HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » JCannon » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Tue May 17, 2016, 10:19 PM
Number of posts: 67

Journal Archives

FINAL proof that Donna Brazile is lying.

Few have noticed that Donna Brazile's "damning" document -- the agreement between the Clinton campaign and the DNC -- is not online. We have to rely purely on her word that the thing exists and that it reads the way she says it reads.

This absence is suspicious. Why no link to a pdf?

The same thought may have occurred to you that occurred to me: If this document is real, then why didn't we see it when the Russians hacked the DNC? This morning, Josh Marshall published a fascinating find...

There is what at least appears to be a draft of the agreement in the Wikileaks Podesta cache of all places and from what I can tell it doesn’t include any of this.

By "this," Marshall refers to the parts of the agreement that are not "kosher." We know about these parts only from Brazile; we have no other evidence that this material exists. Everything in the document we have is, in fact, perfectly "kosher" and innocent.

Marshall goes on to offer these caveats:

Again, that version is just a draft. The final copy could definitely have included other codicils or side agreements. It’s possible I’m misinterpreting the document. I’d ask campaign types to take a look.

You can find the Wikileaks version of the agreement here. It's a Word document. It doesn't look like a draft to me. Absolutely nothing about it indicates a draft. It's very detailed and well-formatted, with a codicil and spaces for signatures.

Moreover: The file is not labeled "DRAFT." It is labeled "FINAL."

It seems obvious that either the Russians or stateside Trump supporters found this FINAL agreement in the DNC cache and decided to use a falsified version to whip up some Hillary-hate just when things were looking bleak for Trump. By washing the falsifications through Brazile, they don't have to show an actual document. She can function as the fall guy if and when the whole thing is shown to be bogus.

I've signed a few agreements in my time. I have never seen a draft agreement labeled "FINAL" -- and neither, I'm pretty sure, have you. Lawyers are very careful about such things.

Let us suppose, hypothetically, that the Wikileaks document really did bear the label "DRAFT." Have you ever seen so drastic a rewrite between the draft and the final version? Offhand, I cannot recall reading about a legal agreement which was drafted to say one thing and then massively re-worded to say something extremely different.

Why did Brazile go along with the plan? I don't know, but I suspect that she had an encounter with some James-Spader-as-Raymond-Reddington type. I don't know the carrot and I don't know the stick, but I do know that nearly everyone can be manipulated and pressured.

DOUBLE CROSS: John Schindler, Louise Mensch and other "spooky" writers in the anti-Trump movement

The anti-Trump movement includes prominent "former" spies and/or people with close ties to Spookworld. The best-known names would be Louise Mensch and John Schindler, whose pronouncements, in recent times, have received a great deal of publicity from the left-wing media. For example, Raw Story paid very respectful attention when Schindler proclaimed that the White House is targeting journalists using "Russian intel."

Is that specific allegation true? Don't know. This post is not about the merits of that claim. I am writing now to sound a note of caution.

Former NSA man Schindler claims to represent something called the 20committee. When I first saw that name, it struck a chord -- yet I did not comprehend the historical reference until this morning, when I slapped my forehead and flashed on a truth that should have been obvious from the start.

What an idiot I was! Why didn't I see it?

The "20committee" nomenclature is an homage to a classic WWII espionage operation better known as the XX Committee. "XX" is, of course, the number 20 in Roman numerals -- but in its original incarnation, it also referred to the double cross.

British intelligence agent John Masterman set up a spectacularly effective counter-intelligence ring which took effective control of all German spies within the British isles. Many Nazi spies were doubled; others were deceived. In order to sell false information to the Third Reich, the Brits surrounded each lie with a surprisingly large coating of genuine intelligence. It was the XX committee which convinced the Nazi high command that the Allied invasion would take place at Calais, not Normandy.

If John Schindler wants us to trust him, perhaps his group should not have named itself after history's grandest double cross.

About a month ago, liberal websites discovered Schindler. When he said that the intelligence community sought to remove Donald Trump, when he proclaimed that Trump would "die in jail," he told us precisely what we wanted to hear. Schindler tossed steak to the starving.

Schindler made no secret of the fact that he was a Republican. At first, his conservatism buttressed his credibility, since it automatically exempted him from the commonly-heard charge that only Hillary-loving die-hards believe in the Trump/Putin connection.

But Schindler is no ordinary conservative.

He is -- or was, until recently -- an employee of Jared Kushner, Donald Trump's son-in-law and loyal aide. Before he began working in the White House, Kusner owned The Observer, which published many articles in which John Schindler smeared Hillary Clinton. According to Schindler, Hillary is a demon from the deepest pits of hell -- and the email pseudoscandal was history's worst betrayal since Judas took up coin-collecting.

In short and in sum: Mere months ago, John Schindler was trying get Donald Trump elected.

Here are some examples of what John Schindler was getting up to in the days when he was a toiler for Trump's son-in-law:

Hillary’s Secret Kremlin Connection Is Quickly Unraveling

Why didn't that story catch fire? There are two possibilities. Either 1) Evil George Soros controls the entire mass media worldwide, or 2) Schindler didn't have his ducks in a row.

Did NSA Try to Destroy Hillary Clinton?
Allegations are circulating that the National Security Agency may be behind the massive hack of Hillary Clinton and her party

Vladimir, thou art absolved.

FBI Data Dump Shows Clinton Is Criminal and Clueless

She was neither.

EmailGate and the Mystery of the Missing GAMMA
Hillary Clinton’s 'unclassified' email included highly classified NSA information—why didn’t the FBI mention this fact?

Because it's bullshit...? No-one can credibly argue that the FBI helped Hillary.

Why Obama Is to Blame for Russia’s SpyWar on America

Most of us would blame Putin.

During this period, Schindler also published some material on the Trump/Putin linkage, although he was hardly "the firstest with the mostest." Always remember that Schindler is an admirer of the XX Committee. Always remember that the XX Committee deliberately fed genuine intelligence to the Nazis in order to make the false information seem credible.

I could write at equal length about Louise Mensch,
the other "spooked up" conservative writer who has gained fame among the anti-Trumpers. For now, let's confine ourselves to two main points:

1. Just as Schindler took a paycheck from Jared Kushner, Mensch took (takes?) a paycheck from Rupert Murdoch. There's a line from Lawrence of Arabia for every occasion, and on this occasion, that line is this: "The servant is the one who takes the money."

2. Donald Trump's instantly-infamous tweet-storm blaming Obama for wiretapping Trump Tower traces back -- ultimately -- to a piece that Louise Mensch wrote for Murdoch's right-wing "libertarian" publication Heat Street. In recent days, Mensch has (truthfully) stressed that her article does not accuse Obama of wiretapping. As this WP profile notes...

In tweets on Monday, Mensch emphasized that her reporting does not back up Trump’s wiretapping claim, even though the White House cited her article to justify the allegation. She stressed that her reporting refers to a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court warrant and does not mention anything about wiretapping
In her report, published Nov. 7, Mensch said the FBI was granted a FISA court warrant in October “giving counter-intelligence permission to examine the activities of ‘U.S. persons’ in Donald Trump’s campaign with ties to Russia.”

She cited “two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community” as evidence for those claims.

Her twitter feed indicates that she is quite tight with John Schindler, whose 20committee is named after history's most successful counter-intelligence operation. Is Schindler one of those two sources? If he were, would she admit it?

For that matter, can we be certain that there is a second source? (James Angleton would sometimes pretend to have multiple sources when he was just repeating Golitsyn's bullshit.) If there are two sources, how can we be certain of their independence? How do we know that her sources are not beholden to the pro-Trump faction of the intelligence community?

Schindler and Mensch push a "intelligence community versus Donald Trump" narrative which I consider simplistic and false. Trump owes even more to Steve Bannon than he does to Vladimir Putin. Most liberals still don't understand that Breitbart (Bannon's operation) has been seriously spooked up for years. Go ahead and double-check that claim. I dare you to prove me wrong.

A short word about the CIA documents on Wikileaks.
Ten days after Trump took office, high-placed western moles in the FSB had bags placed over their heads as they were hustled off to their presumed dooms. And now we learn that -- at roughly the same time -- Wikileaks received a massive CIA data-dump, although Assange waited until now to spill the beans.

Who gave that material to Assange? I believe that someone within the Trump administration is leaking secrets.

The material published by Wikileaks includes the claim that the CIA can spoof the work of Russian hackers. The entire Putin/Trump meme began when Crowdstrike performed a forensic analysis which identified the DNC hack as the work of Russian hackers. As soon as the Wikileaks story hit the news, Milo Yiannopoulos instantly issued a piece arguing that the Putin hack was really a CIA hack. I don't think that Milo is right -- but the hell of it is, I can't prove him wrong.

Trump's campaign czar named as "Watersportsgate" leaker

The following was originally published on my political blog. I'm not looking for click-throughs or agreement or attribution. I'm looking for people willing to do dispassionate research into a lead which I was given by one of my readers. The more I look into this claim, the likelier it seems.

In fact, I think this could be a bombshell.

As everyone now knows, the 36 page report containing the "golden shower" allegation originated with a private intelligence-gathering firm called Orbis, run by a respected former MI6 agent named Christopher Steele. Orbis caters to high-powered corporate clients. In that world, a private intelligence firm simply cannot stay in business if the product is sloppy or mendacious.

No-one can fairly claim that the dossier was put together for purposes of propaganda, for the simple reason that the text was never meant for public consumption. Buzzfeed put the dossier online only after learning that the American intelligence community was taking these claims very seriously -- seriously enough to brief both Obama and Trump.

Everyone is talking about those 36 pages, but few have actually read them. Those who have bothered to do so know that the true source for the "golden shower" story is not Orbis. Orbis got the story from three separate sources, labeled Source D, Source E and Source F.

Source D appears to be someone who works for Trump. Source F is someone who works for the Ritz Carlton hotel in Moscow.

The "big fish" in this barrel is Source E: He not only confirmed the watersports "kompromat" claim, he also spilled many another bean. In fact, I would say that those other beans are the truly important ones.

Writers for the Washington Post -- who have apparently seen an unredacted version of the dossier -- identified Source E as a Russian emigre who is very close to Donald Trump. But so far, no-one has given you a name.

Until now.

An anonymous informant tells me that Source E is Boris Epshteyn, the man who is running Trump's inauguration. As you may have heard, his job has not been an easy one.

During the campaign, Epshteyn -- an investment banker born in the former USSR -- was often seen on cable television, defending Trump at every turn.

You are probably wondering: How can I be sure of this identification, since I have only one anonymous informant? In truth, I'm not certain -- not 100%. But the claim certainly seemed very plausible after I checked out Epshteyn's Wikipedia page and looked up a biographical sketch published by the New York Times.

Everything fits. EVERYTHING.

He's a Russian emigre. He knows Moscow very well. (Source E knew Source F, who works at the Moscow Ritz-Carlton.) He's extremely close to Trump. He got "in" with the campaign via a relationship with Trump's son.

In October 2013, Epshteyn helped moderate an investment event "Invest in Moscow!" In the Orbis dossier, Source E's special area of knowledge seems to be investment in Russia.

Epshteyn got his start in Republican politics as part of the 2008 John McCain campaign. McCain has played an intriguing role in the saga of the Orbis dossier. From a recent Arizona Republic story:

Published reports conflict about how, when and from whom McCain learned about and obtained the memos.

In a story published late Wednesday on its website, the New York Times reported, without attribution, that McCain caught wind of the anti-Trump memos and got copies last month from David J. Kramer of Arizona State University's McCain Institute for International Leadership.

That would contradict other published accounts, including one Tuesday in the Guardian, which reported McCain "was informed about the existence of the documents separately by an intermediary from a western allied state" and "dispatched an emissary overseas to meet the source."

CNN reported Tuesday that McCain learned about the dossier from "a former British diplomat who had been posted in Moscow."

The Guardian now identifies the intermediary as Sir Andrew Wood.

Think about it: Why would a high-level British official contact McCain? I believe that the UK wanted background information on the man we know as Source E. Perhaps they knew that McCain was in a position to divulge that kind of information.

Ephsteyn's Twitter feed has been very sparse of late, and contains no reference to the controversy generated by the Orbis dossier.

If Ephsteyn is Source E, then we may fairly presume that the joint intelligence task force investigating these claims went to the FISA court specifically to get permission to eavesdrop electronically on Boris Ephsteyn. Remember: Permission is needed only if the target is an American.

Permission was finally granted in October. I have no idea what the intelligence "haul" might have been.

I invite everyone to check out Ephsteyn's background carefully, and then re-read all the passages about Source E in the Orbis dossier.

A final note: Although I am increasingly persuaded that Ephsteyn is Source E, I am NOT convinced that Source E always spoke truthfully to the Orbis agent.
Go to Page: 1