As walls close in on FBI, the bureau lashes out at its antagonists
By Sharyl Attkisson | The Hill | January 25, 2018
What happens when federal agencies accused of possible wrongdoing — also control the alleged evidence against them? What happens when they’re the ones in charge of who inside their agencies — or connected to them — ultimately gets investigated and possibly charged?
Those questions are moving to the forefront as the facts play out in the investigations into our intelligence agencies’ surveillance activities.
There are two overarching issues.
First, there’s the alleged improper use of politically-funded opposition research to justify secret warrants to spy on U.S. citizens for political purposes.
Second, if corruption is ultimately identified at high levels in our intel agencies, it would necessitate a re-examination of every case and issue the officials touched over the past decade — or two — under administrations of both parties.
This is why I think the concerns transcend typical party politics.
It touches everybody. It’s potentially monumental.
This week, the FBI said it was unfair for the House Intelligence Committee not to provide its memo outlining alleged FBI abuses. The committee wrote the summary memo after reviewing classified government documents in the Trump-Russia probe.
The FBI’s complaint carries a note of irony considering that the agency has notoriously stonewalled Congress. Even when finally agreeing to provide requested documents, the Department of Justice uses the documents’ classified nature to severely restrict who can see them — even among members of Congress who possess the appropriate security clearance. Members who wish to view the documents must report to special locations during prescribed hours in the presence of Department of Justice minders who supervise them as they’re permitted to take handwritten notes only (you know, like the 1960s).
What most people don’t know is that the FBI and Department of Justice already know exactly what Congressional investigators have flagged in the documents they’ve reviewed, because three weeks ago the Senate Judiciary Committee sent its own summary memo to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Department of Justice Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The committee also referred to the Department of Justice a recommendation for possible charges against the author of the political opposition research file, the so-called “Trump dossier”: Christopher Steele.
The head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Republican Charles Grassley co-authored the memo with fellow Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham. Grassley says it’s important for the public to see the unclassified portions of the memo. But unlike the House, which can release the memo on its own (and is taking steps to do so), Senate rules require permission from the Department of Justice — the possibly offending agency — approve or declassify the memo. And that’s reached a snag.
According to Grassley, the FBI is blocking the release of the unclassified sections of the Senate memo by falsely claiming that they contain classified information.
“It sure looks like a bureaucratic game of hide the ball, rather than a genuine concern about national security,” said Grassley in a speech on the Senate floor yesterday.
Grassley also pointed out that agencies accused of possible improprieties are the ones controlling the information. It’s the FBI who may have misused the unverified “dossier” opposition research, allegedly presenting it to a secret court as if it were verified intelligence.
“[FBI] Director [James] Comey testified in 2017 that it was ‘salacious and unverified’,” said Grassley. “So, it was a collection of unverified opposition research funded by a political opponent in an election year. Would it be proper for the Obama administration — or any administration — to use something like that to authorize further investigation that intrudes on the privacy of people associated with its political opponents? That should bother civil libertarians of any political stripe.”
Democrats and many in the media are taking the side of the intelligence community, calling the Republican efforts partisan. House Democrats are said to be writing a counter-memo.
“We need to produce our own memo that lays out the actual facts and shows how the majority memo distorts the work of the FBI and the Department of Justice,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, the lead Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.
Meantime, the Department of Justice has officially warned the House Intelligence Committee not to release its memo. It’s like the possible defendant in a criminal trial threatening prosecutors for having the audacity to reveal alleged evidence to the judge and jury.
This is the first time I can recall open government groups and many reporters joining in the argument to keep the information secret. They are strangely uncurious about alleged improprieties with implications of the worst kind: Stasi-like tactics used against Americans. “Don’t be irresponsible and reveal sources and methods,” they plead.
As for me? I don’t care what political stripes the alleged offenders wear or whose side they’re on. If their sources and methods are inappropriate, they should be fully exposed and stopped.
Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) is an Emmy-award winning investigative journalist, author of The New York Times bestsellers “The Smear” and “Stonewalled,” and host of Sinclair’s Sunday TV program “Full Measure.”
“Too Big To Believe” – Massive Scandal Is Brewing At The FBI
By Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge | January 24, 2018
As the Potemkin Village walls of The Left’s ‘Trump Collusion’ narrative crash and burn along with special counsel Mueller’s credibility, The New York Post’s Michael Goodwin sees far more wide-ranging problems ahead for America’s ‘intelligence’ agencies as the anti-Trump ‘secret society’ and lovers-texts-gate debacles threaten the core of the Deep State.
Goodwin writes that, during the financial crisis, the federal government bailed out banks it declared “too big to fail.” Fearing their bankruptcy might trigger economic Armageddon, the feds propped them up with taxpayer cash.
Something similar is happening now at the FBI, with the Washington wagons circling the agency to protect it from charges of corruption. This time, the appropriate tag line is “too big to believe.”
Yet each day brings credible reports suggesting there is a massive scandal involving the top ranks of America’s premier law enforcement agency. The reports, which feature talk among agents of a “secret society” and suddenly missing text messages, point to the existence both of a cabal dedicated to defeating Donald Trump in 2016 and of a plan to let Hillary Clinton skate free in the classified email probe.
If either one is true — and I believe both probably are — it would mean FBI leaders betrayed the nation by abusing their powers in a bid to pick the president.
More support for this view involves the FBI’s use of the Russian dossier on Trump that was paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. It is almost certain that the FBI used the dossier to get FISA court warrants to spy on Trump associates, meaning it used the opposition research of the party in power to convince a court to let it spy on the candidate of the other party — likely without telling the court of the dossier’s political link.
Even worse, there is growing reason to believe someone in President Barack Obama’s administration turned over classified information about Trump to the Clinton campaign.
As one former federal prosecutor put it, “It doesn’t get worse than that.” That prosecutor, Joseph diGenova, believes Trump was correct when he claimed Obama aides wiretapped his phones at Trump Tower.
These and other elements combine to make a toxic brew that smells to high heaven, but most Americans don’t know much about it. Mainstream media coverage has been sparse and dismissive and there’s a blackout from the same Democrats obsessed with Russia, Russia, Russia.
Partisan motives aside, it’s as if a scandal of this magnitude is more than America can bear — so let’s pretend there’s nothing to see and move along.
But, thankfully the disgraceful episode won’t be washed away, thanks to a handful of congressional Republicans, led by California Rep. Devin Nunes, chairman of the House’s Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. After he accused the FBI of stonewalling in turning over records, the bureau relented, at least partially.
The result was clear evidence of bias against Trump by officials charged with investigating him and Clinton. Those same agents appear to have acted on that bias to tilt the election to Clinton.
In one text message, an agent suggests that Attorney General Loretta Lynch knew while the investigation was still going on that the FBI would not recommend charges against Clinton.
How could she know unless the fix was in?
All roads in the explosive developments lead to James Comey, whose Boy Scout image belied a sinister belief that he, like his infamous predecessor J. Edgar Hoover, was above the law.
It is why I named him J. Edgar Comey last year and wrote that he was “adept at using innuendo and leaks” to let everybody in Washington know they could be the next to be investigated.
It was in the office of Comey’s top deputy, Andrew McCabe, where agents discussed an “insurance policy” in the event that Trump won. Reports indicated that the Russia-collusion probe was that insurance policy.
The text was from Peter Strzok, the top investigator on the Trump case, and was sent to Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer and also his mistress.
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40 . . . ” Strzok wrote.
It is frightening that Strzok, who called Trump “an idiot,” was the lead investigator on both the Clinton and Trump cases.
After these messages surfaced, special counsel Robert Mueller removed Strzok and Page from his probe, though both still work at the FBI.
Strzok, despite his talk of an “insurance policy” in 2016, wrote in May of 2017 that he was skeptical Mueller’s probe would find anything on Trump because “there’s no big there there.”
Talk about irony. While Dems and the left-wing media already found Trump guilty of collusion before Mueller was appointed, the real scandal might be the conduct of the probers themselves.
Suspicions are hardly allayed by the fact that the FBI says it can’t find five months of messages between Strzok and Page, who exchanged an estimated 50,000 messages overall. The missing period — Dec. 14, 2016 through May 17, 2017 — was a crucial time in Washington.
There were numerous leaks of classified material just before and after Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20.
And the president fired Comey last May 9, provoking an intense lobbying effort for a special counsel, which led to Mueller’s appointment on May 19.
Jeff Sessions, the attorney general, has emerged from his hidey hole to notice that the FBI has run amok, and said Monday he would “leave no stone unturned” to find the five months of missing texts.
Fine, but the House is racing ahead of him. Nunes has prepared a four-page memo, based on classified material that purportedly lays out what the FBI and others did to corrupt the election.
A movement to release the memo is gaining steam, but Congress says it might take weeks. Why wait? Americans can handle the truth, no matter how big it is.
Oligarch Jeff Bezos
By Margaret Kimberley | Black Agenda Report | January 17, 2018
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos has a net worth of $105 billion and is the richest man in the world. But he is not just the richest man at this moment in history. He is the richest person who has ever lived. As of 2017 he and seven other billionaires had a collective net worth equal to that of the poorest 3.6 billion people on earth.
These figures have been in the news of late but without much useful analysis. The corporate media refuse to state what is obvious. Namely that inequality is worse around the world precisely because these super rich people demand it.
While pundits and politicians go on breathlessly about oligarchs in Russia, they seldom take a look at the wealthiest in their own backyard and the control they exert over the lives of millions of people. When Amazon announced it would choose a site for its new headquarters, cities across the country began a furious race to the bottom. Amazon is not alone in the thievery department. Major corporations like Walmart always request and receive public property and public funds in order to do business.
Some 235 cities have put themselves in the running for this dubious venture. Chicago is willing to give Amazon $1.3 billion in payroll taxes that prospective employees would ordinarily pay that city. If Chicago wins this booby prize, Amazon employees would pay taxes to their employer and not to the government. This is truly cutting out the middle man and makes real the rule of, by, and for the wealthiest.
The potential for public outrage isn’t lost on unprincipled politicians. Some cities now refuse to reveal how much they plan to give away. But the news to date is disheartening with Boston offering $75 million while Houston is willing to part with $268 million. Amazon says it will hire 50,000 people but their business model already pays employees so little that many of them qualify for public assistance, despite being employed.
The United States is as much of an oligarchy as countries it usually disparages but it is far more dishonest about its true nature. All talk of democracy is a lie as the rich get richer, by an additional $1 trillion in 2017, and wield more and more power over the lives of everyone else.
The Bezos juggernaut is not restricted to theft of public money. He is also the sole owner of the Washington Post, one of the most influential newspapers in the country. Bezos owns a newspaper that is an organ of the ruling elite and he also has a $600 million contract to provide the Central Intelligence Agency with cloud computing services.
The Washington Post was the force behind Propaganda or Not, an effort to destroy left wing voices like those at Black Agenda Report. Under the guise of fighting Russia and so-called fake news, the Bezos owned Post began the censorship campaign that has put the left’s presence on the Internet in such jeopardy.
Politicians outdo one another giving away public resources to the richest man on the planet who also owns a major newspaper and services the surveillance state. If it can be said that any one person rules the world, Bezos would be obvious choice. No one in Chicago, Boston, Houston or any of the other cities giving away the store ever voted for Jeff Bezos. All talk of democracy is a sham as long as the richest people take from the rest of humanity.
The effort to make government an irrelevance is thoroughly bipartisan. Republicans and Democrats alike are willing to turn over government coffers to Bezos and his ilk and the rights of the people be damned.
Whoever wins this tarnished brass ring ought to be consigned to political defeat. The mayor, aldermen, city council members or whoever else brings disaster to their locality should be punished for aiding and abetting the theft. If these cities can give to the richest man who ever lived, they can surely use public money to help their residents right now. But they will never do that because they are all bought off and compromised. They are either cynical or afraid to go against the real rulers of the country.
Bezos may look like the villain in a James Bond movie but there is nothing funny about him. He is deadly serious and so are his intentions. In a Bezos run world, every worker will be impoverished, every level of government will subsidize corporations, and anyone who speaks out will be discredited and under surveillance.
The last thing any city needs is a new Amazon headquarters. We need an end to billionaire rule in this country and around the world. That will be the salvation of the people, not more sweatshops run by wealthy people who steal from everyone else.
Did Donald Trump Change His Mind on Domestic Spying?
By Andrew Napolitano • Unz Review • January 18, 2018
Late last week, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, repeated his public observations that members of the intelligence community — particularly the CIA, the NSA and the intelligence division of the FBI — are not trustworthy with the nation’s intelligence secrets. Because he has a security clearance at the “top secret” level and knows how others who have access to secrets have used and abused them, his allegations are extraordinary.
He pointed to the high-ranking members of the Obama administration who engaged in unmasking the names of some people whose communications had been captured by the country’s domestic spies and the revelation of those names for political purposes. The most notable victim of this lawlessness is retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, a transcript of whose surveilled conversation with then-Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak found its way into print in The Washington Post.
During the George W. Bush and Barack Obama years, captured communications — digital recordings of telephone conversations and copies of emails and text messages — did not bear the names of those who sent or received them. Those names were stored in a secret file. The revelation of those names is called unmasking.
Nunes also condemned the overt pro-Hillary Clinton bias and anti-Trump prejudice manifested by former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former FBI Director James Comey and their agents in the field, some of whose texts and emails we have seen. The secrets that he argued were used for political purposes had been obtained by the National Security Agency pursuant to warrants issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Yet Nunes voted to enhance federal bulk surveillance powers.
Bulk surveillance — which is prohibited by the Constitution — is the acquisition of digital versions of telephone, email and text communications based not on suspicion or probable cause but rather on geography or customer status. As I have written before, one publicly available bulk surveillance warrant was for all Verizon customers in the United States; that’s 115 million people, many of whom have more than one phone and at least one computer. And it is surveillance of Americans, not foreigners as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act contemplates.
How did this happen?
It happened in the dark. The NSA has persuaded the FISC, which meets in secret and only hears the government’s arguments, to permit it to spy on any American it wishes on the theory that all Americans know someone who knows someone else who knows someone who could have spoken to a foreign person working for a foreign government that could wish us ill.
This is the so-called judicial logic used to justify the search warrant on all of Verizon’s customers. This is what happens when judges hear only one side of a dispute and do so in secret.
The FISA amendments for which Nunes and other House members voted, which are likely to pass in the Senate, would purport to make bulk surveillance on all Americans lawful. At present, it is lawful only because the FISC has authorized it. The FISA amendments would write this into federal legislation for the next six years.
And these amendments would permit the FBI and any American prosecutor or law enforcement agency — federal, state or local — to sweep into the NSA’s databases, ostensibly looking for evidence of crime. If this were to become law, there would no longer be any unmasking scandals, because the stored data contains the names of the participants in the communications and would be readily available for harassment, blackmail or political use.
It would also mean that the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution — which guarantees privacy in our persons, houses, papers and effects — would have been gutted by the very officeholders who swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend it.
Does the American public know this? Does the president?
Last week, I made an impassioned plea on Fox News Channel directly to the president. I reminded him that he personally has been victimized by unlawful surveillance and the political use of sensitive surveillance-captured data; that the Constitution requires warrants for surveillance and they must specifically describe the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized; that warrants must be based on probable cause of individual behavior, not an area code or customer list; that the purpose of these requirements is to preserve personal privacy and prohibit bulk surveillance; and that he took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
About an hour later, the president issued a tweet blasting bulk surveillance and unmasking. Two hours after that, he issued another tweet supporting the enactment of the FISA amendments.
What’s going on here?
I suspect that leaders in the intelligence community hurriedly convinced the president that if he sets aside his personal unhappy experiences with them and any constitutional qualms, they will use the carte blanche in the FISA amendments to keep us safe. This is a sad state of affairs. It means that Donald Trump changed his mind 180 degrees on the primacy of personal liberty in our once-free society.
The elites in the federal government and the deep state — the parts of the government that are unauthorized by the Constitution and that operate in the dark, what candidate Trump called “the swamp” — have formed a consensus that marches the might of the government toward total Orwellian surveillance.
This is a march that will be nearly impossible to stop. This is the permanent destruction of the right to privacy. This is the exaltation of safety over liberty, and it will lead to neither. This is the undoing of limited government, right before our eyes.
Copyright 2018 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by Creators.com.
Why “Coercive Diplomacy” is a Dangerous Farce
By Gareth Porter | Dissident Voice | January 16, 2018
With his recent “my (nuclear) button is bigger than yours” taunt, Donald Trump’s rhetoric has fully descended into school yard braggadocio, with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un as a convenient foil. But his administration’s overwhelming reliance on military and economic pressure rather than on negotiations to influence North Korea’s nuclear weapons and ICBM programs is hardly new. It is merely a continuation of a well-established tradition of carrying out what the national security elite call “coercive diplomacy”.
As Alexander George, the academic specialist on international relations who popularized the concept, wrote:
The general idea of coercive diplomacy is to back one’s demand on an adversary with a threat of punishment for noncompliance that he will consider credible and potent enough to persuade him to comply with the demand.
The converse of that fixation on coercion, of course, is rejection of genuine diplomatic negotiations, which would have required the United States to agree to changes in its own military and diplomatic policies.
It is no accident that the doctrine of coercive diplomacy acquired much of its appeal on the basis of a false narrative surrounding the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962—that John F. Kennedy’s readiness to go to war was what forced Khrushchev’s retreat from Cuba. In fact, a crucial factor in ending the crisis was JFK’s back-channel offer to withdraw U.S. missiles from Turkey, which were useful only as first strike weapons and which Khrushchev had been demanding. As George later observed, enthusiasts of coercive diplomacy had ignored the fact that success in resolving a crisis may “require genuine concessions to the opponent as part of a quid pro quo that secures one’s essential demands.”
The missile crisis occurred, of course, at a time when the United States had overwhelming strategic dominance over the Soviet Union. The post-Cold War period has presented an entirely different setting for its practice, in which both Iran and North Korea have acquired conventional weapons systems that could deter a U.S. air attack on either one.
Why Clinton and Bush Failed on North Korea
The great irony of the U.S. coercive diplomacy applied to Iran and North Korea is that it was all completely unnecessary. Both states were ready to negotiate agreements with the United States that would have provided assurances against nuclear weapons in return for U.S. concession to their own most vital security interests. North Korea began exploiting its nuclear program in the early 1990s in order to reach a broader security agreement with Washington. Iran, which was well aware of the North Korean negotiating strategy, began in private conversations in 2003 to cite the stockpile of enriched uranium it expected to acquire as bargaining chips to be used in negotiations with the United States and/or its European allies.
But those diplomatic strategies were frustrated by the long-standing attraction of the national security elite to the coercive diplomacy but also the bureaucratic interests of the Pentagon and CIA, newly bereft of the Soviet adversary that had kept their budgets afloat during the Cold War. In Disarming Strangers, the most authoritative account of Clinton administration policy, author and former State Department official Leon Sigal observes: “The North Korean threat was essential to the armed services’ rationale for holding the line on the budget,” which revolved around “a demanding and dubious requirement to meet two major contingencies, one shortly after the other, in the Persian Gulf and Korea.”
The Clinton administration briefly tried coercive diplomacy in mid-1994. Secretary of Defense William Perry prepared a plan for a U.S. air attack on the DPRK Plutonium reactor after North Korea had shut it down and removed the fuel rods, but would not agree to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to determine how many bombs- worth of Plutonium, if any, had been removed in the past. But before the strategy could be put into operation, former President Jimmy Carter informed the White House that Kim Il-sung had agreed to give up his plutonium program as part of a larger deal.
The Carter-Kim initiative, based on traditional diplomacy, led within a few months to the “Agreed Framework”, which could have transformed the security situation on the Korean Peninsula. But that agreement was much less than it may have seemed. In order to succeed in denuclearizing North Korea, the Clinton administration would have been required to deal seriously with North Korean demands for a fundamental change in bilateral relations between the two countries, ending the state of overt U.S. enmity toward Pyongyang.
U.S. diplomats knew, however, that the Pentagon was not willing to entertain any such fundamental change. They were expecting to be able to spin out the process of implementation for years, anticipating the Kim regime would collapse from mass starvation before the U.S. would be called upon to alter its policy toward North Korea.
The Bush administration, too, was unable to carry out a strategy of coercive diplomacy toward Iran and North Korea over their nuclear and missile programs because its priority was the occupation of Iraq, which bogged down the U.S. military and ruled out further adventures. Its only coercive effort was a huge March 2007 Persian Gulf naval exercise that involved two naval task forces, a dozen warships, and 100 aircraft. But it was aimed not at coercing Iran to abandon its nuclear program, but at gaining “leverage” over Iran in regard to Iran’s role in the Iraq War itself.
On nuclear and missile programs, the administration had to content itself with the highly subjective assumption that the regimes in both Iran and North Korea would both be overthrown within a relatively few years. Meanwhile, however, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, whose primary interest was funding and deploying a very expensive national missile defense system, killed the unfinished Clinton agreement with North Korea. And after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice got Bush’s approval to negotiate a new agreement with Pyongyang, Cheney sabotaged that one as well. Significantly no one in the Bush administration made any effort to negotiate with North Korea on its missile program.
Obama Whiffs on Iran and North Korea
Unlike the Bush administration, the Obama administration pursued a carefully planned strategy of coercive diplomacy strategy toward Iran. Although Obama sent a message to Supreme Leader Khamenei of Iran offering talks “without preconditions,” he had earlier approved far-reaching new economic sanctions against Iran. And in his first days in office he had ordered history’s first state-sponsored cyber-attack targeting Iran’s enrichment facility at Natanz.
Although Obama did not make any serious efforts to threaten Iran’s nuclear targets directly in a military attack, he did exploit the Netanyahu government’s threat to attack those facilities. That was the real objective of Obama’s adoption of a new “nuclear posture” that included the option of a first use of nuclear weapons against Iran if it were to use conventional force against an ally. In the clearest expression of Obama’s coercive strategy, in early 2012 Defense Secretary Leon Panetta suggested to Washington Post columnist David Ignatius that the Iranians could convince the U.S. that its nuclear program was for civilian purposes or face the threat of an Israeli attack or an escalation of covert U.S. actions against the Iranian nuclear program.
In his second term, Obama abandoned the elaborate multilayered coercive diplomacy strategy, which had proven a complete failure, and made significant U.S. diplomatic concessions to Iran’s interests to secure the final nuclear deal of July 2015. In keeping with coercive diplomacy, however, the conflict over fundamental U.S. and Iranian policies and interests in the Middle East remained outside the realm of bilateral negotiations.
On North Korea, the Obama administration was even more hostile to genuine diplomacy than Bush. In his account of Obama’s Asian policy, Obama’s special assistant, Jeffrey Bader, describes a meeting of the National Security Council in March 2009 at which Obama declared that he wanted to break “the cycle of provocation, extortion and reward” that previous administrations had tolerated over 15 years. That description, which could have come from the lips of Dick Cheney himself, not only misrepresented what little negotiation had taken place with Pyongyang, but implied that any concessions to North Korea in return for its sacrifice of nuclear or missile programs represented abject appeasement.
It should be no surprise, therefore, that Obama did nothing at all, to head off a nuclear-armed North Korean ICBM, even though former Defense Secretary Ashton Carter acknowledged to CNN’s Christiane Amanpour last November, “We knew that it was a possibility six or seven years ago.” In fact, he admitted, the administration had not really tried to test North Korean intentions diplomatically, because “we’re not in a frame of mind to give much in the way or rewards.” The former Pentagon chief opined that no diplomatic concession could be made to North Korea’s security interests “as long as they have nuclear weapons.”
The Obama administration was thus demanding unilateral concession by North Korea on matters involving vital interests of the regime that Washington certainly understood by then could not be obtained without significant concessions to North Korea’s security interests. As Carter freely admits, they knew exactly what the consequences of that policy were in terms of North Korea’s likely achievement of an ICBM.
This brief overview of the role of coercive diplomacy in post-Cold War policy suggests that the concept has devolved into convenient political cover for maintaining the same old Cold War policies and military posture regarding Iran and North Korea, despite new and essentially unnecessary costs to U.S. security interests. The United States could have and should have reached new accommodations with its regional adversaries, just as it had with the Soviet Union and China during the Cold War. To do so, however, would have put at risk Pentagon and CIA budgetary interests worth potentially hundreds of billions of dollars as well as symbolic power and status.
Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on the U.S. war in Afghanistan. His Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare was published in 2014.
Statin Drugs – The Real Reason Official Guidelines Still Demonize Fats Despite the Evidence?
By Gabriela Segura, M.D. | Sott.net | January 15, 2018
Nina Teicholz, investigative journalist and author of the International bestseller The Big Fat Surprise, wrote an article for the BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal) in September 2015, which makes the case for the inadequacy of the scientific advice that underpins the Dietary Guidelines (Teicholz, 2015). The title of the article was “The scientific report guiding the U.S. dietary guidelines: is it scientific?” Ian Leslie writing for The Guardian reports that the response of the nutrition establishment was ferocious: 173 scientists – some of whom were on the advisory panel, and many of whose work had been critiqued in Teicholz’s book – signed a letter to the BMJ, demanding it retract the piece (Leslie, 2016). Prominent cardiovascular and nutrition scientists from 19 countries called for the retraction. However, to this day, the article remains published. The BMJ has officially announced that it will not retract the peer-reviewed investigation after stating that two independent experts conducted formal post-publication reviews of the article and found no grounds for retraction (Sboros, 2016).
Yet, behind every mainstream medical practice, strict questionable guidelines are still followed faithfully every day. Doctors are still following cholesterol targets that are often unattainable without cholesterol lowering drugs, but many do try to achieve their targets with extremely low fat diets recommended irresponsibly in dietary guidelines.
Unfortunately the rest of the world has followed suit on these dietary changes. Traditional high fat foods have been given up for the low fat scam. Promoters of the highly touted Mediterranean diet, with its olive oil and ‘low animal fat’, fail to mention the fact that there are still fat loaded recipes that were passed from generation to generation among the Mediterranean people. Lardo di Colonnata with its cured strips of fatback and herbs and spices; Greek barbecue which often involves an entire lamb roasted on a spit; or the kokoretsi which is made from the internal organs of the lamb – liver, spleen, heart, glands – threaded onto skewers along with the fatty membrane from the lamb intestines, all of these are foods of the long-lived Mediterranean people. Yet the ‘American style Mediterranean Diet’ selectively picks foods from the diet of the Mediterranean people to give the picture they desire. Ironically, many of the Mediterranean people have adopted this Americanized version of the ‘Mediterranean Diet’.
The truth is that cholesterol is a substance our bodies make naturally, and it’s absolutely essential to our health. Cholesterol is so crucial that the body produces some 1000-1400 milligrams of it each day, mainly in the liver. Cholesterol is also synthesized to a smaller extent in the adrenal glands, intestines, reproductive organs, etc.
We are told by the “Official Thought-Control Institutions” to limit consumption to less than 300 milligrams of cholesterol per day, but our liver’s production of cholesterol is controlled by a feedback mechanism based on how much we eat. If we eat a lot of cholesterol, we produce less, leaving much needed liver energy for other important tasks. If we eat little cholesterol, replacing it with carbohydrates and vegetable oils, then the body will produce the cholesterol from these dietary raw materials. However, a high-carb and vegetable oil diet yields a very bad cholesterol profile even when the cholesterol is in normal range. If we hardly eat any cholesterol and we block its production with lowering cholesterol drugs, then we are limiting the supply of something the body desperately needs for its proper function. Yet statins, cholesterol-lowering drugs, are among the most profitable drugs in the history of the world.
Restricting or eliminating cholesterol in the diet overburdens the liver, which now has to overproduce it through its enzyme HMG-CoA reductase from food in our diet. This enzyme is the one that is blocked by statin drugs for the purpose of lowering the amount of cholesterol the body produces. But, as with all pharmaceuticals, it comes with a price. HMG-CoA reductase is also the enzyme needed for the creation of coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10), which is a key nutrient for energy production in our cells. CoQ10 is also a major antioxidant. People complain of muscle cramps or aches while on statins drugs. Keep in mind that your heart is a muscle as well. Coincidence or not, the incidence of congestive heart failure has spiked during the time statins have been a top selling drug. Even when statin drugs are not at fault for the increased prevalence of congestive heart failure during the last decades, we don’t necessarily want to decrease CoQ10 levels in a failing heart.
Coenzyme Q10 – also called ubiquinone, which means ‘occurring everywhere’ – plays an important role in the manufacture of ATP, the fuel of our cells. It is present in every cell of our bodies, especially in the very active cells of our hearts. Depriving the heart of CoQ10 is like removing the spark plug from an engine. It just won’t work. Low levels of CoQ10 are involved in practically all cardiovascular diseases including angina, hypertension, cardiomyopathy and congestive heart failure (Sarter, 2002). It is ironic that statins, for “heart health”, block coenzyme Q10.
Statins’ many potential side effects include depression, confusion, memory problems and inability to concentrate. It hinders our body’s ability to fight microbes, increases liver damage, increases risk of cancer, fatigue, impotence, kidney failure, rhabdomyolysis (destruction of muscle cells) and shortness of breath among other things (for a database on statin adverse effects, see here). Cholesterol levels that are below 150 mg/dL may increase the risk for cancer, hormonal imbalances, depression, sexual dysfunction, memory loss, Parkinson’s disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke, suicide, and violent behavior.
As scientists are beginning to understand the intricacies of cholesterol’s role in the function of our trillions of cell membranes, including the details of nutrient transport across membranes, they are starting to realize what a bad idea this whole statin business is. Well, some of them are, anyway. According to some researchers:
Current guidelines encourage ambitious long term cholesterol lowering with statins, in order to decrease cardiovascular disease events. However, by regulating the biosynthesis of cholesterol we potentially change the form and function of every cell membrane from the head to the toe. As research into cell morphology and membrane function realises more dependencies upon cholesterol rich lipid membranes, our clinical understanding of long term inhibition of cholesterol biosynthesis is also changing.” (Wainwright, Mascitelli, & Goldstein, 2009, p. 289)
We make highly unstable and dysfunctional cell membranes when we restrict organic animal fats. This harmful effect has far reaching consequences. And doctors, unfortunately, don’t seem to be receiving this information.
The past decade of research has shown the importance of cholesterol-rich membranes and their fundamental implications for our brain and nervous tissue, immune system and all areas where lipoproteins are created, secreted, delivered and utilized. Cholesterol is so vital to the formation and correct operation of the brain that neurons require additional cholesterol to be secreted by brain cells. No wonder some people lose their memories with statin therapy!
Statin drugs also impair the secretion of new myelin, the fatty coating that covers the nerve cells and facilitates their firing. The connection between cholesterol and its fundamental role in the immune system and in the cell membrane should also be kept in mind when it comes to autoimmune diseases.
Modern guidelines say that it is desirable to have a level of total cholesterol of less than 200 mg/dL. When I was in medical school, which was not that long ago, the upper limit was 240 mg/dL. Once upon a time, it used to be 280 mg/dl. Apparently, in 1970, the rule-of-thumb for a healthy serum cholesterol was in the 200 plus range. Now most doctors try to keep cholesterol below 200, which most people find very difficult (if not impossible) to achieve through diet and lifestyle changes alone. Since then, statin drugs like Lipitor became one of the all-time top-selling drugs in history (Angell, 2005).
The European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (Piepoli et al., 2016) recommends that very high-risk patients lower their LDL cholesterol to less than 70mg/dL (<1.8 mmol/L) or “a reduction of at least 50% if the baseline is between 70 and 135 mg/dL (1.8 and 3.5 mmol/L).” (Ibid., p. 2331) Conveniently, pharmaceutical companies have the drug just for such a drastic reduction. For example Orvatez by Merck which combines ezetimibe (blocks the absorption of cholesterol) and atorvastatin (a statin drug) can bring LDL cholesterol down to 50 mg/dL. Merck highlights in a chart made for doctors that if a patient has a baseline LDL cholesterol of 70 mg/dL, target LDL should be of 35 mg/dL! And I’m not the only one who sees a problem with this. As the Mayo Clinic shyly puts it:
“There is no consensus on how to define very low LDL cholesterol, but LDL would be considered very low if it is less than 40 milligrams per deciliter of blood… very low levels of LDL cholesterol may be associated with an increased risk of cancer, hemorrhagic stroke, depression, anxiety, preterm birth and low birth weight if your cholesterol is low while you’re pregnant.” (Lopez-Jimenez, 2015, para. 2-3)
The above-mentioned European guidelines include a disclaimer where we read the following:
“[the] Guidelines do not override, in any way whatsoever, the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate and accurate decisions in consideration of each patient’s health condition and in consultation with that patient and, where appropriate and/or necessary, the patient’s caregiver. Nor do the ESC Guidelines exempt health professionals from taking into full and careful consideration the relevant official updated recommendations or guidelines issued by the competent public health authorities, in order to manage each patient’s case in light of the scientifically accepted data pursuant to their respective ethical and professional obligations. It is also the health professional’s responsibility to verify the applicable rules and regulations relating to drugs and medical devices at the time of prescription.” (Piepoli et al., 2016, p. 2315)
Since I have first hand experience of the way research is done in Europe, most specifically Italy, I decided to have a look at the disclosure forms of the experts involved in the development of these guidelines. As it happens, there is no direct hyperlink to the disclosure from the electronic version. I found it hyperlinked in a smaller font as the last section of the menu on a separate page at their escardio.org website. After a while you get good at digging for these details that very few are trained to look for and/or are interested in. The declaration of interest is a PDF file of 35 pages and it specifies that “the report below lists declarations of interest as reported to the ESC by the experts covering the period of the Guidelines production, from Task Force creation to publication.” (Available at https://www.escardio.org/static_file/Escardio/Guidelines/DOI_CVDPrevention.pdf)
That is, the declaration of interest only covers 2014 and 2015, and it is not given by a third party. Most of the authors have so many links to Big Pharma that their declaration of interest can take an entire page. The reader can have fun searching for Big Pharma sponsoring for the years not covered for both the sponsored and the few authors who had nothing to declare in 2014 and 2015. I challenge anyone to find at least one author who chose to attend only conferences that were not financed by Big Pharma as a general rule for his entire career.
As Marcia Angell, Senior Lecturer in Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School and former Editor of the New England Journal of Medicine states:
If drug companies and medical educators were really providing education, doctors and academic institutions would pay them for their services. When you take piano lessons, you pay the teacher, not the other way around. But in this case, industry pays the academic institutions and faculty, and even the doctors who take the courses. The companies are simply buying access to medical school faculty and to doctors in training and practice.
This is marketing masquerading as education. It is self-evidently absurd to look to companies for critical, unbiased education about products they sell. It’s like asking a brewery to teach you about alcoholism, or a Honda dealer for a recommendation about what car to buy. Doctors recognize this in other parts of their lives, but they’ve convinced themselves that drug companies are different. That industry-sponsored education is a masquerade is underscored by the fact that some of the biggest Madison Avenue ad agencies, hired by drug companies to promote their products, also own their own medical-education companies. It’s one-stop shopping for the industry.[…]
It’s easy to fault drug companies for much of what I’ve described, and they certainly deserve a great deal of blame. Most of the big drug companies have paid huge fines to settle charges of illegal activities. Last year Pfizer pleaded guilty and agreed to pay $2.3 billion to settle criminal and civil charges of marketing drugs for off-label uses-the largest criminal fine in history. The fines, while enormous, are still dwarfed by the profits generated by these activities, and are therefore not much of a deterrent. Still, apologists might argue that, despite its legal transgressions, the pharmaceutical industry is merely trying to do its primary job-furthering the interests of its investors-and sometimes it simply goes a little too far.
Doctors, medical schools, and professional organizations have no such excuse; the medical profession’s only fiduciary responsibility is to patients and the public. (emphasis added) (Angell, 2010, para. 35-36, 39-40)
If only health care professionals at large would take a stand against the massive conflict of interests from pharmaceutical and food industries and their role in the corruption of the medical science, it wouldn’t have come to the point where there are guidelines advising the reduction of cholesterol to levels never seen before in medical records. Another line of research would have been followed where dietary and environmental factors and their role in inflammation and our health would play a greater role. Hopefully we will wake up soon, otherwise we risk a guideline recommending zero levels of LDL cholesterol. It sounds absurd, but then, I thought that an LDL target 35 mg/dL would shock conventional practitioners to realize the absurdity of these recommendations, and that doesn’t seem to have happened.
Statin drugs are among the most profitable drugs in the history of the world. Those profits buy a lot of propaganda: lobbyists, advertising and marketing to doctors, and free continuing medical education. Think of what even a small percentage of their massive profits could do for prevention if it were invested in public education towards a truly health promoting diet. Think of all the diseases that would essentially disappear from the face of the planet. But expecting a corporation to willingly cut off its main source of profit is a pipe dream. Even if they knew the truth about diet, it would be kept as the most tightly guarded secret in history.
It’s really not in the drug-maker’s’ best interest to have people making healthy dietary choices. So instead of promoting prevention strategies, cholesterol drugs continue to post record-breaking profits and create poor health and side effects in the people taking them. Those people in poor health can then be treated with more drugs. How many people do you know on multiple medications for various ailments? Whether the cause if malfeasance or ignorance is largely irrelevant because the result is the same.
It is only your own awareness that can turn things around. The public is gradually awakening to the fact that statins are virtually useless for the vast majority of people who take them, and yet they carry significant risks.
A group of eminent doctors including the President of the Royal College of Physicians, Sir Richard Thompson, argue in a declaration letter that a doctor making a case for these drugs can quite easily look ill-informed, biased or just plain stupid in the eyes of their patients. According to one of the letter’s signatories, Dr David Newman, Assistant Professor of Emergency Medicine and Director of clinical research at Mount Sinai School of Medicine:
I am always embarrassed when I have to tell patients that our treatment guidelines were written by a panel filled with people who stood to gain financially from their decisions. The UK certainly appears to be no different to that of the United States. The truth is, for most people at low risk of cardiovascular disease, a statin will give them diabetes as often as it will prevent a non fatal heart attack – and they won’t live any longer taking the pill. That’s not what patients are looking for. (Briffa, 2014, para. 20)
The letter was addressed to the chair of NICE, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the United Kingdom. In the letter, the proposition to reduce the threshold for prescribing statins to those with a 10% risk of cardiovascular disease is rejected by addressing six major concerns (letter available at www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/News/NICE-statin-letter.pdf):
- The medicalization of millions of healthy individuals
- Conflicting levels of adverse events
- Hidden data
- Industry bias
- Loss of professional confidence
- Conflicts of interest
So again we see guidelines being written to favor the industry and the over-medicalization of millions of people.
Ironically, the very same experts for some of these guidelines disagree, calling for expert groups such as the Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) IV to “abandon the paradigm of treating patients to LDL targets” (Hayward & Krumholz, 2012).
Blinded by the numbers, doctors will see LDL levels at 70 and say their patients are doing well. They could fail to see what might actually be in front of their eyes – an ill-looking and nutritionally deficient person. Cracking skin, plunging libido, muscle wasting, memory problems, blood sugar imbalances, premature aging – but hey, cholesterol numbers are right on the money! It is astounding to see how we as doctors do so little critical thinking, focusing only on arbitrary guidelines dictated by the same companies selling the drugs that are the only things that make the numbers possible. Talk about a collective blind spot facilitated by decades of programmed schooling. Even when a patient points out, ‘but I eat no fats and no salt and I’m getting worse!’, we might fail to connect the dots.
As if this weren’t enough, here’s another bit of irony. In one study, the use of statin drugs was associated with microalbuminuria (Van Der Tol et al., 2012). Microalbuminuria is a marker of poor endothelial function and it’s endothelial function which determines cardiovascular disease risk. Microalbuminuria is also a marker of kidney problems.
Similarly, in a study of nearly 26,000 beneficiaries of Tricare – the military health system in the United States – those taking statin drugs to control their cholesterol were 87 percent more likely to develop diabetes. The research confirmed past findings on the link between statins and diabetes risk, but it is among the first to show the connection in a relatively healthy group of people. The study included only people who at baseline were free of heart disease, diabetes, and other severe chronic disease (Veterans Affairs Research Communications, 2015).
In this same study, statin use was also associated with a very high risk of diabetes complications. Among 3351 pairs of similar patients–part of the overall study group–those patients on statins were 250 percent more likely than their non-statin-using counterparts to develop diabetes with complications (Mansi, Frei, Wang, & Mortensen, 2015). Statin users were also 14 percent more likely to become overweight or obese after being on the drugs. The study also found that the higher the dose of any of the statins, the greater the risk of diabetes, diabetes complications, and obesity. Ironically, it is those who have had a cardiovascular disease event who are prescribed higher doses of statin drugs.
Moreover, more frequent statin drug use is associated with accelerated coronary artery and aortic artery calcification, both of which greatly contribute to cardiovascular and all-cause mortality (Saremi, Bahn, & Reaven, 2012). An evaluation of thousands of individuals with no known cardiovascular disease and undergoing a coronary CT angiography which visualizes atherosclerosis, concluded that statin use is associated with an increased prevalence and extent of coronary plaques possessing calcium (Nakazato et al., 2012). So doctors might be prescribing a medicine that contributes to onset of the very thing they are trying to prevent.
In the meantime, people are getting increasingly high levels of calcified hearts. During heart surgery, the surgical instrument known as the ‘bone eater’ ends up being used to replace valves that should have remained silky and smooth. I know what I speak after witnessing and conducting thousands of open heart surgeries in three different countries.
Two top vascular surgeons have summarized statins in a damning report called “The Ugly Side of Statins. Systemic Appraisal of the Contemporary Un-Known Unknowns“. In the report they state: “The statin industry is the utmost medical tragedy of all times,” and that “statins are associated with triple the risk of coronary artery and aortic calcification.” (Sultan & Hynes, 2013, p. 180, 183)
The picture isn’t pretty. The decades of massive anti-fat propaganda has brainwashed all of us without exception. Upon being questioned about their dietary habits, a patient might guiltily recall all the fats they ate and think that those are to blame for their health woes. Never mind that they eat mostly carbs, or that most of the fats they do eat are of the processed, plastic and vegetable oil variety. On doctors orders, they remove the animal fat from their diets, thereby increasing the carbs and vegetable oils, the very two steps that will deteriorate their health. When and if cholesterol targets are not reached by these measures, then the doctor has ‘no choice’ but to put them on a statin drug.
There is, however, a small percentage of people out there who genuinely have a true genetic predisposition to high blood cholesterol called familial hypercholesterolemia, which is a condition which is characterized by an impaired or even lack of ability to metabolize cholesterol. This condition can have serious health consequences and sufferers may need medical interventions to bring their cholesterol levels down. But that doesn’t mean this can be extrapolated to all people who don’t have this genetic problem.
Medical research has not proven that lowering (or low) cholesterol in and of itself reduces risk of death from heart disease across a population (Siri-Tarino, Sun, Hu, & Krauss, 2010; Chowdhury et al., 2014). Men with very low cholesterol levels seem prone to premature death. Below 160 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dl), the lower the cholesterol level, the shorter the lifespan. These men die of cancer, respiratory and digestive diseases, and trauma (Smith, 1997). As for women, if anything, the higher their cholesterol, the longer they seem to live (Teicholz, 2014).
Despite these facts, it is estimated that by 2020, revenues from statin drug sales will reach 1 trillion dollars. Never mind that most people taking these drugs are not at risk for heart disease.
References
Angell, M. (2005). The truth about the drug companies: How they deceive us and what to do about it. New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks.
Angell, M. (2010, May 1). Big Pharma, Bad Medicine. Retrieved from http://bostonreview.net/angell-big-pharma-bad-medicine
Briffa, J. (2014, June 18). Prominent doctors declare their opposition to the planned expansion of statin prescribing. Retrieved from http://www.drbriffa.com/2014/06/18/prominent-doctors-declare-their-opposition-to-the-planned-expansion-of-statin-prescribing/
Chowdhury, R., Warnakula, S., Kunutsor, S., Crowe, F., Ward, H. A., Johnson, L., . . . Angelantonio, E. D. (2014). Association of dietary, circulating, and supplement fatty acids with coronary risk. Annals of Internal Medicine, 160(6), 398-406. doi:10.7326/m13-1788
Hayward, R. A., & Krumholz, H. M. (2012). Three reasons to abandon low-density lipoprotein targets: An open letter to the adult treatment panel IV of the National Institutes of Health. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 5(1), 2-5. doi:10.1161/circoutcomes.111.964676
Leslie, I. (2016, April 07). The sugar conspiracy | Ian Leslie. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin
Lopez-Jimenez, F. (2015, October 30). Cholesterol level: Can it be too low? Retrieved from http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/high-blood-cholesterol/expert-answers/cholesterol-level/faq-20057952
Mansi, I., Frei, C. R., Wang, C., & Mortensen, E. M. (2015). Statins and new-onset diabetes mellitus and diabetic complications: A retrospective cohort study of US healthy adults. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 30(11), 1599-1610. doi:10.1007/s11606-015-3335-1
Nakazato, R., Gransar, H., Berman, D. S., Cheng, V. Y., Lin, F. Y., Achenbach, S., . . . Min, J. K. (2012). Statins use and coronary artery plaque composition: Results from the International Multicenter CONFIRM Registry. Atherosclerosis, 225(1), 148-153. doi:10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2012.08.002
Piepoli, M. F., Hoes, A. W., Agewall, S., Albus, C., Brotons, C., Catapano, A. L., . . . Verschuren, W. M. (2016). 2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice. European Heart Journal, 37(29), 2315-2381. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehw106
Saremi, A., Bahn, G., & Reaven, P. D. (2012). Progression of vascular calcification is increased with statin use in the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT). Diabetes Care, 35(11), 2390-2392. doi:10.2337/dc12-0464
Sarter, B. (2002). Coenzyme Q10 and cardiovascular disease: A review. The Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 16(4), 9-20. doi:10.1097/00005082-200207000-00003
Sboros, M. (2016, December 10). Victory for Teicholz in battle of butter. Retrieved from http://foodmed.net/2016/12/04/victory-teicholz-battle-of-butter-bmj/
Siri-Tarino, P. W., Sun, Q., Hu, F. B., & Krauss, R. M. (2010). Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 91(3), 535-546. doi:10.3945/ajcn.2009.27725
Sultan, S., & Hynes, N. (2013). The ugly side of statins. Systemic appraisal of the contemporary un-known unknowns. Open Journal of Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases, 03(03), 179-185. doi:10.4236/ojemd.2013.33025
Teicholz, N. (2014). The big fat surprise: Why butter, meat, and cheese belong in a healthy diet. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Van Der Tol, A., Van Biesen, W., Van Laecke, S., Bogaerts, K., De Lombaert, K., Warrinnier, H., & Vanholder, R. (2012). Statin use and the presence of microalbuminuria. Results from the ERICABEL trial: A non-interventional epidemiological cohort study. PLoS ONE, 7(2). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0031639
Veterans Affairs Research Communications. (2015, May 07). Strong statin-diabetes link seen in large study. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150507145328.htm
Wainwright, G., Mascitelli, L., & Goldstein, M. R. (2009). Cholesterol lowering therapies and membrane cholesterol. Stable plaque at the expense of unstable membranes? Archives of Medical Science, (5), 289-295.
Dr. Gaby was born into a mixed Eastern-Western family in Costa Rica and she is a countryside family medicine doctor and former heart surgeon. Her research in the medical field, the true nature of our world and all things related to healing have taken her to Italy, Canada, France and Spain. Gaby is co-host of the ‘Health and Wellness’ show on the SOTT Radio Network and her writings can be found at The Health Matrix.
Russiagate Turns On Its Originators
By Paul Craig Roberts | Institute For Political Economy | January 8, 2018
Russiagate originated in a conspiracy between the military/security complex, the Clinton-controlled Democratic National Committee, and the liberal/progressive/left. The goal of the military/security complex is to protect its out-sized budget and power by preventing President Trump from normalizing relations with Russia. Hillary and the DNC want to explain away their election loss by blaming a Trump/Putin conspiracy to steal the election. The liberal/progressive/left want Trump driven from office.
As the presstitutes are aligned with the military/security complex, Hillary and the DNC, and the liberal/progressive/left, the Russiagate orchestration is a powerful conspiracy against the president of the United States and the “deplorables” who elected him. Nevertheless, the Russiagate Conspiracy has fallen apart and has now been turned against its originators.
Despite the determination of the CIA and FBI to get Trump, these powerful and unaccountable police state agencies have been unable to present any evidence of the Trump/Putin conspiracy against Hillary. As William Binney, the former high level National Security Agency official who devised the spy program has stated, if there was any evidence of a Trump/Putin conspiracy to steal the US presidential election, the NSA would most certainly have it.
So where is the evidence? Why after one year and a half and a special prosecutor whose assignment is to get Trump has no evidence whatsoever been found of the Trump/Putin conspiracy? The obvious answer is that no such conspiracy ever existed. The only conspiracy is the one against Trump.
This has now become completely apparent. Russiagate originated in a fake “Trump dossier” invented by Christopher Steele, a former British MI6 intelligence officer. It is not yet clear whether it was the DNC, the CIA, or the FBI who paid Steele for the fake dossier. Perhaps he sold it to all three.
What we do know is that the FBI used what it knew to be a fake dossier to go to the FISA court for a warrant to spy on Trump.
As a consequence both Comey and the FBI, special prosecutor Mueller, and Christopher Steele are in hot water. The Chairman of the US Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, has instructed the US Attorney General to launch a criminal investigation of Steele for false statements to FBI counterintelligence officials.
You can see where this leads as former FBI director Comey is a participant in the Russiagate attack on President Trump. To protect himself Steele will have to rat on who put him up to it. If President Trump had any sense, he would put Steele under protective custody, as his life is clearly in danger. If the CIA and the FBI don’t get him, the Clintons surely will.
Trump’s easy election shook the Republican Establishment as well as it upset the Democrats and the military/security complex. The Republican Establishment hates losing control. Initially the Republican Establishment aligned with Trump’s enemies, but now understands that Trump’s demise means their demise.
Consequently, all of a sudden in Washington facts count. Not all facts, just those relating to the Steele dossier. Be sure you listen closely and carefully to these two videos of US Representative Jim Jordan’s destruction of US Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein for sitting on his ass while a totally corrupt FBI attempted to destroy the elected president of the United States. Keep in mind that Rosenstein is a member of the Trump administration. Why does the President of the United States employ people out to destroy him?
Here are the videos:
Here are 18 questions asked by US Rep. Jim Jordan:
1) Did the FBI pay Christopher Steele, author of the dossier?
2) Was the dossier the basis for securing FISA warrants to spy on Americans? And why won’t the FBI show Congress the FISA application?
3) When did the FBI get the complete dossier and who gave it to them? Dossier author Christopher Steele? Fusion GPS? Clinton campaign/DNC? Sen. McCain’s staffer?
4) Did the FBI validate and corroborate the dossier?
5) Did Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, or Bruce Orr work on the FISA application?
6) Why and how often did DOJ lawyer Bruce Orr meet with dossier author Christopher Steele during the 2016 campaign?
7) Why did DOJ lawyer Bruce Orr meet with Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson after the election? To get their story straight after their candidate Clinton lost? Or to double down and plan how they were going to go after President-elect Trump?
8) When and how did the FBI learn that DOJ lawyer Bruce Orr’s wife, Nellie Orr, worked for Fusion GPS? And what exactly was Nellie Orr’s role in putting together the dossier?
9) Why did the FBI release text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page? Normally, ongoing investigation is reason not to make such information public.
10) And why did FBI release only 375/10,000+ texts? Were they the best? Worst? Or part of a broader strategy to focus attention away from something else? And when can Americans see the other 96% of texts
11) Why did Lisa Page leave Mueller probe two weeks before Peter Strzok? This was two weeks before FBI and Special Counsel even knew about the texts.
12) Why did the intelligence community wait two months after the election to brief President-elect Trump on the dossier (January 6, 2017)? Why was James Comey selected to do the briefing?
13) Was the briefing done to “legitimize” the dossier? And who leaked the fact that the briefing was about the dossier?
14) The New York Times reported last week that George Popadopoulos’ loose lips were a catalyst for launching the Russia investigation. Was President-elect Trump briefed on this?
15) Why did Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson meet with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya before and after her meeting with Donald Trump Jr.?
16) Why was FBI General Counsel Jim Baker reassigned two weeks ago? Was he the source for the first story on the dossier by David Corn on October 31, 2016? Or was it someone else at the FBI?
17) Why won’t the FBI give Congress the documents it’s requesting?
18) And why would Senator Schumer, leader of the Democrat party, publicly warn President-elect Trump on Jan. 3, 2017 that when you mess with the “intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you?”
Insouciant trusting gullible Americans who “believe in our government” have no comprehension how totally corrupt “their” government is. It is the most corrupt in the world. The corruption in Washington is really unbelievable. You have to experience it to know it, and those who experience it are part of it and will not tell.
The orchestration “Russiagate” proves that the CIA, the NSA, and the FBI are so corrupt and unaccountable that they comprise the greatest threat to the American people in the entire history of America. The only solution is to break these agencies into a thousand splinters, as President John F. Kennedy intended, and rebuild them from scratch with total transparency. No more protecting their vast crimes under the cloak of “national security.” No classification of any so-called intelligence unless it can pass a unanamous vote of Congress and the ACLU.
The orchestration of Russiagate is proof that the alleged “national security agencies” are an anti-American force detrimental to our survival as a free people. The criminals in the FBI, CIA, and DNC must be investigated, indicted, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned or freedom in America is forever dead.
If President Trump fails in this task, he will have failed America. Everyone of us will be the victims.
One question with which we are left is why has the mainstream media failed in its investigating and reporting responsibilities and instead served as a cheerleader for the orchestration known as Russiagate? The New York Times, Washington Post, NPR, CNN, and the rest are serving as public relations agents for Russiagate, leaving it to Rep. Jim Jordan to ask the questions that the media should be asking. What explains the convergence of media and FBI/CIA interests? Are hidden subsidies involved? As the mainstream media is behaving as it would be if it were owned and controlled by the security agencies, this is a natural question. Why is the media not disturbed by its close relationship to the FBI and CIA? When did it become the function of the media to help the CIA and FBI control explanations?
Kushner family’s extensive business ties with Israel deepen: Report
Press TV | January 8, 2018
An Israeli firm says it has paid about $30 million to the family business of Jared Kushner, US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and senior aide, a new report states.
Kushner Companies, which specializes in real estate, has received an around $30 million payment from the Israeli insurance company Menora Mivtachim, The New York Times reported Sunday, citing one of the Israeli firm’s executives.
The hefty investment concerned Maryland apartment complexes owned by Kushner Companies, but did not involve Jared Kushner personally, the Times reported, noting that the transaction did not violate federal ethics laws.
Ran Markman, Menora’s head of real estate, told the daily that he had never even met Kushner and his position in the US government did not play a role in striking the deal.
“The connection to the president was not an issue,” Markman said.
Kushner, who is married to Trump’s eldest daughter Ivanka, resigned from the family business last year to join his father-in-law’s team at the White House. However, he still owns stakes in the company, including in the Maryland apartment buildings.
The Times had reported last year that Kushner had teamed up with a member of a wealthy Israeli family to invest about $200 million in apartment buildings across New York City’s flashy Manhattan neighborhood.
Kushner’s company has also received a number of loans from Israel’s largest bank, Bank Hapoalim, which has been under a US Justice Department investigation over allegations that it helped wealthy Americans evade taxes.
Additionally, Kushner’s family foundation has contributed to Israel’s illegal settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian lands by donating money to a settlement group in the West Bank, the Times said.
The deep business ties raises questions about Kushner’s ability to maintain a neutral role in his mission as Trump’s designated mediator between Israel and Palestine.
He has had no prior career in diplomacy or governance and, like his father-in-law, was in real estate before Trump won an upset victory in the US presidential election in November 2016.
Featured Video
The Attack on Pearl Harbor Was No Surprise (Part V)
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Iran Delenda Est
By Stephen J. Sniegoski • Unz Review • July 25, 2019
After Carthage had been significantly weakened by Rome in the Second Punic War (218 to 201 BC), Cato the Elder, a leading Roman senator, is said to have ended all his speeches with the words: “Carthago delenda est!” (“Carthage must be destroyed!”). This destruction ultimately took place in the Third Punic War (149–146 BC). A somewhat similar situation exists today in the United States, where war hawks demand that Iran–which in no way could effectively attack the United States, or even conquer America’s Middle East so-called allies—be stripped of its ability to protect itself.
Of course, what makes the American situation different from ancient Rome’s is that Rome sought to eliminate Carthage for its own interests whereas the United States is largely acting to advance the military interests of Israel… continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
eddieb on The Old Testament and the Geno… papasha408 on Trump’s war posturing against… Coronistan on This is How We Should Have Res… Coronistan on NO MANDATES, NO PROFITS: MODER… Lutz Barz on Russia Vows to Protect Its Oil… loongtip on Russia Vows to Protect Its Oil… loongtip on Hamas never agreed to lay down… eddieb on Conspiracy Denial eddieb on WEF Calls for ‘Cultural Revolu… loongtip on Trump wanted to play peacemake… Coronistan on EU member to sue bloc over ‘su… loongtip on Vicious
Aletho News- From Iraq war crimes to Gaza’s ‘board of peace’: Why Tony Blair belongs in The Hague
- Epstein email reveals plan to pursue frozen Libyan assets with help from former MI6, Mossad figures
- Trump tells India to stop purchasing Iran oil, buy Venezuelan instead
- How Trump’s Iran Gambit Could Blow Up the Entire Persian Gulf
- Rafah crossing reopens under strict Israeli restrictions
- The Attack on Pearl Harbor Was No Surprise (Part V)
- How Human Rights Watch Shattered Yugoslavia
- Hamas rejects Israeli accusations as “lies meant to justify its massacres in Gaza”
- Interior ministry: Israeli strike on police building in Gaza shows disregard for mediators
- West’s hypocrisy over Iran and Gaza proves a regime-change operation in Tehran
- If Americans Knew
- Israel killed at least 32 Gazans on Saturday – Not a ceasefire Day 114
- Is Israel opening the Rafah border to depopulate Gaza? – Not a ceasefire Day 113
- NBA Star Stephen Curry’s Ties To Israeli Military Intelligence
- ‘Apocalyptic wasteland’: Biden admin. blocked warning on deteriorating Gaza situation after Oct. 7
- Why Israeli counterterrorism tactics are showing up in Minnesota
- Israel Went to Extremes to Return Ran Gvili’s Body. Why Doesn’t It Accord Dead Palestinians the Same Respect?
- Across the West, speaking for Palestine is now a crime
- A West Bank Bus Trip Through ‘the Best Documented Ethnic Cleansing in History’
- Mike Huckabee’s distorted theology does not speak for Christians worldwide
- CBS Evening News” With Tony Dokoupil Is Ellisons’ & Weiss’s Pro-Israel Show
- No Tricks Zone
- One Reason Only For Germany’s Heating Gas Crisis: Its Hardcore-Dumbass Energy Policy
- 130 Years Later: The CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is Still Only An Imaginary-World Thought Experiment
- New Study Affirms Rising CO2’s Greening Impact Across India – A Region With No Net Warming In 75 Years
- Germany’s Natural Gas Crisis Escalates … One Storage Site Near Empty …Government Silent
- Polar Colding…Antarctica Saw Its Coldest October In 44 Years!
- New Study: Sea Levels Rose 20 Times The Modern Rate During The Roman Warm Period
- As German Gas Storage Dips Dangerously Low…Shortage Hardly Avoidable
- New Study: Brazil’s Relative Sea Level Was 2+ Meters Higher And SSTs 3-4°C Warmer 6000 Years Ago
- Philosopher Schopenhauer: Climate Science Certainty Stems From Stupidity, Ignorance
- New Study: Species Extinction Rates Declining Since 1980 – ‘Climate Change Is Not An Important Threat’
Aletho News 