The Democratic Party has made a strategic decision to bypass candidates from its progressive wing and recruit former members of the military and intelligence agencies to compete with Republicans in the upcoming midterm elections. The shift away from liberal politicians to center-right government agents and military personnel is part of a broader plan to rebuild the party so it better serves the interests of its core constituents, Wall Street, big business, and the foreign policy establishment. Democrat leaders want to eliminate left-leaning candidates who think the party should promote issues that are important to working people and replace them with career bureaucrats who will be more responsive to the needs of business. The ultimate objective of this organization-remake is to create a center-right superparty comprised almost entirely of trusted allies from the national security state who can be depended on to implement the regressive policies required by their wealthy contributors. Here’s more background from Patrick Martin at the World Socialist Web Site:
“An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history.
If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power in the lower chamber of Congress….
… it should be noted that there would be no comparable influx of Bernie Sanders supporters or other “left”-talking candidates in the event of a Democratic landslide. Only five of the 221 candidates reviewed in this study had links to Sanders or billed themselves as “progressive.” None is likely to win the primary, let alone the general election.” (“The CIA Democrats, Patrick Martin, The World Socialist Web Site)
“The New Jersey Democratic Party establishment successfully imposed its choice in contested congressional nominations, brushing aside several candidates backed by Bernie Sanders and his Our Revolution group. Nearly every Sanders-backed candidate in other states—for governor of Iowa and congressional seats in Iowa, Montana New Mexico and California—suffered a similar fate.” (“US primary elections in eight states confirm rightward shift by Democratic Party”, Patrick Martin, The World Socialist Web Site)
As a result “Only a handful of candidates running under the Bernie Sanders banner survived primaries held in six states on Tuesday. As of Wednesday afternoon, only seven of 31 candidates endorsed by Our Revolution —- had been declared winners.” (USA Today)
Simply put, Democrat leaders have successfully derailed the progressive bandwagon. Even so, Sanders role vis a vis the Democratic Party has always been a bit of a ruse. Here’s how author Tom Hall sums it up:
“The major political function of Sanders’ campaign is to divert the growing social discontent and hostility toward the existing system behind the Democratic Party, in order to contain and dissipate it. His supposedly ‘socialist’ campaign is an attempt to preempt and block the emergence of an independent movement of the working class.” (“Is Bernie Sanders a socialist?”, July 16, 2015), Tom Hall, World Socialist Web Site)
“The Democratic Party’s promotion of a large number of military-intelligence candidates for competitive districts represents an insurance policy for the US ruling elite. In the event of a major swing to the Democrats, the House of Representatives will receive an influx of new members drawn primarily from the national security apparatus, trusted servants of American imperialism……The preponderance of national security operatives in the Democratic primaries sheds additional light on the nature of the Obama administration (which) marked the further ascendancy of the military-intelligence apparatus within the Democratic Party….
The Democratic Party is running in the congressional elections not only as the party that takes a tougher line on Russia, but as the party that enlists as its candidates and representatives those who have been directly responsible for waging war, both overt and covert, on behalf of American imperialism. ….
The upper-middle-class layer that provides the “mass” base of the Democratic Party has moved drastically to the right over the past four decades, enriched by the stock market boom, consciously hostile to the working class, and enthusiastically supportive of the military-intelligence apparatus which, in the final analysis, guarantees its own social position against potential threats, both foreign and domestic. It is this social evolution that now finds expression on the surface of capitalist politics, in the rise of the military-intelligence “faction” to the leadership of the Democratic Party.” (“The CIA Democrats”, Patrick Martin, The World Socialist Web Site)
The dramatic metamorphosis of the Democratic party hasn’t taken place in a vacuum but in a fractious and politically-charged environment where elements within the intelligence community and law enforcement (FBI) are attempting to roll back the results of the 2016 presidential elections because their preferred candidate (Hillary Clinton) did not win. And while these agencies have not yet produced any hard evidence that their claims (of collusion with Russia) are true, there is mounting circumstantial evidence that senior-level officials at these agencies were actively trying to entrap members of the Trump campaign to justify more intrusive surveillance in the hopes of uncovering incriminating evidence that could be used in impeachment proceedings.
On Friday, North Korea’s former spy chief, Kim Yong Chol, met with President Donald Trump for a two hour conference at the White House. During their meeting, the DPRK official presented Trump with an oversized letter that had been personally written by Kim Jong-Un. Although the contents of the letter have not yet been revealed, we assume that it reads something like this:
Dear President Donald Trump,
I send you my warmest greetings and I sincerely hope this letter finds you in the best of health.
First, allow me to say how grateful I am that you chose to accept our invitation to meet in Singapore on June 12, 2018. It was very courageous of you to break with tradition and take such bold step for the sake of peace. Speaking on behalf of the people of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, I want you to know that I will make every effort to make sure that your trip is not in vain. We have every intention of presenting our views on the issues as succinctly and candidly as possible, but we will not play games, engage in trickery or beat around the bush. More importantly, we are fully committed to keeping our promise to aggressively take steps towards “complete, verifiable and irreversible” nuclear disarmament as soon as we reach a mutually acceptable agreement. There will be, however, requirements the United States will have to meet in order for us to achieve the final settlement that, I believe, we all want. I will elaborate more on this point later in the letter.
I feel it is my duty as a partner in any future agreement with the United States to draw attention to the potential obstacles that could prevent us from achieving our ultimate goal of peace and security on the Korean peninsula. Let me be blunt: After 6 decades of following US-DPRK policy, we think we have a fairly good understanding of the competing forces that operate within the US foreign policy establishment and who have a hand in setting policy. As you may know, not everyone supports the goals of the Singapore summit or wants you to succeed in your mission. From our point of view, there are powerful elements within the Pentagon and the bureaucracy that frequently insert themselves into the negotiating process in order to achieve the outcome they want. For example, you may recall that recent US-ROK joint-military drills in South Korea were going to include nuclear-capable bombers. The intention of this unwarranted display of force was to provoke suspicion and hostility on the part of the DPRK leadership. The perpetrators of this incitement clearly hoped that we would overreact and, subsequently, back out of the June 12 summit. They were wrong, but their sinister act of sabotage was duly noted. You might also recall how National Security advisor John Bolton invoked the so-called “Libya model” in his summary comments of how the denuclearization process might unfold. Once again, I think you can see that Bolton’s comments were not merely a slip-of-the-tongue but a deliberate effort to dampen relations, arouse suspicion and preempt future cooperation on key issues that need to be dealt with in the upcoming summit. Clearly, Bolton’s incendiary rhetoric was aimed at making sure the summit never took place. Once again, we would characterize Bolton’s interference as sabotage, but perhaps we are overstating the case.
These incidents help to explain why I sent my trusted advisor and second in command 10,000 miles to hand-deliver this letter to you personally. It is because we do not think we can achieve the meaningful change we want by allowing biased intermediaries who appear to be satisfied the same political arrangement we have today to continue to poison relations as they have in the past. We believe that in order to meet the aspirations of both nations’ peoples and make quantifiable progress on the road to peace, we must ignore the distractions and provocations and conduct a direct dialogue between the two countries’ leaders.
Let me state our position unequivocally so there is no misunderstanding: We are determined to change the status quo, to normalize relations with our brothers in the South, to lower the barriers to commerce and prosperity, to become a more integral part of regional economy, and to hopefully end the 65 year-long conflict with the US that has caused so much division, suspicion and misery. That is why we are committed to the path of denuclearization. We are not entering into an agreement with the United States because we are afraid of a confrontation, but because we want to seize a unique opportunity to participate in a regional development plan that will modernize the DPRK, create better paying jobs for our people, rebuild our industries and infrastructure, and help to integrate our critical transportation and energy grids with those of our neighbors. And, no, we are not abandoning our commitment to socialism, but we are adapting to new contingencies in much the same way that China or Vietnam underwent basic economic restructuring the more they integrated with the global economy. Our commitment to socialist ideals remains steadfast, but we are equally resolved to make the changes we need to ensure prosperity for our people.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recently said that the United States would be willing to help the DPRK economically depending on whether the nuclear issue is resolved or not. That is wonderful and we are certainly open to any offers to improve our economy provided businesses and investors agree to abide by our rules and regulations which are being modified to conform with more widely-accepted international standards. As you know, we have recently implemented market-oriented reforms and have taken deliberate steps to further liberalize our economy. We have also “established 13 economic development zones to try to attract foreign capital and investment. We have also made ‘improving living standards’ for ordinary working people a “national priority.” Our progress has been slow, but we are confident that we are headed in the right direction. We fully intend to accelerate the pace of modernization, integration and market-oriented reforms.
How does this fit with our decision to abandon our nuclear weapons?
Frankly, our primary business partners– China, Russia and South Korea– all agree that the DPRK’s nuclear weapons only add to regional instability and are an obstacle to further economic integration which requires a broader security umbrella maintained by the more powerful states. We are not and will not shirk our responsibility to provide for our own defense, but regional security requires the harmonizing of interests and obligations. Just as the United States would protect Mexico or Canada from foreign invasion, so too, those responsibilities fall on the larger nuclear-armed powers in the region. We willingly make the concession of giving up our nuclear weapons in order to participate in a broader “rules based” economic coalition that we believe will ensure both our future security and prosperity.
On Tuesday, the New York Times accused Donald Trump of spreading conspiracy theories about “a spy inside his presidential campaign.” Here’s an excerpt from the article:
“Last week, President Trump promoted new, unconfirmed accusations to suit his political narrative: that a ‘criminal deep state’ element within Mr. Obama’s government planted a spy deep inside his presidential campaign to help his rival, Hillary Clinton, win — a scheme he branded ‘Spygate.’ It was the latest indication that a president who has for decades trafficked in conspiracy theories has brought them from the fringes of public discourse to the Oval Office.” (“With ‘Spygate,’ Trump Shows How He Uses Conspiracy Theories to Erode Trust”, The New York Times)
The article is clearly intended to show that Trump is paranoid and delusional, but what the author fails to mention is that it was the Times that originally published the story about the spy in the Trump campaign. Take a look at this clip from last week’s article titled “F.B.I. Used Informant to Investigate Russia Ties to Campaign, Not to Spy, as Trump Claims”:
“F.B.I. agents sent an informant to talk to two campaign advisers only after they received evidence that the pair had suspicious contacts linked to Russia during the campaign. The informant, an American academic who teaches in Britain, made contact late that summer with one campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, according to people familiar with the matter. He also met repeatedly in the ensuing months with the other aide, Carter Page, who was also under F.B.I. scrutiny for his ties to Russia.” (“F.B.I. Used Informant to Investigate Russia Ties to Campaign, Not to Spy, as Trump Claims”, New York Times)
While the Times admits the FBI “sent an informant to talk to two campaign advisers”, they seem to think there is a difference between an informant and a spy, but in this case there clearly isn’t because the informant was surreptitiously gathering information on members of the campaign which, by definition, is spying. The Times compounds its error by alluding to the Trump campaign’s “suspicious contacts to Russia” which is again misleading because–as the Times knows– after an exhaustive 18 month-long investigation, those “suspicious contacts” have amounted to nothing. So we must logically conclude that Trump’s assertion, that an informant was planted in his campaign for political reasons, is at least as credible as the Times assumption that members of the Trump campaign were improperly mixed up with Russia. In fact, if we compare Trump’s broader theory –that the Russia probe is a politically-motivated attack on his presidency– to the Times‘ theory– that Trump is in bed with Moscow–there is no question as to which version is more believable. Here’s more from the Times:
“Now that he is president, Mr. Trump’s baseless stories of secret plots by powerful interests appear to be having a distinct effect….Mr. Trump’s willingness to peddle suspicion as fact has implications beyond the Russia inquiry. It is a vital ingredient in the president’s communications arsenal, a social media-fueled, brashly expressed narrative of dubious accusations and dark insinuations that allows him to promote his own version of reality…
“He’s the blame shifter in chief,” said Gwenda Blair, a Trump biographer. (“With ‘Spygate,’ Trump Shows How He Uses Conspiracy Theories to Erode Trust”, The New York Times)
What is the point of ridiculing Trump in article after article after article? Is anyone persuaded by these blistering smears that are passed off as unbiased reporting. It’s not just unprofessional, it’s irrelevant. If the Times took its ‘duty to inform the public’ seriously they would have provided a little background on the “FBI informant” in question. Who is he? What is his personal history? Was he involved in counterintelligence operations in the past? That’s what curious people want to know, they’re not interested in the name-calling. Take a look at this excerpt from an article by Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept:
“Four decades ago, Stefan Halper (The FBI informant) was responsible for a long-forgotten spying scandal involving the 1980 election, in which the Reagan campaign – using CIA officials managed by Halper, ….got caught running a spying operation from inside the Carter administration. The plot involved CIA operatives passing classified information about Carter’s foreign policy to Reagan campaign officials in order to ensure the Reagan campaign knew of any foreign policy decisions that Carter was considering…. the CIA’s perceived meddling in the 1980 election… was a somewhat serious political controversy. And Halper was in that middle of that, too.” (The FBI Informant Who Monitored the Trump Campaign, Stefan Halper, Oversaw a CIA Spying Operation in the 1980 Presidential Election, The Intercept)
Okay, so now we know that the informant has a history of political espionage. That’s a step in the right direction. Halper spied on the Carter administration just like he spied on the Trump campaign, same thing, different decade. So why didn’t the Times simply acknowledge what they knew about Halper instead of splitting hairs over the term ‘spy’? And why did they conceal his connections to the CIA that go back decades? Doesn’t the Times think their readers deserve to know what’s really going on or do they think the facts will undermine their sketchy version of events?
The Halper situation is just one of the more glaring omissions in the Times coverage of the Russia probe, there are many others too. For example, did you know that the FBI never seized or searched the Democrat servers for forensic evidence? It’s true. The entire Russia meddling probe is based allegations that Russia hacked DNC servers, but the FBI never conducted its own investigation of the computers. They just took the word of a private company with close ties to the Democratic party, which means the whole thing could be made up, we’ll never know for sure. Imagine if a homicide detective left the smoking gun that was used in a murder with the wife of the victim saying they’ll just take her word about what happened. Does that make sense? Of course not. So, why would the FBI take the word of an openly partisan organization who had every reason to misrepresent their findings. And why are the journalists at the Times so lacking in curiosity that they won’t even look into the matter? It makes it look like they’re part of a big cover-up.
The Times has also ignored the fact that neither Wikileak’s founder Julian Assange nor former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray have ever been asked to testify by the Mueller investigation? Isn’t that a bit strange? Keep in mind, that these are the only two men who can positively verify whether Russia stole the DNC emails and gave them to Wikileaks or not. And even though both men have expressed their willingness to testify on the matter, they’ve never gotten the call from Mueller. Why? Why wouldn’t Mueller want to hear what they have to say?
Why is Amazon running a full page of “Michelle Obama for President” T-Shirts? What does Bezos know that we don’t know?
And why did Michelle decide to launch her new book on November 13th, 2018, just a week after the midterm elections? Was that merely a coincidence or was the date chosen by her political advisors for some other reason?
And what about those rumors that Oprah might run for president in 2020? Were they really triggered by off-the-cuff comments by Seth Meyers at the Golden Globes or was Oprah really just a stalking horse for Candidate Michelle?
There’s no doubt that Ms. Obama is wildly popular among liberals and Democrats. According to Gallup, her favorability rating exceeds her husband’s or his two predecessors, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Check out this blurb from a 2017 Gallup survey: “First lady Michelle Obama will leave the White House with the same 68% favorable rating she had when she first moved in. Majorities of Americans have consistently expressed a favorable view of Michelle Obama…. The outgoing first lady’s highest rating was 72%, two months into her husband’s first term in office.” (“President Obama Leaves White House With 58% Favorable Rating”, Gallup)
Michelle’s popularity makes her the overwhelming favorite to face Trump in the 2020 presidential elections, but will she? She says she’s not interested, but I’m not buying it. My guess is that she is being coached by the DNC public relations team who want to roll her out like a new box of soap suds sometime after the midterm elections. Isn’t that what’s really going on? After the ballots are counted, Michelle is going launch her 30-city book tour during which time large throngs of frenzied supporters will ‘spontaneously’ pop up everywhere demanding that their favorite liberal icon throw her hat in the ring and join the fight against ‘evil’ Trump. I can almost hear her yielding to their feverish pleas already:
“I don’t want to be president, but I will do it for you, my people.”
What a scam. Democrat leaders obviously know a winner when they see one, which explains why she got $60 million for her new book. Were the publishers really that impressed with her modest talent as a writer or was she being paid for ‘services to be rendered at some future date’? It sounds like a payoff to me.
Like her husband, Michelle is a thoroughly-reliable political marionette who will play the ‘liberal card’ to maximum effect while quashing the unions, kowtowing to Wall Street, perpetuating the wars, and ensuring that the bulk of the nation’s wealth continues to flow upwards to our glorious 1 percent overlords. It’s worth noting, that Barack’s eight year stint as Prez represented the greatest shift of wealth from middle-to-upper class in the nation’s 240 year history. I fully expect Michelle to break that record during her upcoming tenure as chief executive.
The Democrats aren’t stupid, they know they need Michelle to beat Trump. Biden’s too old, Bernie’s too liberal and Wall Street wouldn’t go near Warren with a 10-foot pole. That leaves Michelle, they’re only hope. Of course, the Dems could change directions altogether, stop playing identity politics, and take a stand on the issues, but no one really expects them to do that. The Democrats have completely abandoned the issues just as they have jettisoned their platform which no one has even referenced in the last 20 years or so. That’s why the party is no longer perceived to have any core convictions, it’s because the corrupt party leadership merely march in lockstep with their big money constituents. A recent survey in the Washington Post shows how low the Dems have sunk. Here’s an excerpt:
“Some 37 percent say the (Democratic) party currently stands for something, while 52 percent say it mainly stands against Trump. Even among Democrats, over one-quarter say their party primarily stands in opposition to Trump rather than for their own agenda.” (Washington Post)
The survey confirms what most people already know, that the Dems stand for nothing, it’s the party of nothing, the Nothing Party. Sure, they hate Trump, but beyond that, they have zilch. It’s a terrible indictment of a party that has lost it’s raison d’etre.
The Democrats are not going to change directions, they’re not going to become an issues-oriented, antiwar, party of the working man. That’s not going to happen. They’re going to implement the same basic strategy they used with Barack Obama, that is, select a person with impressive oratory skills and great personal charisma, transport him to venues that magnify his popularity, fabricate an aura of celebrity around his uber-positive persona, and make sure he speaks in only the broadest and most nebulous terms. (So he isn’t accused of reneging on campaign promises.)
This is what the party bigwigs want, a female Obama who will do exactly what she’s told and faithfully execute the warmongering imperial agenda without the slightest reservation.
Michelle is not only the perfect choice , she also comes with an impeccable resume. She is a Princeton under-grad with a Harvard Law degree. She graduated magna cum laude, top of her class. She has a spotless public service record with virtually no skeletons in the closet. She is a paragon, a shining example of strength, virtue and perseverance, a telegenic colossus who can deliver a barnburner with the best of them, and then, mingle with the little people hoeing weeds in the White House veggie garden. She’s got it all. She’s a black woman whose name recognition and international stature make her the most formidable candidate in the country today, bar none.
But the one thing that makes Michelle more attractive than any of the other Democratic candidates, is the fact that she is a proven commodity, a trusted ally who party elites know they can depend on. Michelle Obama is not going to rock the boat, she’s not going to try to lift the country’s cast-offs out of poverty, or try to raise living standards for ordinary working people, or put an end the bloody foreign wars. She’s going to do exactly what her husband did for 8 years, exalt in his role as a meaningless figurehead who helped to conceal the sinister puppetmasters who pulled his strings. Michelle is going to do the same damn thing, which is why the party bosses love her.
After 18 months of withering attacks and accusations, Donald Trump has decided to get up off the canvas and fight back. In a series of tweets stretching from Sunday night to early Monday morning, Trump announced that he would launch his own investigation to see whether the FBI and DOJ had improperly targeted his campaign for “political purposes”.
“I hereby demand, and will do so officially tomorrow, that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes – and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration! Donald Trump, @realDonaldTrump, Twitter, Sunday, May 20
It’s a gutsy move by Trump but one that could backfire quite badly. By demanding an investigation of the DOJ and FBI, the president is asking those agencies to willingly reveal their own transgressions, to produce the documents and other information that could potentially expose many of their own people (Obama holdovers) to criticism or even criminal prosecution. It’s hard to believe that many career bureaucrats would want to assist Trump in an effort that could potentially damage their colleagues or the reputation of their own department.
In any event, Trump has decided to throw caution to the wind and go for broke. He’s decided that the only way he’s going to get his enemies off his back is by flushing them out into the open and subjecting their activities to public scrutiny. It’s a risky strategy, but the scrappy New Yorker seems to think he can pull it off without a hitch. Here’s another late-night tweet from Trump:
Reports are there was indeed at least one FBI representative implanted, for political purposes, into my campaign for president. It took place very early on, and long before the phony Russia Hoax became a “hot” Fake News story. If true – all time biggest political scandal! Donald Trump, @realDonaldTrump, Twitter, May 18
Is he right? Did the FBI place a mole inside the campaign to gather information on Trump and his aids? Because, if they did, then this is bigger than Watergate, in fact, it would be the biggest political corruption scandal in history. According to the New York Times, however, Trump’s got it all wrong. There was no spy inside the campaign, there was a trusted informant who was trying to gather information from individual members of the campaign. There’s a big difference. But whether the informant was inside or outside, the fact remains that the FBI launched a counterintelligence operation against the rival party’s presidential campaign in order to gather information that was intended to damage, discredit or incriminate the targets of the operation. That’s the bottom line, isn’t it? The nation’s top law enforcement agency, operating on orders from god-knows-who (Obama?), was engaged in a plot to gain an unfair advantage in the election, undermine the two-party system and sabotage the democratic process. Trump may have misstated the details but the basic facts remain the same. Here’s an excerpt from the article in the Times:
“President Trump accused the F.B.I. on Friday, without evidence, of sending a spy to secretly infiltrate his 2016 campaign “for political purposes” even before the bureau had any inkling of the “phony Russia hoax.”
In fact, F.B.I. agents sent an informant to talk to two campaign advisers only after they received evidence that the pair had suspicious contacts linked to Russia during the campaign. The informant, an American academic who teaches in Britain, made contact late that summer with one campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, according to people familiar with the matter. He also met repeatedly in the ensuing months with the other aide, Carter Page, who was also under F.B.I. scrutiny for his ties to Russia.” (“F.B.I. Used Informant to Investigate Russia Ties to Campaign, Not to Spy, as Trump Claims ” New York Times)
The Times is technically right, but their hair-splitting defense misses the point altogether. It’s up to the FBI to prove that their extremely-suspicious and perhaps illegal activities were justifiable. And whatever excuse the Bureau eventually settles on, it should not have anything to do with Russiagate since that bogus probe has been a ‘dry well’ from the get-go and hasn’t produced even a scintilla of hard evidence in more than a year and half. The FBI needs to come clean and explain what was really going on behind the scenes. What’s this all about? Clearly, the informant wasn’t talking to gasbag Papadopoulos because he thought he’d uncover a link between Putin and Trump, but because his disjointed braggadocio would help him build a case against the president. That what’s really going on, it’s plain as the nose on your face. The FBI was using the Russia pretext to gather damaging and possibly incriminating dirt on Trump. The obvious objective was to prevent Trump from being elected and then, afterwards, to remove him from office. This is from The Hill on Monday:
“The Department of Justice (DOJ) has asked its inspector general to look into whether the FBI surveilled President Trump’s campaign for “inappropriate purposes.”
“If anyone did infiltrate or surveil participants in a presidential campaign for inappropriate purposes, we need to know about it and take appropriate action,” Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said in a statement.” (DOJ asks watchdog to probe Trump campaign surveillance claims, The Hill)
Got that? So deep-state Rod is going to sort this mess out and let us all know if there’s been any funny business or not. What a joke. The man is so conflicted he should have been removed months ago. It was Rosenstein who wrote the 3-page memo that persuaded Trump to dump Comey after which he quickly appointed Robert Mueller as Special Counsel using the ‘firing of Comey’ as his justification. That might the sleaziest political switcheroo I’ve seen in my lifetime.
And notice how carefully Rosenstein chooses his words like an ambulance-chasing barrister inveigling an injured client. He says, “If anyone did infiltrate or surveil participants in a presidential campaign for inappropriate purposes, we need to know about it and take appropriate action,”
Okay, so who decides what is appropriate or inappropriate? The Inspector General or our buddy Rosenstein who’s going to do everything in his power to hide the smoking gun. In any event, that doesn’t change the fact that the campaign was infiltrated by at least one informant who tried to wrangle as much information as possible out of his targets. Which brings us to the case of Stefan Halper, “the 73-year-old Oxford University professor and former U.S. government official” who “was outed as the FBI informant ” and who “was paid handsomely by the Obama administration starting in 2012 for various research projects.
….Halper was enlisted by the FBI to spy on several Trump campaign aides during the 2016 U.S. election…..while a search of public records reveals that between 2012 and 2018, Halper received a total of $1,058,161 from the Department of Defense.” Here’s more from an article at Zero Hedge:
“The most recent award to Halper for $411,575 was made in two payments, and had a start date of September 26, 2016 – three days after an… article by Michael Isikoff about Trump aide Carter Page, which used information fed to Isikoff by “pissgate” dossier creator Christopher Steele….
The second installment of Halper’s 2016 DoD contract is dated July 26, 2017 in the amount of $129,280 – around three months before the FISA warrant on Carter Page was set to expire following repeated renewals signed by Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein and a federal judge….