SPYGATE update by Jeff Carlson

Submitted by Linda Wood on Thu, 03/28/2019 - 12:09pm

Jeff Carlson has done a masterful job of keeping track of and interpreting the public information as well as released documents about Russiagate/SPYGATE. Here is today's update.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/spygate-the-inside-story-behind-the-allege...

Spygate: The Inside Story Behind the Alleged Plot to Take Down Trump
BY JEFF CARLSON
March 28, 2019

Efforts by high-ranking officials in the CIA, FBI, Department of Justice (DOJ), and State Department to portray President Donald Trump as having colluded with Russia were the culmination of years of bias and politicization under the Obama administration.

The weaponization of the intelligence community and other government agencies created an environment that allowed for obstruction in the investigation into Hillary Clinton and the relentless pursuit of a manufactured collusion narrative against Trump.

A willing and complicit media spread unsubstantiated leaks as facts in an effort to promote the Russia-collusion narrative.

The Spygate scandal also raises a bigger question: Was the 2016 election a one-time aberration, or was it symptomatic of decades of institutional political corruption?

Tags:

SPYGATE

Russisagate

Jeff Carlson

doj

fbi

Vote

Comments

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Thu, 03/28/2019 - 4:26pm

I have questions; and not merely rhetorical ones: I would

really like to elicit views, even though my own view is likely obvious.

Weren't agencies like the CIA and the FBI always weaponized? When the establishment right claimed to represent the so-called moral majority, weren't intelligence agencies (an oxymoron?) weapons of the establishment right? Now that establishment Democrats are at last as hostile to things like Social Security and welfare as the establishment right and also just as eager to butt into the internal affairs of other nations, aren't agencies like the FBI and the CIA now just tools of "the establishment" as a whole?

Trump at least tried to run as a populist, standing, "bless his heart," both in the penthouse of Manhattan's Trump Tower and in the Oval Office of the perhaps the best-run castle in the world after those of the English monarch, with the ~~owners of coal mines~~ coal miners of Appalachia and the employer-less work forces of the Rust Belt? And, if not a populist, he ran at least as an anti-establishment Republican. (Establishment Republicans weren't that thrilled with him, either, with Bush the Mature and Bush the Lesser both taking the unprecedented step of refusing to endorse the nominee of the Party each of them once led. Same for Romney, until Trump endgamed him by dangling S of S before his vain eyes, but Romney was never elected President. Still, as the nominee, he at least theoretically led the GOP.)

Where I am going with this is no secret. To sum up: Haven't the agencies always been weapons of those in power? Apart from quisling, consolidated msm, isn't the only change that establishment Democrats have become more and more overtly like establishment Republicans?

Submitted by Linda Wood on Thu, 03/28/2019 - 4:11pm

From my perspective

@HenryAWallace

the CIA and the military industrial complex are the legacy of a U.S. cabal that armed and financed Hitler in the 1930s and through the duration of World War II. They went on to control our foreign policy, arming and financing death squads and terrorist armies throughout the world. They are a Fascist cell in our government.

The Republican party has openly supported the CIA and the military industrial complex. The Democratic party has also done so. The owner operator of the party, Averell Harriman, was a Nazi industrialist throughout the war and client of Allen Dulles, founder of the CIA.

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Thu, 03/28/2019 - 4:58pm

While explicated differently for purposes of this thread,

@Linda Wood

I think we are on the same page as to the duration of the "weaponization."

Truman established it (for whatever reason), https://www.trumanlibrary.org/dbq/cia.php, then called its creation a mistake. AFAIK, he did nothing to correct his "mistake," though. So, I think Truman was just trying to have it every which way, as politicians are wont to do.

Submitted by ggersh on Thu, 03/28/2019 - 5:04pm

Dont forget their surrogates, the Bushs

@Linda Wood @Linda Wood and thru them the clintons, empty suit
etc.etc

—

I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish

"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"

Heard from Margaret Kimberley

Submitted by Linda Wood on Thu, 03/28/2019 - 5:34pm

All

@ggersh

who have carried out the foreign policy of the CIA have continued the legacy of Allen Dulles, attorney for the Farben/StandardOil cartel of death.

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Thu, 03/28/2019 - 4:46pm

When you say establishment

@HenryAWallace

... are you referring to the Political Establishment?

Are you talking about people who are elected to office and about political party Establishments? Political parties are distinct only at this level.

When you say Intelligence Agencies, are you talking about the FBI? Since they work inside the DOJ, they are ubiquitous in all recent political discussions. The Secret Service also works at the political level.

The way it looks to me, intelligence agencies like the CIA don't really answer to people at the political level. They are affiliated with non-elected authorities, who operate at geopolitical levels. You'll find them at the State Department and the Pentagon. This level has no interest in US domestic issues, which dominate the Political level. However, they do release propaganda. as needed, to influence thinking and opinion on the political level, both in politicians and the public. They have a direct interface with corporate media. Oversight at this level is sketchy or unknown. The most influential think tanks operate at this level. The Financiers and Families reach into government through the think tank interface.

—

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato

Submitted by Linda Wood on Thu, 03/28/2019 - 5:42pm

Yes,

@Pluto's Republic

I think the closest thing we have to a signed document by the perps, at the level of the think tanks you describe, is the series of papers by the Project on the New American Century. Their most notorious statement, written before 9/11, but read by most observers just after the attack, suggests the perps may have allowed 9/11 to happen, knowing it was immanent.

Their signatures to the policy statements advocating taking over the world by force for the purpose of making sure natural resources wouldn't fall into the hands of the people of the Third World, or in other words, so they wouldn't be nationalized, were an admission of their belief in taking resources by force.

Their Pearl Harbor statement, then, was an acknowledgement of the likelihood that 9/11 would eventually be found to have been enacted by them. The statement was their mea culpa preceded by their reasons for doing it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#Rebui...'s_Defenses

… Written before the September 11 attacks, and during political debates of the War in Iraq, a section of Rebuilding America's Defenses entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force" became the subject of considerable controversy: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."[45]

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Thu, 03/28/2019 - 5:49pm

@Pluto's Republic

@Pluto's Republic

When you say establishment

@HenryAWallace

... are you referring to the Political Establishment?

Are you talking about people who are elected to office and about political party Establishments?

I don't think that simply answering your questions "yes" or "no" would serve to increase communication. When I posted, I assumed, apparently incorrectly, that terms like "the establishment" and "establishment politicians" were commonly-understood terms; and you did not explain what you mean by "Political Establishment" or "political party Establishments."
So, I will elaborate.

As used in my post above, "establishment" means those with considerable actual power, be they those in power in elected office, or those who pull the strings of the holders of elected offices, or those in power at NBC or in the bowels of the Executive Building, the Bilderburg Group, or wherever or whomever are the actual "deciders" of what shall happen in this country and what shall be known by us plebes and what we plebes must endure if we continue to be plebes in the USA on planet Earth.

Because almost everything seems to have been politicized, I would consider all of those people "the establishment" as well as the "political establishment" and "political party Establishments. YMMV.

Political parties are distinct only at this level.

I guess part of the point of my questions was that establishment Republicans and establishment Democrats have become less and less distinct at any level. But I'm not sure of the point of your statement in the context of a reply to my post.

When you say Intelligence Agencies, are you talking about the FBI? Since they work inside the DOJ, they are ubiquitous in all recent political discussions. The Secret Service also works at the political level.

My post, being a reply to Linda Woods's thread starter was intended to refer to weaponization of all intelligence agencies, as did the thread starter. And, yes, my reference included the FBI, which my post expressly mentioned by name. Again, I am not sure of the point.

The way it looks to me, intelligence agencies like the CIA don't really answer to people at the political level.

To paraphrase Clinton, that depends upon what your definition of "the political level" is. As stated above, I think almost everything has become politicized to one degree or another. If you mean that each person in the CIA does not get voted in or out, of course not. However, I think something like the respective investigations of Hillary and Trump can factor into a feeling of general satisfaction or general dissatisfaction that might influence voters. Any number of things might factor in as well.

Of course, the biggest influences on most voters are bread and butter issues and plain ole party loyalty, although some voters are most influenced by religion. However, the sole point of my post was that "weaponization" of intelligence agencies on behalf of the establishment occurred long ago, perhaps from their respective inceptions, and not recently, with an ancillary point being that Democrats have become more overtly part of the "establishment." So, I guess I am not at all clear on how your questions and comments tie into my post. I hope the above had addressed your specific questions, though.

They are affiliated with non-elected authorities, who operate at geopolitical levels. You'll find them at the State Department and the Pentagon. This level has no interest in US domestic issues, which dominate the Political level.However, they do release propaganda. as needed, to influence thinking and opinion on the political level, both in politicians and the public. They have a direct interface with corporate media. Oversight at this level is sketchy or unknown. The most influential think tanks operate at this level. The Financiers and Families reach into government through the think tank interface.

I am not sure I understand all your meanings here, but that is ok. Again, my post was much more limited in scope than you seem to have given me credit for--the time(s) when "weaponization" of intelligence agencies began.

Submitted by Linda Wood on Thu, 03/28/2019 - 5:41pm

Yes, I agree

@HenryAWallace

with all you have said, especially this:

"weaponization" of intelligence agencies on behalf of the establishment occurred long ago, perhaps from their respective inceptions, and not recently...

#1.2 When you say establishment @HenryAWallace ... are you referring to the Political Establishment? Are you talking about people who are elected to office and about political party Establishments? I don't think that simply answering your questions "yes" or "no" would serve to increase communication. When I posted, I assumed, apparently incorrectly, that terms like "the establishment" and "establishment politicians" were commonly-understood terms; and you did not explain what you mean by "Political Establishment" or "political party Establishments." So, I will elaborate. As used in my post above, "establishment" means those with considerable actual power, be they those in power in elected office, or those who pull the strings of the holders of elected offices, or those in power at NBC or in the bowels of the Executive Building, the Bilderburg Group, or wherever or whomever are the actual "deciders" of what shall happen in this country and what shall be known by us plebes and what we plebes must endure if we continue to be plebes in the USA on planet Earth. Because almost everything seems to have been politicized, I would consider all of those people "the establishment" as well as the "political establishment" and "political party Establishments. YMMV. Political parties are distinct only at this level. I guess part of the point of my questions was that establishment Republicans and establishment Democrats have become less and less distinct at any level. But I'm not sure of the point of your statement in the context of a reply to my post. When you say Intelligence Agencies, are you talking about the FBI? Since they work inside the DOJ, they are ubiquitous in all recent political discussions. The Secret Service also works at the political level. My post, being a reply to Linda Woods's thread starter was intended to refer to weaponization of all intelligence agencies, as did the thread starter. And, yes, my reference included the FBI, which my post expressly mentioned by name. Again, I am not sure of the point. The way it looks to me, intelligence agencies like the CIA don't really answer to people at the political level. To paraphrase Clinton, that depends upon what your definition of "the political level" is. As stated above, I think almost everything has become politicized to one degree or another. If you mean that each person in the CIA does not get voted in or out, of course not. However, I think something like the respective investigations of Hillary and Trump can factor into a feeling of general satisfaction or general dissatisfaction that might influence voters. Any number of things might factor in as well. Of course, the biggest influences on most voters are bread and butter issues and plain ole party loyalty, although some voters are most influenced by religion. However, the sole point of my post was that "weaponization" of intelligence agencies on behalf of the establishment occurred long ago, perhaps from their respective inceptions, and not recently, with an ancillary point being that Democrats have become more overtly part of the "establishment." So, I guess I am not at all clear on how your questions and comments tie into my post. I hope the above had addressed your specific questions, though. They are affiliated with non-elected authorities, who operate at geopolitical levels. You'll find them at the State Department and the Pentagon. This level has no interest in US domestic issues, which dominate the Political level.However, they do release propaganda. as needed, to influence thinking and opinion on the political level, both in politicians and the public. They have a direct interface with corporate media. Oversight at this level is sketchy or unknown. The most influential think tanks operate at this level. The Financiers and Families reach into government through the think tank interface. I am not sure I understand all your meanings here, but that is ok. Again, my post was much more limited in scope than you seem to have given me credit for--the time(s) when "weaponization" of intelligence agencies began.

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Fri, 03/29/2019 - 1:28am

Great response

@HenryAWallace

Thanks for taking the time to write that.

#1.2 When you say establishment @HenryAWallace ... are you referring to the Political Establishment? Are you talking about people who are elected to office and about political party Establishments? I don't think that simply answering your questions "yes" or "no" would serve to increase communication. When I posted, I assumed, apparently incorrectly, that terms like "the establishment" and "establishment politicians" were commonly-understood terms; and you did not explain what you mean by "Political Establishment" or "political party Establishments." So, I will elaborate. As used in my post above, "establishment" means those with considerable actual power, be they those in power in elected office, or those who pull the strings of the holders of elected offices, or those in power at NBC or in the bowels of the Executive Building, the Bilderburg Group, or wherever or whomever are the actual "deciders" of what shall happen in this country and what shall be known by us plebes and what we plebes must endure if we continue to be plebes in the USA on planet Earth. Because almost everything seems to have been politicized, I would consider all of those people "the establishment" as well as the "political establishment" and "political party Establishments. YMMV. Political parties are distinct only at this level. I guess part of the point of my questions was that establishment Republicans and establishment Democrats have become less and less distinct at any level. But I'm not sure of the point of your statement in the context of a reply to my post. When you say Intelligence Agencies, are you talking about the FBI? Since they work inside the DOJ, they are ubiquitous in all recent political discussions. The Secret Service also works at the political level. My post, being a reply to Linda Woods's thread starter was intended to refer to weaponization of all intelligence agencies, as did the thread starter. And, yes, my reference included the FBI, which my post expressly mentioned by name. Again, I am not sure of the point. The way it looks to me, intelligence agencies like the CIA don't really answer to people at the political level. To paraphrase Clinton, that depends upon what your definition of "the political level" is. As stated above, I think almost everything has become politicized to one degree or another. If you mean that each person in the CIA does not get voted in or out, of course not. However, I think something like the respective investigations of Hillary and Trump can factor into a feeling of general satisfaction or general dissatisfaction that might influence voters. Any number of things might factor in as well. Of course, the biggest influences on most voters are bread and butter issues and plain ole party loyalty, although some voters are most influenced by religion. However, the sole point of my post was that "weaponization" of intelligence agencies on behalf of the establishment occurred long ago, perhaps from their respective inceptions, and not recently, with an ancillary point being that Democrats have become more overtly part of the "establishment." So, I guess I am not at all clear on how your questions and comments tie into my post. I hope the above had addressed your specific questions, though. They are affiliated with non-elected authorities, who operate at geopolitical levels. You'll find them at the State Department and the Pentagon. This level has no interest in US domestic issues, which dominate the Political level.However, they do release propaganda. as needed, to influence thinking and opinion on the political level, both in politicians and the public. They have a direct interface with corporate media. Oversight at this level is sketchy or unknown. The most influential think tanks operate at this level. The Financiers and Families reach into government through the think tank interface. I am not sure I understand all your meanings here, but that is ok. Again, my post was much more limited in scope than you seem to have given me credit for--the time(s) when "weaponization" of intelligence agencies began.

—

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato

Submitted by Not Henry Kissinger on Thu, 03/28/2019 - 3:23pm

Your last question...

Was the 2016 election a one-time aberration, or was it symptomatic of decades of institutional political corruption?

kind of answers itself.

—

The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Thu, 03/28/2019 - 4:33pm

Well, there goes my appetite for dinner.

@Not Henry Kissinger

Preferable to upchucking, though, so I'm glad I saw this now, rather than after dining. (-;

Submitted by detroitmechworks on Thu, 03/28/2019 - 4:48pm

Ugh, can't they pick a different suffix for scandals?

I remember the 1984 movie Protocol had "Sunnygate" as the fake name of their fake scandal, and it was played as a JOKE.

It's like the media doesn't even realize they've become a complete parody of themselves. They've become Mel Brooks characters and don't realize it.

Course it happened, and of course the only people who will be charged for it will be low level sacrificial ~~goats~~ employees who of course acted completely on their own and will swear on a stack of bibles that none of their bosses gave them any orders, or instructed them to shred the orders, or anything like that. Honest.

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWESgD3VIjY]

—

I do not pretend I know what I do not know.

Submitted by lotlizard on Thu, 03/28/2019 - 6:52pm

Yup. Rose Mary Woods and the 18-minute gap in Nixon’s tapes. n/t

@detroitmechworks

Submitted by travelerxxx on Thu, 03/28/2019 - 4:50pm

Carlson's piece - Wow!

Thanks, Linda, for posting the link to Jeff Carlson's Spygate: The Inside Story Behind the Alleged Plot to Take Down Trump. I was really impressed with his writing. There was no left/right bias sticking out like a sore thumb as there is with some reporting on this issue. I urge everyone to read his report in its entirety. (Warning to potential readers - it's a long read.)

Submitted by snoopydawg on Thu, 03/28/2019 - 5:16pm

You might want to look at the archives

@travelerxxx

and see the other coverage they have done on this issue. They have stayed on the real issues that other sites didn't.

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Thu, 03/28/2019 - 5:11pm

This sure makes more sense than Russia helping Trump

The Obama administration had its hands all over this so that after Hillary became president there would be a reason for increased hostilities with Russia. One of the many reasons.

But if Herheinous had been charged under the espionage then she couldn't be president. This was never going to happen. We'll see if Huber or Horowitz can do anything about it. Obama obstructed justice big time by keeping the investigation into her emails from happening. Add in all of the other crap they did then this would be much bigger than watergate. Much bigger.

Great article.

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by lotlizard on Thu, 03/28/2019 - 6:58pm

“Illusory Truth Effect” duped millions into believing Russiagate

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/03/26/the-illusory-truth-effect-how-mi...

The science of modern propaganda has been in research and development for over a century. If you think about how many advances have been made in other military fields over the last hundred years, that gives you a clear example of how sophisticated an understanding the social engineers must now have of the methods of mass manipulation of human psychology. We may be absolutely certain that there are people who’ve been working to drive the public narratives about western rivals like Russia, and that they are doing so with a far greater understanding of the concepts we’ve touched on in this essay than we have at our disposal.

The manipulators understand our psyches better than we understand them ourselves, and they’re getting more clever, not less. The only thing we can do to keep our heads while immersed in a society that is saturated with propaganda is be as relentlessly honest as possible, with ourselves and with the world. We’ll never be able to out-manipulate the master manipulators, but we can be real with ourselves about whether or not we’re selecting for cognitive ease rather than thinking rigorously and clearly. We can be truthful with our friends, family, coworkers and social media followers wherever untruth seems to be taking hold. We can do our very best to shine the light of truth on the puppeteers wherever we spot them and ruin the whole goddamn show for everyone.

It may not seem like a lot, but truth is the one thing they can’t manipulate, whether it’s truth about them, truth about the world, or truthfulness with yourself. The lying manipulators got us into this mess, so only truth can get us out.

(also via Signs of the Times)

Submitted by Linda Wood on Thu, 03/28/2019 - 10:39pm

Caitlin

@lotlizard

is such a gem. I have always said that the truth has a way of being there. People will eventually see it.

Submitted by SnappleBC on Fri, 03/29/2019 - 3:59am

My equivalent to that is...

@Linda Wood

No matter how stubborn I am, I find that reality is persistently more stubborn.

—

A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard

Submitted by Fishtroller 02 on Fri, 03/29/2019 - 10:39am

This article is so long, but appears to be well researched.

I did, however, look at the Epoch Times website and saw something that made me stop and wonder about its slant (they all say that are printing "the truth", but they also all have a slant). This site talks about battling communism as one of its goals...

"We stand against the systematic destruction of traditional culture by destructive ideologies such as communism, which continues to harm societies around the world.

We are inspired in this mission by our own experience. The Epoch Times was founded in 2000 to bring honest and uncensored news to people oppressed by the lies and violence of communism."

Seems like an odd and out of date sentiment.... except if you are the CIA, which still holds battling "communism" as it's main purpose.

So now I am looking at the Epoch Times with a fish eye.

—

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

Submitted by Linda Wood on Fri, 03/29/2019 - 2:15pm

I vote

@Fishtroller 02

in support of your comment, even though I am the person who posted the Epoch Times link. I have been reading Jeff Carlson's detailed reporting of the Spygate testimony and documents at Epoch Times recently because my out of date computer software can no longer access Carlson's site, themarketswork.com. I can only read it on my phone, but I can't type well or link well on my phone.

So I don't mean to link to Epoch Times, just to Jeff Carlson. And I have also become aware of Epoch Times attitude, which I don't endorse, though I may even agree with them in some ways. I haven't read enough there to know.

This is part of the difficulty of finding good reporting on Fox, on Conservative Treehouse, or on other very conservative sites, some of which actually support Trump. It's difficult. But when they're right about Democratic party criminal activity, they're right.

And for what it's worth, I am a leftist, a socialist, and above all a pacifist, and I am anti-communist. I am opposed to dictatorship, no matter what the branding. The CIA would not be supporting Jeff Carlson. He is their worst nightmare.