Boetig sent his Electronic Communication to a contact at the Philadelphia Field Office, who forwarded it the same day to Charles McGonigal, Section Chief of the Cyber Counterintelligence Coordination Section at FBI headquarters. Strzok appears to have learned of the Australian information in the evening of July 28—the day after Trump’s quip.

In this new version, it was the FBI Counterintelligence Division itself which was “triggered” by Trump’s quip (not the Australian ambassador). Strzok didn’t explain or even acknowledge his false memory about Downer telling Strzok about the Trump quip. Nor, needless to say, was he challenged by Trump-deranged Wittes on his prior fabrication.

This may also point to an explanation of the apparent failure of supposedly ace counterintelligence officials Strzok and Pientka to even ask Downer about what “triggered” his report (if the surmise about such neglect is borne out). Because the FBI officials had been “triggered” by Trump’s “Russia, are you listening” speech, perhaps they assumed that Downer had been as well—not turning their minds to the chronological impossibility until confronted by Twitter critics.

Returning to Strzok’s narrative, Strzok then purported to minimize his false memory as “a little error,” casting shade on critics of his story:

So, there was a little error. I know that some people are scrubbing timelines for little details and making headlines around them. But that was an honest mistake based on a lack of specific recollection that came after I submitted my book to pre-pub review, all this information came out afterwards.

Wittes accepted Strzok’s self-serving and implausible answer without comment or question and moved on. 

As to Strzok’s supposed “little error” and/or “honest mistake,” it seems easy enough for someone (without access to notes) to be incorrect on the relative order of two events that occurred one day apart four years ago. However, Strzok himself, like other Mueller investigators, was unforgiving of seemingly similar or even lesser missteps by Trump-orbit witnesses. (Or, in the case of Mueller investigators, as alleged by, for example, K.T. McFarland and Rick Gates, seemingly seeking to entrap witnesses, sometimes even denying them access to refreshing documents.)

Strzok also attempted to blame his supposed “little error” on the fact that “the IG report had not been issued” when he was writing the book and when he submitted the manuscript for clearance. But Strzok’s real issue wasn’t that these reports weren’t available in real time, but that he failed to realize that his tall tale about Downer was contradicted by the July 26 date disclosed in the Horowitz Report published in December 2019, long before publication of his memoir in September 2020. (Actually, it’s even worse: The July 26 date was publicly disclosed eight months before the Horowitz Report, in the April 2019 Mueller Report.)

It seems exceptionally hypocritical for Strzok (or any participant in the Mueller investigation) to exonerate their own false statements as merely a “little error” or “honest mistake” due to lack of access to notes and documents, given their prior record of putting Mueller victims on the rack for incorrect statements or recollections about earlier events without showing them the emails to comment on (as they did, for example, in the examination of Hillary Clinton). Richard Gates, Alex van der Zwaan, Michael Flynn, and George Papadopoulos were all charged and convicted for false statements about previous events that were not in themselves criminal or even harmful. Strzok’s expectation that the Lawfare audience should accept his false memory as a “little error” and “honest mistake” seems audacious given his gloating in Compromised. 

Strzok’s “False Memory” and its Implications

Out of all the issues arising from Strzok’s CBS and Lawfare interviews, the most important was left unexamined by Wittes: Strzok’s false memory of Downer supposedly telling him about the triggering event—a story that is not only central to Crossfire Hurricane, but which was also prominently used in the CBS interview to discredit Trump.

Note that it was completely fortuitous that there was enough open-source information to contradict Strzok’s false story. If the Mueller and Horowitz reports had merely said “late July,” instead of “July 26” (as would have been entirely possible), there would be no way to contradict Strzok’s false information. Or, if Downer had delayed his visit to the embassy by a day or two (also entirely possible), it would have similarly been impossible to confront Strzok’s disinformation. 

Strzok’s false memory on such an essential incident obviously calls into question his recollection and characterization of other Russiagate incidents. In Compromised, Strzok also commented on the “sanctions” issue in the January 24, 2017, Michael Flynn interview (also by Strzok and Pientka). I plan to discuss this in a separate article, as, once again, Strzok’s narrative in Compromised appears to be another case of “false memory.” 

Secondly, there’s no reason to uncritically accept Strzok’s second version of what supposedly triggered Downer’s information on July 26. Indeed, the opposite is the case. Strzok’s changing story makes it all the more important to re-examine the events immediately prior to Downer’s visit to the U.S. embassy. These turn out to be considerably more textured and interesting than Strzok’s limited hangout. I intend to discuss these events in another follow-up article as well.

The corollary of discovering Strzok’s lie is that we don’t presently know two of the most fundamental questions about the opening of Crossfire Hurricane: (1) what triggered Downer to report the Papadopoulos conversation to the U.S. embassy; and (2) what Downer actually told Strzok on August 1, 2016, about what triggered him to go to the U.S. embassy.

Finally, Strzok’s illustrated lack of credibility raises a fundamental question on Crossfire Hurricane itself. Strzok’s opening memorandum was based on fourth- (perhaps fifth-)hand information. With that many handoffs in a sort of Pass The Telephone game by multiple officials, there’s an obvious, serious risk of distortion or misunderstanding along the way. In particular, in Downer’s earliest public interview about Crossfire Hurricane, neither the words “Russian offer” nor any cognate concept occur.

Stephen McIntyre is founder and editor of Climate Audit.


Read more:


See also: the WaPo experience...