Russiagate
Date | November 2016 - 2019 |
---|---|
Interest of | 7th floor group, Father Andrew, Naz Durakoğlu, Fazze, Mark Hackard, Avril Haines, Stefan Halper, Deborah Haynes, Aaron Maté, George Papadopoulos, Joy Reid |
Russiagate was a string of ever-mutating revelations about the Russian government having taken control of the American presidency, by blackmailing Donald Trump[citation needed], starting influence campaigns on social media[citation needed], supporting Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein and "creating division in American society"[citation needed].
Eventually the accusations changed to the Russian government having helped Trump without him knowing[citation needed] of the effort. Over a period of several years, endless mutations of these accusations dominated corporate media, but in the end, even an impeachment effort failed, and left Donald Trump standing.
Being never-ending, minute-to-minute cavalcade of supposed dramatic revelations of Russian collusion and meddling in corporate media, one noticeable factor is the way every of the hundreds of accusations and insinuations melted into thin air the moment their were scrutinized by alternative media[citation needed]. Still, by their sheer amount and persistence, the accusations left an impression of being solid, and have entered the "common knowledge" as something true in large sections of the population[citation needed], including in the ruling class.
Given that Donald Trump consistently has expanded the US military presence near Russia's borders, introduced heavy economic and political sanctions and quit most arms treaties, one can say that if the accusations of trump being a Manchurian Candidate were true, the Russian government certainly hasn't got its money worth.
“The similarities between Watergate and Russiagate are huge when you look at the shadow op that was conducted against Nixon by the Deep State. We now know this, thanks to FOIA requests made by Geoff Shepard which the DOJ has finally complied with.
The Watergate investigative team appointed by the DOJ was remarkably similar to the Mueller team. Special prosecutor Archibald Cox named his personal friend, a guy named James Vorenberg, to appoint the entire staff of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force. Vorenberg appointed 70 colleagues to the team. All were Ivy League grads and every single one of them had been fired and replaced when the Nixon administration came into office in 1969. Sounds very similar to the Clinton donors who padded Mueller’s team, doesn’t it?
Vorenberg bragged in his first press conference that the team wasn’t just going to investigate Watergate. They were going to probe everything that Nixon had done during his first five years in office. Where have we heard that before?”
'admin' (2 January 2020) [1]
Contents
Background
When Donald trump unexpectedly[citation needed] won the presidential election in 2016 deep state faction loyal to the Democratic Party decided to start a psychological operation. Centered around the intelligence services[citation needed], but with support in certain corporate sectors[citation needed], the traditional foreign policy elite[citation needed] and NATO-allies[citation needed], the goals were firstly to destabilize or unseat the Trump-administration, and secondly to reinforce the new cold war with Russia[citation needed], including a new McCarthyism, extensive propaganda, military expansion and censorship activities.[citation needed]
Instigators
7th floor group, Hillary Clinton, British intelligence services
Hacking of Democratic Party servers
The official story goes that the Russian government hacked into the servers of the Democratic Party (DNC), where files incriminating Hillary Clinton were found and later given to Wikileaks. This storyline is part of the basis for the attempt to crack WikiLeaks and imprison Julian Assange[citation needed].
Alternative media have solidly shown that the files were downloaded to a USB[citation needed], not hacked online; that the whistleblower probably was DNC insider Seth Rich[citation needed], who later were shot and killed in an alleged robbery; and the files were transferred to WikiLeaks by Craig Murray[citation needed].
The pee-tapes
When looking for dirt on Donald Trump, every huckster in town could strike it rich. There is a British connection here, to Jonathan Steele, who presented a dossier[citation needed] with accusations of the Russian government having filmed Donald Trump in a compromising situation in Moscow (the 'golden shower'/'pee-tapes'), which later were revealed to have been a fan fiction story from the internet. The sourcing of dirt on Trump even has a connection to Sergei Skripal[citation needed].
Russian influence of Social Media
A long Senate investigation into Russian influence on social media having tipped the election to Trump, ended up with concluding that a company in St.Petersburg, the Internet Research Agency ('the Russians', thereby automatically the Russian government) had spent $100.000 on social media campaigns.
Attempt to entrap George Papadopoulos
A probable British intelligence operative, professor Joseph Mifsud, allegedly discussed that Russia has ‘dirt’ on Clinton in the form of ‘thousands of emails’ with Trump capaign worked George Papadopoulos in London in April 2016.[2]
The following month, Papadopoulos spoke with Alexander Downer, Australia’s ambassador to the UK, about the alleged Russian dirt on Clinton while they were drinking at a swanky Kensington bar, according to The Times. In late July 2016, Downer shared his tip with Australian intelligence officials who forwarded it to the FBI.
Later, during a visit to Israel, Papadopoulos was handed $10.000 in cash from an Israeli 'campaign donor'. Papadopoulos left the money in trust with an attorney in Greece before going back to the United States. At US customs, he was frisked, making him realieze the money was an entrapment attempt.[citation needed]
The Mueller investigation
After a 2 year investigation, the Mueller report summary states, “The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 US Presidential Election…the report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public.”
Robert Mueller did not charge any Americans with collusion, coordination, or criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. The special counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign “coordinated,” a much lower standard defined as an “agreement, tacit or express,” with Russian election interference activities. They did not.[3]
'No collusion!'
The first conclusions to emerge from Robert Mueller’s report will prove discomfiting to the centrist, Clinton-affiliated wing of the Democratic Party, which blamed Hillary Clinton’s 2016 election defeat on a Russian plot. They will also be a serious affront to most in the US media, which has for two years made ‘Russiagate’ its biggest story.
Donald Trump, it seems, has been emboldened by the report. Throughout his presidency he has repeated, like an automaton: ‘No collusion!’ Attorney general William Barr’s summary of the document suggests that he was right: ‘The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.’ All the Trump officials who have already been convicted were charged with other crimes: tax fraud, making false statements to a congressional committee, etc.
Democrats on the left could also find strength in Mueller’s verdict. Now, their party may have to abandon the narrative and breathless tone of a bad spy novel, and devote its energy to the issues facing American society. This is its best hope if it wants to beat Trump at the end of next year.[4]
'Big nothing burger'
Van Jones termed it a 'big nothing burger'.
Matt Taibbi wrote in March 2019 that It's official: Russiagate is this generation's WMD.
The biggest thing this affair has uncovered so far is Donald Trump paying off a porn star. That’s a hell of a long way from what this business was supposedly about at the beginning, and shame on any reporter who tries to pretend this isn’t so.
The story hyped from the start was espionage: a secret relationship between the Trump campaign and Russian spooks who’d helped him win the election.
The betrayal narrative was not reported as metaphor. It was not “Trump likes the Russians so much, he might as well be a spy for them.” It was literal spying, treason, and election-fixing – crimes so severe, former NSA employee John Schindler told reporters, Trump “will die in jail.”
In the early months of this scandal, the New York Times said Trump’s campaign had “repeated contacts” with Russian intelligence; the Wall Street Journal told us our spy agencies were withholding intelligence from the new President out of fear he was compromised; news leaked out our spy chiefs had even told other countries like Israel not to share their intel with us, because the Russians might have “leverages of pressure” on Trump.[5]
Related Quotations
Page | Quote | Author | Date |
---|---|---|---|
Corporate media/Mendacity | “More and more we are seeing narratives about cyber-threats being used to advance reports of “attacks” and “acts of war” being perpetrated which, as far as the public is concerned, consist of nothing other than the authoritative assertions of confident-sounding media pundits. There was a recent NBC exclusive which was co-authored by Ken Dilanian, who is an actual, literal CIA asset, about the threat of hackers working for the Iranian government. The alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US elections is now routinely compared to Pearl Harbor and 9/11, despite no hard, verifiable evidence that that interference even took place ever being presented to the public.” | Caitlin Johnstone | 11 August 2018 |
Charles Schumer | “"Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," Schumer told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow in response to the president-elect challenging allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
"So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he’s being really dumb to do this," Schumer added. "What do you think the intelligence community will do if they were motivated to," Maddow wondered. "I don’t know, but from what I am told intelligence officials are very upset with how [Trump] has treated them and talked about them," Schumer replied. "Do we think he has an agenda to try to dismantle parts of the intelligence community? I mean this form of taunting hostility," she said. "Let me tell you. Whether you’re a super liberal Democrat or a very conservative Republican, you should be against dismantling the intelligence community," Schumer noted.” | Charles Schumer | 2017 |
Related Documents
Rating