A New Indictment in the Attempted 2016 Election Overthrow

The New York Post published a story about a new indictment that was filed this week by Special counsel John Durham. Durham is investigating the FISA warrants that the FBI obtained for their wiretaps of Donald Trump, while Trump was a candidate for president in 2016. Russian-born Igor Danchenko, was indicted as the principal source for the bogus Steele dossier. He fed fake Russian intel about Donald Trump to Christopher Steele while he was working at an influential DC think tank. The FBI used the Steele dossier as a basis for their Trump-Russia investigation. The FBI tried for months but were never able to verify anything in the Steele dossier. Nevertheless, they knowingly used the dossier to trick the FISA court into issuing spy warrants, long after the fact.

According to article author, Andrew McCarthy, this week's arrest of Igor Danchenko illustrates how the Steele dossier was a political dirty trick orchestrated by Hillary Clinton.

Danchenko has been charged with five counts of lying to the FBI in interviews during 2017, as the bureau struggled in futility to verify outlandish allegations that Donald Trump and his campaign were clandestine agents of the Kremlin. Those allegations were compiled in the so-called Steele dossier, which the FBI relied on in obtaining surveillance warrants from a secret federal court.


The "Dirty Dossier" was generated by the Clinton campaign. If you will recall, its principal author was former British spy Christopher Steele. Apparently, Steele's primary source for the lies contained throughout the Dirty Dossier came from Igor Danchenko, a Russian native who was hired by the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. Its president, Strobe Talbott, was a college friend of Bill Clinton’s who worked in the Clinton State Department.

(This is what is known as a "deep state" connection. There are many in this story.)

At Brookings, Danchenko worked with Fiona Hill, later a member of President Trump’s National Security Council (and a key witness in the first Trump impeachment over the unrelated Ukraine controversy). It was through Hill that Danchenko became acquainted with Steele, who ran a London-based intelligence firm after leaving MI-6, the British spy service.

Durham has no interest in Danchenko's lies that were published in the Steele Dossier. Durham’s indictment focuses on two major lies that Danchenko allegedly told to the FBI.

One, he fabricated the claim that the president of the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce informed him that, during the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump was involved in a well-developed “conspiracy of cooperation” with the regime of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The indictment says that this conversation never happened:

Two, Danchenko concealed that one of his sources for the information he provided to Steele was a longtime Democratic Party operative who was close to the Clintons. This source was revealed to be Chuck Dolan, a public relations executive who had Russian contacts. Dolan worked on both of Bill Clinton’s successful presidential campaigns and Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential campaign.


Meanwhile, the FBI had insisted that the claims made in the Steel Dossier were true (although the FBI was never able to prove any of them). The Obama Justice Department brought the FBI’s sworn claims to the secret federal Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) in October 2016. The warrant was granted, long after the wire-tapping took place. The FBI did not interview Danchenko, the main source for the dossier, until January 2017 — at which time the FBI brazenly obtained a second 90-day extension on the illegally-procured warrant.

It appears that Durham theorizes that the Trump-Russia collusion narrative was a political attack manufactured by the Clinton campaign. Relying on Danchenko, Steele compiled the reports for Glenn Simpson, co-founder of intelligence firm Fusion-GPS, which specializes in digging up political dirt. Fusion-GPS was retained for the Trump project by Perkins-Coie, the Clinton campaign’s law firm.

In September, Durham indicted former Perkins-Coie attorney Michael Sussmann for making a false statement to the FBI while peddling Trump-Russia allegations that the bureau eventually found unsubstantiated. Durham alleges that Sussmann concealed that he was working for the Clinton campaign as a tech executive who was hoping for an important government job if Clinton was elected.

Durham’s charging instruments suggest that the Clinton campaign used its agents to peddle the Trump-Russia rumors to the government and the media, then used the fact that Trump was being investigated as part of its campaign messaging.


So, Durham found another fall guy to charge, and he can now wind up his investigation. Case closed.

No need to worry about the FBI. They are untarnished by their duplicitous actions and will not be prosecuted for attempting to overthrow the 2016 Presidential Election. Neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton will face charges for their part in the operation. Robert Mueller, who ran a completely phony two-year investigation into the Russian Collusion that never happened, will never be heard from again. He will leave the millions he earned for the cover-up to his heirs. And certainly there will be no apologies to Russia. The damage done to Russia via the State Department was intentional and deliberate.

Don't expect to hear much about this in the US news media

And, really, what difference would it make, anyway?

18 users have voted.


were elements in the investigations of George Webb Siefert. Government blackberries were found, along with a secret off premises server in a house owned by Imran Awan, a technician in the employ of the DNC with ties to the office of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, then DNC chair. When Awan came under suspicion he sheltered as an “employee” at Perkins-Coie while his case was tried. Awan was defended by Perkins-Coie lawyers.

Reading between the lines, this could be the smoking gun proof that the 2016 DNC server attack really was an inside job. Rumors have been circulating all along that Imran Awan, or one of his ilk, sucked the data off the server with an Ubuntu Linux boot flash drive then used it to create “Guccifer 2.0” out of thin air. The whole plot was for Hillary Clinton to use it against Donald Trump for colluding with Russia.


George Webb’s investigations tied these blackberries to missing fissile material that had turned up missing from where it had been warehoused. This wormhole was deep and tortured, and was derided as complete nonsense by most, but the connections are many and all lead back to democrats and the false information in the Steele dossier and the illegally obtained FISA warrants that allowed covert surveillance on the Trump campaign. And still, Hillary found a way to lose…..

12 users have voted.

“What the herd hates most is the one who thinks differently; it is not so much the opinion itself, but the audacity of wanting to think for themselves, something that they do not know how to do.”
-Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Dawn's Meta's picture

@ovals49 I really appreciate the history recapitulations that some of our members here are so good at providing. We need constant reminding of history including the 60 year old stuff, because it begot what we have today.

It's not a history I can celebrate. The more we remember, the worse it gets.

How will we ever get courageous, smart, and capable servants of the people? Will we?

10 users have voted.

A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit. Allegedly Greek, but more possibly fairly modern quote.

Consider helping by donating using the button in the upper left hand corner. Thank you.

Lookout's picture

Thanks for the excellent reporting!

I thought Jimmy and of course Aaron (who has been a real bulldog investigating Russiagate) did a good job too. (33 min)

12 users have voted.

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

snoopydawg's picture


lots of us saw through Russia Gate from the beginning while others bought into it no matter how far stretched it was. People actually believe that Russia/Putin were running the president of the USA while republicans were okay with it. Of course they too were doing Putin’s bidding. But seriously if that was true democrats and the republicans that weren’t captured by Russia would have done more about it then just talk. Sheesh! And now they are okay with things that they were against most of their lives. Go figure that out.

7 users have voted.

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

Voting is like driving with a toy steering wheel.

blatant lying to Congress and the people of the US regarding our invasion of Iraq, Abu Garib, the missing millions of dollars on an airplane from the US government, etc. etc., it was very clear that the Democratic party is beyond corrupt. There is and was no chance that the fact that Obama and the Democrats laid the groundwork for the sabotage of the Trump campaign and subsequently his administration was ever going to be addressed. That is one reason why the Dems indignation over January 5th is a total ball of fucking hypocrisy.

10 users have voted.

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

snoopydawg's picture

Indeed. Clinesmith who lied to the FISA court got probation for it. Clapper and Brennan lied to congress and nothing happened to them. Reagan did the Iran Contra thing and he and everyone involved walked free. Oh sure a few got stuck in prison, but were pardoned soon after. Scooter Libby outed an FBI agent and got pardoned.

Hillary deleted 30 k emails that congress had subpoenaed and broke the law on handling them and asked congress investigating the Benghazi cluster fck "what difference does it make" because 4 people died, but the republicans never asked her what the real point behind the attacks were. Just arming people who the government had declared terrorists. You know…arming one’s so called enemy. What f’cking difference DOES it make?

I hope people will peruse this article. It’s just ONE more story on the Russia Gate saga, but still good. Remember that Russia Gate accusations were made long before Hillary got embarrassed by Trump by losing to him. Right wing slant to it disclaimer..lol.

The Left Got What It Wanted - So Now What?

What was the purpose for the insane opposition of the Left between 2017 and 2021? To usher in a planned nihilism, an incompetent chaos, a honed anarchy to wreck the country in less than a year?

No one worried about the weaponization of government. So, we went right from the nefarious legacy of John Brennan (who lied under oath to Congress twice), James Clapper (who lied under oath to Congress once), James Comey (who leaked confidential presidential memos), Andrew McCabe (who gave false testimony to federal investigators), Lisa Page (who was fired from the special counsel’s legal team for various unprofessional conduct), Peter Strzok (about whom there is not enough space to detail his transgressions), and the now convicted felon Kevin Clinesmith onto the next round of impeachments.

Two of them followed. Neither was conducted by a special counsel. There was no array of witnesses, no prosecutorial report. Much less were there formal charges of a specific high crime or misdemeanor, or bribery or treason, as specified by the Constitution.

In the end, both farces ended in trials—but not before the Left had established lots of baleful precedents. Impeachment is now simply a tool to embarrass a president in his first term when he has lost the House. A Senate trial could hound an innocent president, even as a private citizen out of office. And a chief justice need not preside over the Senate trial. If and when Joe Biden loses the House, the Left should applaud any attempt to impeach him—given it established the new model of opposition.

Of the January 6 debacle, we were not told that it was a riot involving lawbreakers who would be punished. Instead, we were lied to that it was an “armed insurrection,” a “coup,” and “a rebellion” of massive proportions.

It mattered nothing that “armed” in the case of January 6 meant that no firearms were used or even found among the protestors. No one was charged with conspiracy, insurrection, or racketeering. But many were placed in solitary confinement without specific charges being filed—to the utter delight of liberal groups like the ACLU and human rights organizations.

Our esteemed retired military and civil libertarians who had damned the mere thought of using federal troops to quell the prior four summer months of continuous rioting were suddenly happy to see 25,000 federal soldiers patrol Washington to hound out fantasy second-wave insurrectionists. In Animal Farm fashion, there were now to be good federal troops deterring mythical violent domestic extremists, but bad federal troops who should never stop real, ongoing mayhem in the streets.

9 users have voted.

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

Voting is like driving with a toy steering wheel.

Or even worse "Socialists" It demeans those terms.

10 users have voted.

I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.

Azazello's picture

The link in that Tweet goes here, WSJ from Oct. 2020: Russian in Cyprus Was Behind Key Parts of Discredited Dossier on Trump
From Bloomberg Opinion: Was the FBI Manipulated by the Democratic Party?
I knew Russiagate was bullshit all along and paid a price for saying that. Being skeptical about it could get you labeled "Trump supporter" by TDS sufferers.
Here's one way of dealing with MSM credulity, or complicity, whatever it was.
From Business Insider: Trump's refusal to concede the 2020 election is a bigger threat to democracy than bad 'Russiagate' media coverage, despite what disingenuous hacks want you to think
The thing I still don't understand is the extent of CIA involvement. Did Hillary's people cook it up on their own and then shop it to Brennan or was the CIA involved from the start ?

9 users have voted.

We wanted decent healthcare, a living wage and free college.
The Democrats gave us Biden and war instead.

snoopydawg's picture


According to the report he was informed by Russia that she was going to do it and he told Obama about it. But Obama’s justice department unmasked lots of people who the FBI got FISA warrants on which was illegal. Obama and Biden were in a meeting discussing going after Flynn so yeah I think Obama and the CIA were very involved with it. Brennan then got a gig on the news to keep spreading the story. I don’t think the FBI was duped into it. Comey has a long history with the Clintons and has always been their tool.

Here’s Aaron on it.

From the article:

The indictment also suggests that not only was the FBI aware in 2017 that the Steele dossier was fraudulent, but that its key source, Danchenko, was lying to them. But instead of informing the public and indicting Steele's source, the FBI continued the Trump-Russia investigation and tapped the dossier for it. Anonymous intelligence officials even told the public that Steele's farcical claims were bearing out.

Not dupes. Coconspirators.

10 users have voted.

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

Voting is like driving with a toy steering wheel.

wendy davis's picture

in the comments (you brilliant mofos!)

i especially liked this:

So, Durham found another fall guy to charge, and he can now wind up his investigation. Case closed.

RT.com has had several pieces on the new developments, but none so clear as yours, amiga.

6 users have voted.
Pluto's Republic's picture

@wendy davis

Thanks for the link. I think this may be a larger event that we are feeling in the US. The impact was very large, especially in Russia, and the US lies rippled through the diplomatic world in harmful ways. Even at home, there's no denying that Americans will sense that their government and the media knowingly carried out a psyop on them. Sure, some folks will continue to believe the Russia Hoax. But loose ends will still undermine their trust in their country, something they once took for granted. Some will realize they were fools; their country made fools out of them. Even the clearest minds: those who saw Trump as unworthy, even deplorable — and yet still recognized the despicable Hoax on Russia and took a stand against it — those people will become that much more wary of the government. Some of them took a lot of abuse for their intellectual honesty.

I think these reactions will roll out quietly, below the surface, but it's going to change things. Democratic politicians will be asked if they knew it was a hoax or not. There's no right answer to that. Either they were completely gullible or they lied to constituents faces, and voted to harm Russia. How would Biden answer that? Or Obama? They permanently threw Russian diplomats out of the country and levied sanctions against them. Europe was just as vicious and clueless. How many similar lies grew out of this. The hamfisted Skripal poisoning in Salisbury resulted in the big yowling mouth of Theresa May's fake outrage. There are international reckonings to be had. But the media will just soldier on, as will most US politicians. They will have no choice but to double down on their lies, relying on American's thuggish prejudices to fall for it again. Resignations are multiplying in the Democratic Party in recent days.

I only wonder if the people who think can understand the complete concoction of lies that is the Xinjiang Uighurs narrative and the Taiwan false flags forcing clueless Americans into a war of aggression.

The responses in this thread brought a lot to this discussion. Many unique insights I hadn't thought of. This tells me there may be more fallout to come and more battles to be settled.

5 users have voted.
Populations don’t like wars. They have to be lied into it.
That means we can be “truthed” into peace. — Julian Assange

@Pluto's Republic @Pluto's Republic
Not so sure about this:

Even at home, there's no denying that Americans will sense that their government and the media knowingly carried out a psyop on them.

Recognition by USians of government/media lies tends to be slow, if at all, and generally follows a partisan divide. Later and irrefutable evidence that they'd been suckers tends to get dismissed as no longer relevant. In part because few people have the cognitive emotional maturity to admit that they're suckers and hold the malefactors responsible. Thus, Iraq WMD is now a well-known lie but GWB isn't such a bad guy and Colin Powell and John McCain retained their good guy status.

Even the clearest minds: those who saw Trump as unworthy, even deplorable — and yet still recognized the despicable Hoax on Russia and took a stand against it — those people will become that much more wary of the government. Some of them took a lot of abuse for their intellectual honesty.

That's a relatively small subset of Americans (doesn't even include Bernie Sanders and a few others that heretofore were reliable). Mostly critical thinkers on the left - who were the most likely to be abused as "Putin stooges" - and as such, don't operate on any sort of belief in government, politicians, and/or media system. Therefore, the Russiagate hoax just adds to the correctness of their orientation but doesn't make them more wary.

While not as old as racism to gain political advantage, communism has been a big bugaboo in American politics for over a hundred years. It waxes and wanes as needed. When ascendant it does become hysterical until its fuel is spent. However, at the public policy level it's always about thwarting and destroying the small bits of socialism that enhance the lives of most Americans and that process is on-going.

3 users have voted.
Pluto's Republic's picture


...to the projected impacts. For those who saw it clearly from the beginning, there is really no particular benefit. Depending on one's temperament, it could be a negative drag emphasizing the futility. The insult of ones nationality becomes more of a burden.

communism has been a big bugaboo in American politics for over a hundred years. It waxes and wanes as needed. When ascendant it does become hysterical until its fuel is spent. However, at the public policy level it's always about thwarting and destroying the small bits of socialism that enhance the lives of most Americans and that process is on-going.

This always been the case, and it was manageable because communism failed. Only now do we understand that communism was truly sustainable only in post industrialized nations. Industralization expands and matures the economies of scale and widens the diversity of roles people can play; skills they can acquire. The industrial base becomes a supporting platform for a social economy of choice. China deliberately forced industrialism on itself and sped through it in record time. Now, on the other side of it, they have the wherewithal to build the kind of society they believe in. They've chosen a very people-centric path, with utopian characteristics. The world is entering an era where developed countries do have the means to make these kind of choices.

People are noticing that communism is excelling, not failing. It's still hard work, but the opportunities and upward mobility for individuals is pretty exciting. China's successes are one model for a possible future for humanity. And, the dystopian blight and social decay in a developed country such as the US, compares poorly. How people live in developed countries, and how fulfilling their lives are, are choices that are deliberately made. I believe these comparisons are driving the lies and propaganda and the frenzy for war and destruction coming from the leadership in the US. Communism puts them in the shade. Imperialistic nations are challenged financially, intellectually, morally, and socially by a post-industrial communist success, where the people are the masters of the nation and the government strives to serves them. The improvements in peoples lives and their general happiness is the measure of their success. That and their accelerated achievements in every field of endeavor.

It seems to me that everything the US is doing is about tearing that down. What do they do that is constructive in the world? What is their grand vision for the world, and for the lives of all people?

For a post industrial world, modern infrastructure is what makes it sustainable. The US has failed badly in the intelligent prioritization of its resources by spending the people's treasure for destruction in foreign lands. The US absence of modern infrastructure is the snarl in the global supply chain. Basically, since 1921, we have suffered deviant, spoiled leadership with a twisted vision of our place in the world that verges on madness.

Just my observation.

4 users have voted.
Populations don’t like wars. They have to be lied into it.
That means we can be “truthed” into peace. — Julian Assange
Creosote.'s picture

@Pluto's Republic
depth and clarity.
All the more important now: to protect this site.

3 users have voted.

@Pluto's Republic their country made fools of them and by extension Israel since that's who controls the neocons and neoliberals.

2 users have voted.
zed2's picture

WTO takeover of government and destruction of public services worldwide. Why is the Democratic party hiding the theft of the public property which is our home, the Earth.

This isnt a joke, I want to know what their answer is to the assertion that this agenda they have is killing lots of poor people. For example, the Clintons pushing the privatization of water, education, retirement plans, and other desperately needed public services. Were they crazy? Or simply criminally corrupt. They do us no favors by pretending we gave them permission. Their hiding of the truth shows they know its a criminal theft.

By their deeds shall you know them. I realized they were lying when they overstated their support and alleged they had advocated for a childrens healthcare plan which I remembered quite clearly from the Clinton Administration. It was quite inadequate would not help the poor much iof at all because only the verty poorest poor would be helped by it and their research already knew it was not enough. Only those families with young children who made less than $13000 a year were eligible for help. This is what GATS requires. Subsidies are only allowed to help the truly destitute, they must not crowd out any low actuarial value customers. Which is to say that crapsurance, which is pratically worthless must still be allowed to do business. The fake "public option" must not "unfairly complete" it mutst be so expensive or so crappy, that only people who truly had no niche that would serve them could be allowed. theose who had been rejected by the insurance industry completely whether for being medical or genetic risks, etc. or from being so asset-less and income less that there was literally zero chnce of them ever becoming customers.

Thats what the prohibition of crowd out means. They must not be simply income possessing potential customers. Because that woiuld be admitting the system was filing THEM. And the system, being "perfect" wont/cant admit that, because it is the only permitted endpoint.

Nothing like what many Americans profess to want could be allowed because those people have incomes which must be tpped to pay for aprofitable insurance service. Frankly the system does not value their lives enough to save them for what they are willing and able to pay. It all comes down to that.

Mike Davis touched upon this in his book on famines, but didnt go into it in much depth. Lets face it its an uncomfortable subject when millions of people die because other peoples profits are more important, perhaps the social cost of certain obligations are sen as too high. Limits ion profits are generally prohibited in neoliberal ideology.

Please read this essay on the market access portion of the GATS, Article XVI. by Delimatsis, Panagiotis and Molinuevo, Martin, Article XVI GATS: Market Access (2008). MAX PLANCK COMMENTARIES ON WORLD TRADE LAW, WTO - TRADE IN SERVICES, Rüdiger Wolfrum, Peter-Tobias Stoll, Clemens Feinäugle, eds., Vol. 6, pp. 367-426, Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2008, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1280219.

What to do with those unlucky ones who could never afford any commercial product, also the regulation of an industry (whichever one it is) must be not "more burdensome than necessarily" for it to make a rofit, in other words be an industry. This is why the urban poor is going to be forced out of cities due to the building back whiter scheme. The kinds of affordable housing schemes that are needed would be an unprofitable use of land which would be more profitable turned into million dollar condominiums. Sorry. The RULES oif the game now have changed and they say this. No more public housing, no matter how well connected any group is. Its JUST TOO EXPENSIVE...Also, nomatter how influential a group or constituency is, since 1995, they cant make any compromises in the middle, it has to be the least burdensome, meanings heavily balanced towards what we would think of as a Republican victory . The old way where there was some chance of a compromise are it seems strongly forbidden if the outcome might be somthing like what most Americans think of is US politics. Thats why its so dishonest now.

People's needs cant be a priority anymore if they are put above profits the measure will violate WTO law. . If something is a priority, it has to pass a number of neccesity tests. The word "necesssity" has a very specific legal meaning in WTO law.. Is a measure (anything a government does or doesn't do, any policy or doing of any kind by any level of government is likely) covered by WTO law, in short, yes, all measures that impact international trade at all levels must by minimally trade restrictive. Here is expert testimony to a state legislature on this kind of thing. its at 5:55

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY2tUTA4mzM] he discusses "not more burdensome's" meaning now. So no more compromises, nomatter how many votes Dems get. Everything done by government has to be the most limited in scope and depth possible. It must not reduce profits.

the video above can be used to officially and legally prove what I am saying here. .

Profesor Stumberg, trade expert from Georgetown University is telling the California State legislature in Sacramento what the new leadership of the world will allow and whats prohibited.

There are now "trade restrictiveness" databaseslike the SICE database that give countries regulators examples of permissible government "measures", and what isnt permissible. Yes, we could elect any legislators who follow these rules and escape sanctions. But not ones who don't.

One trade restrictiveness database (SICE) is run by the OECD and the other is run by the WorldBank.
Thy explain what help that is possible, (ones that enhance their supreme goal of facilitating INTERNATIONAL trade) not any measure that lies halfway between two poles, For example, with healthcare it must be insurance, not a public service. it must be the least burdensome to commerce. If it is in a for profit service sector it must be (otherwise) completely commercial. How does Canada get to have a public healthcare program? It pre-existed the WTO. Similarly many European public services pre-existed the WTO. Whenever they are changed they have to be updated to the new world odor. Like the UK with Brexit. it's a one way process that only allows deregulation and the destruction of everything considered burdensome by global corporations. Period. See? Its not enough just for them to be currently free in a NHS like program, because every year health insurance industry in the UK loses trillions. The burden has to be ended. Now with Brexit the NHS is no longer protected. So its no longer allowed, I bet. Anything else would mean that the WTO and its rules would lose credibility. It would be different if all healthcare and isurance and other similar financial services were free in the Uk and had been so since before the 1990s. But that is not the case. They made their choice long ago, and they knew it was being made, I was told bny somebody who had done an investigation of it. An expert on this issue.

the UK is a huge commercial purveyor of financial services, one of the world's biggest if not the biggest. So one can see why the NHS would be a thorn in the industry's side, and indeed it is.

They say so. So they cannot continue to break the rules, I think that is what will happen next year.. Its really impossible to conceive of their continuing to allow it. Their praising of the NHS should have warned us that it was about to be deprecated.

the line they have drawn in the sand with the WTO against these public services is just too important to their quest to lock down their victory over Communism and conquest of the future world for themselves, (Since the UK sells healthcare giving it away there was made forbidden when they joined the WTO and as soon as their protection from the WTO rules ends next year they will have to end the NHS) . Its the same here. You can read about how the GATS has an important two line test to evaluate whether any service provided by government can be public in this PDF from the UN here. Virtually nothing is a public service any more. Can you think of any and post them here? Even libraries are in grave danger. They dont want people to get the wrong idea that governments are there to help people get by. People have to look to the market now. Period.

So, a big change has occurred in the world and everything of economic imprtance is being restructured to suppoort and require profit making activities and bar anything that makes business less profitable. Profit is king. now.

WTO GATS is so bad that the media obsessively hides it. The Internet community has been intimidated into hiding important facts by there former government employees. Would they do it if they knew what was being done, reallky? No not in a million years would they. GATS whose real goal was destroying countries ability to have affordable public healthcare, power, education and water. Privatizing everything irreversibly. Which makes it irreversible turning all deregulation into an entitlement of foreign countries, incredibly costly to reverse, preventing the bloodbath of jobs funneling many perhaps most of our jobs to foreign body shopping corporations. We owe nothing to the Indian firms that I am told often demand bribes for young grads to be placed in the US. (and after six years be eligible to get a green card and move their family here. US citizenship should not become a commodity that is sold, for a price so high only the rich can afford it.) But that is actually happening. It makes it impossible for Americans to successfully seek jobs because of all the fake jobs advertised. Those jobs are not actually being awarded to anybody, especially not Americans, the interviews are fake, only held in order to allow these temping forms to import more low wage workers with work visas. Also you should know that Bernie Sanders might have advocated for public healthcare, (which is desperately needed, 200 people a day did in the US every day because of criminally inadequate healthcare, which is fiorbidden by GATS in 1995, ending improvements that are occurring elsewhere in the world, but not here. This entire government is fake now. And dishonest. . but this campaign was like her own fake and a shameful deception of the public to based on countless lies, primary among which was the total failure to discuss the GATS "agreement" to privatize everything in any way. GATS outlaws public healthcare, education, water and pensions. All public financial services are forbidden by the WTO. Which the Clinton Administration claims it created in their NARA.gov web page (under its accomplishments) If their accomplishment was this huge betrayal of the public on a global sclae, they owe us all a huge apology . What is her position on the Indian WTO case (DS503) which is not about visa fees, its about visa quotas. They claim we promised them an unlimited number of US public jobs, if they bid the lowest. (See Inside US Trade, March 10, 2016) and in 2016 filed a dispute against us for limiting the entry of Indian subcontractors (workers in intra corporate transfer jobs) Which is actually a way of doing an end run against all labor laws. - anything which limits the foreign firm access into the US, we are supposed to treat them and regulate them as if they were our own firms. So any law that says US only has to apply to them, the reason why is that trade agreements give trade partners rights to "National Treatment" and "most Favored Nation" special status.

So when politicians say these spending bills will create jobs for contractors, the foreign firms with this special status are the sme as American companies because the rules say so. Except they may not have to pay US wages, in the future. Because low wages is their special advantage. Its why they win the bids and we already agreed to allow them to win. So we have to allow that. If there is a case we will lose it. So According to Alan Blinder we could lose many many millions of jobs. Most of the better jobs. SO get used to that. Certain kinds of professional jobs which right now involve expensive salaries will alwys be temped out and will pay much much less. what they call wage parity, forcing foreign firms to pay a US-legal wage will probably lose. Its already before the WTO. This will change the whole world, especially the nations that have minimum wage laws because they wont apply to international contractors.

Take India. The country which currently according to The Economist, has a missing middile class. They want to be the back office of the world by using the WTO agreements to funnel millions of public jobs to these "body shop" firms notorious for working young people like slaves.

(thats actually not true because its voluntary, they are not slaves, as they are paid and technically, can quit, although they may be sued for doing so) What will our young people do with all our public jobs funneled to foreign body shop firms?

None of these entry level jobs are going to go to our young people, Green New Deal promises of slightly better jobs that that pay $15/hour left out the important fact that we already promised those jobs away to the global oligarchs firms.. Their scheme doesnmt help anybody except the rich who dont need help. Whose countries are immensely profitable because of the low wages so we want to prop them up. Creating good green jobs here would not only violate a recent WTO decision sought by the United States, in 2016. It defeats the point of service liberalization - whose goal is to lower wages globally. (according to Jagdish Bhagwati we should import doctors and export patients)

Energy for those who will pay the most for it.

Natural gas - which has been subsidized heavily in the US for 50 years by an export ban, is coming back, and is now in high demand all aropund the world with price soaring to several times those in the US. But until recently, exporting it was illegal so prices here were far lower than the natural price (just like wages have been much higher here than the natural price. Both of these trade barriers seem likely to end soon. These changes will impact many, and perhaps change the lives of millions of people to be more like the global averages. ) This will reduce illegal immigration to the US for economic reasons, because people wont be immigrating ton the US for higher wages, because the wages here may no longer be higher. Similarly this country will be more expensive to live in because of the high cost of energy. Gloobal warming is making parts of it warmer, though. But it still wont be a tropical country where people can live outdoors without heat. At least not in our lifetimes.

So, as they are selling off the cheap natural gas that Americans need to be able to afford heat, some people may have to move to areas they can afford more. Maybe in the global South.

However they wont be able to work there, I suspect. Certyainly not for the wages they expect here.

But maybe for the wages there. Many American young people are now living in China and enjoying it. As the cost of living is very low and most modern amenities are available for less.

Solar Power? Dont depend on electricity or complicated "heat pump" schemes for heat. They mostly involve electricity and what I consider to be inefficient schemes that dont make heat affordable unless circumstances apply that wont apply to most people.

Solar power doesn't do it to make electric heat affordable. It comes at the wrong time of year and in the wrong places. Where I live there are only three ways to heat, gas, oil and electricity. Of the three, electricity is by far the most expensive, and it costs three or foiur times what electric costs. She claims to be a friend of black people, but her husbands trade deal is the real reason politicians have become so dishonest. funneling many Americans jobs to African temping firms, A huge trade deal is going on with Africa. TISA promises to "open up" the US to the wealthy workers from "authoritarian bargain" (corrupt) countries, Where the biggest porofits are toi be had. Obviously we want to prop the dictatorships up since without them the wealthy would have to work like normal people do.

The goal of GATS was stated as helping the poorest countries break into the world economy by funneling them the public jobs in places like the US. Whenever tax money was involved, for example, infrastructure contracts over certain fairly low thresholds would go to lowest bidding qualified engineering firms and they got to bring along their workforce. other countries ultra-cheap workers by giving them access to very low paying but high skill jobs (they have to certify no Americans with the proper skills were available at the wages they were willing to pay. But until 2017 it seems they got to pay wages below US legal miniumum wages, I dont know if the decision the USCIS made in 2017 which required foreign firms to pay their workers a US-legalwage still applies under Biden. I know foreignb firms insist that the WTO GATS Article XIV (I think) bars us from requiring that any monetary quotas apply on a number of things. In other words, if they offer workers who work for $5/day and that proves very popular and we try to cut it back to prevent the inevitable loss of a millions of Americans jobs that not legal because the deal we agreed to says that nomatter what happens we cannot hold back their success. After all our system is there to reward profit, even if they will work for free for six years to be able to be here in the US, e may have to allow it. Trade deals are there to promote trade, even if some think its slavery it isnt if its voluntary. or rel slavery is still legal if one is duly convicted of a crime including in some states it seems debts. so slavery may make a big comeback with debtors, thats actually I think the most likely outcome. Thanks to the new cashless digital totalitarianism which seems likely coming. Look at Australia's "robodebt" and centrelink. Clawback of overpaid benefits. Simply having a baby in America across two plan years can cost $281,000 which is beilled in the babys name.

If one turns out to have been ineligible for help the money paid on ones behalf is clawed back out of bank accounts digitally. This is the future they are planning for us.

Cashless means involuntary.

Foreign companies (who dont offer their employees labor for free, even if it costs them almost nothing) They simply take most of ther wages and charge them upfront for placement here. , and make billions off of it. These are the most powerful and wealthy people in these "least developed" countries, people who hobnob with the other most wealthy and powerful people in the world..Nowadays young people must often pay for jobs - especially those in the US. Its a costly screen that keeps out the poor. Entry level jobs are being sold. with broker making enormous profits. They get to take the lions share of the money earned by these invariably wealthy African and South Asian youth whose families are the ultimate insiders, even going back to the colonial eras where they worked for their British overlords and ran up huge debts in these countries names which were all stolen (look up Third World Debt!) and then socked away in a global "spiders web" of ex-British colonies ' "tax havens" in former British colonies. Now its been described as a spiders web of financial secrecy and the US (Delaware for example is trying to imitate or better this take by offering similar secrecy jurisdictions ) and the UK are tied with switzerland as the worlds largest and most secretive tax havens, we're flying high offering the worlds wealthy a safe haven for their billions. If the shit hits the fan their money is the safest here. No the US would never have any socialist anything. We wont, because all that wealthy money would then go to some other tax haven. This is what iI mean when I say our government is increasingly being based on lies told to the people of this country to hide the takeover of everything rapidly by the very rich and the fact that much of that money is dirty and ill-gotten theft.

The people were helping by doing this are crooks, no way around that. And we have long relationships propping them up. are experts at working the system and funneling opportunities to themselves and their well connected families. They bring money and often invest in US real estate, their goal is to set up the loot in shell companies and complicated Anglophilic webs of confustion. " (The british ruling cls is heavily involved in these schemes.. dont forget their dedication to using GATS as a scheme getting rid of the NHS and how dishonest that is. Its also likely to get rid of Social Security and Medicare, it says that in black and white. You'll see.

7 users have voted.

@zed2 you're giving a very detailed picture of what the successful culmination of the Confederate States stated goal of imperialist slave state expansion.

3 users have voted.

Danchenko Indictment. However, one section is interesting. I'll quote it in full, but first a key to the players:

R Executive-1 = Chuck Dolan – claimed Danchenko source. .
PR Firm-1 = kglobal
Business-1 – unidentified other than it's owned by a Russian national
Country-1 – unidentified
Russian Sub-Source-1 - unidentified


E. (U) Russian Sub-Source-1

37. At all times relevant to this Indictment, DANCHENKO maintained communications with a Russian national ("Russian Sub-Source-1") based in a foreign country ("Country-1") who, according to DANCHENKO, acted as one of DANCHENKO's primary sources of information for allegations contained in the Company Reports. DANCHENKO and Russian Sub-Source-1 had initially met as children in Russia, and remained friends thereafter.

38. In or about early 2016, Russian Sub-Source-1 began working at a business based in Country-1 ("Business-1") that was owned by a Russian national and would later appear in the Company Reports. Russian Sub-Source-1 conducted public relations and communications work
for Business-1.

F. DANCHENKO Introduces Russian Sub-Source-1 to PR Executive-1
39. In or about March 2016, and prior to the June 2016 Planning Trip, DANCHENKO leamed from Russian Sub-Source-1 that Business-1 was interested in retaining a U.S.-based public relations firm to assist with Business-l's entry into the U.S. market. DANCHENKO brokered a meeting between PR Executive-1 and Russian Sub-Source-1 to discuss a potential business relationship. Thereafter, PR Firm-1 and Business-1 entered a contractual relationship.

40. In or around the same time period, DANCHENKO, PR Executive-1, and Russian Sub-Source-1 communicated about, among other things, the business relationship between Business-! and PR Firm-1.

41. During the same time period, Russian Sub-Source-1 and PR Executive-1 communicated regularly via social media, telephone, and other means. In these communications
and others, Russian Subsource-1 and PR Executive-1 discussed their political views and their support for Hillary Clinton.

a. For example, during July 2016 meetings in Country-1, PR Executive-! gifted to Russian Sub-Source-1 an autobiography of Hillary Clinton, which he signed and inscribed with the handwritten message, "To my good friend [first name of Russian Sub-Source-1], A Great

b. Additionally, on or about July 13, 2016, Russian Sub-Source-1 sent a message to a Russia-based associate and stated that PR Executive-1 had written a letter to Russian Press
Secretary-1 in support of Russian-Sub-Source-1's candidacy for a position in the Russian Presidential Administration.

c. On or about July 22, 2016, PR Executive-1 sent an email to Russian Sub-Source-1 and informed Russian Sub-Source-1 that he would be attending a reception for Hillary Clinton. Shortly thereafter, Russian Sub-Source-1 responded: "[T]ell her please she [Clinton] has a big fan in [Country-1]. Can I please ask you to sign for me her (anything)."

d. In or about August 2016, Russian Sub-Source-1 sent a message to a Russia-based associate describing PR Executive-1 as an "advisor" to Hillary Clinton. Russian Sub-Source-1 further commented regarding what might happen if Clinton were to win the election, stating in
Russian, "[W]hen [PR Executive-! and others] take me off to the State Department [to handle] issues of the former USSR, then we'll see who is looking good and who is not."

e. In or about September 2016, Russian Sub-Source-1 made a similar comment in a message to the same associate, stating in Russian that PR Executive-1 would "take me to the State
Department if Hillary wins."

f. On or about November 7, 2016 (the day before the 2016 U.S. Presidential election), Russian Sub-Source-1 emailed PR Executive-1 in English and stated, in part:

I am preparing you some information on former USSR/UIC countries, Igor [DANCHENKO] possibly told you about that... Tomorrow your country is having a great day, so, as a big Hillary fan, I wish her and all her supporters to have a Victory day. Hope,that someday her book will have one more autograph on it)

Thank you for your help and support.

Best regards,
[First Name of Russian Sub-Source-1

end quote

Sure looks as if Russian Sub-Source-1 expected the election of Clinton to lead to a position for him/her in the Russian Presidential administration. Not sure how that works if Putin was angling for the election of Trump.

7 users have voted.
zed2's picture

Certainly not the DNC. Its a right wing party. fixated on privatizing and offshoring the jobs. (the two go together)

5 users have voted.