Is The Steele Dossier Full Of "Russian Dirt" - Or British?

Authored by James George Jatras via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

With text messages between US Justice Department (DOJ) conspirators Peter Strzok and his adulterous main squeeze Lisa Page now revealing that then-President Barack Obama “wants to know everything we’re doing,” it now appears that the 2016 plot to subvert the rule of law and corrupt the US organs of state security for political purposes reached the very pinnacle of power.

To call the United States today a “banana republic” increasingly may be seen as a gratuitous insult to the friendly spider-infested nations to our south.

Still, don’t expect to see Barry Hussein Saetoro doing the perp walk anytime soon or even being deported back to Kenya. Don’t expect to see orange prison suits on Strzok, Page, former FBI Director James Comey, former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and others implicated in putting a political thumb on the scales to, first, get Hillary Clinton elected, and then, when that failed, to neuter Donald Trump’s presidency with a phony Russiagate probe. Officials’ getting “former-ed” is one thing, their getting prosecuted quite another. (Just imagine if a GOP administration had similarly skewed the supposedly non-political law enforcement and intelligence services for partisan reasons. We’d have Watergate on steroids. The New York Times, Washington Post and CNN would be calling for hanging, drawing, and quartering.)

Indeed, it’s not even clear the Russiagate investigation itself will be impacted. After all, the narrative may have flipped on one variable – from Trump campaign collusion to Democratic and FBI collusion – but the constant remains the same: Russia. Trump’s defenders are as insistent as his detractors that the real culprit is Russia! Russia! Russia!

Sean Hannity of Fox News has been particularly hyperventilative that the entire Steele Dossier lying at the black heart of the mess consists of “phony, fake-news Russian propaganda” and “Russian intelligence lies” from British MI6 (supposedly “former”) spymaster Christopher Steele’s “Russian sources.” Even level-headed observers like Paul Sperry and Patrick Buchanan characterize the file as a “Kremlin-aided smear job” and “Russian dirt [that] Steele was spoon-fed by old comrades in the Kremlin’s security apparatus.”

Christopher Steele is not Russian

But what do we really know about Steele’s claimed sources? Not much.

Sure, maybe Vladimir Putin personally whispered every word of the dossier into Steele’s ear. Or maybe Steele invented his supposed sources from whole cloth: your clients are paying for sleaze, you give them sleaze. Or anything in between: maybe Steele consulted some imaginative Russian cranks with only a marginal, and most likely adversarial, relationship to the Russian authorities, whose “inside knowledge” Steele padded to justify his fee. (Steele claims he didn’t pay his “sources” – assuming they exist at all – but that’s no more worthy of credit than anything else he says.)

As analyzed by Russia expert Stephen F. Cohen:

‘Where, then, … did Steele get his information? According to Steele and his many stenographers – which include his American employers, Democratic Party Russiagaters, the mainstream media, and even progressive publications – it came from his “deep connections in Russia,” specifically from retired and current Russian intelligence officials in or near the Kremlin. From the moment the dossier began to be leaked to the American media, this seemed highly implausible (as reporters who took his bait should have known) for several reasons:

- ‘Steele has not returned to Russia after leaving his post there in the early 1990s. Since then, the main Russian intelligence agency, the FSB, has undergone many personnel and other changes, especially after 2000, and especially in or near Putin’s Kremlin. Did Steele really have such “connections” so many years later? [JGJIs it credible that the head of MI6’s Russian branch is on a first-name basis with top Kremlin insiders? Turn the identities around and ask whether the chiefs of the US section of Russian or Chinese intelligence are on intimate speaking terms with the US president’s top advisers or with the leadership of the CIA or FBI. Hardly.]

- ‘Even if he did, would these purported Russian insiders really have collaborated with this “former” British intelligence agent under what is so widely said to be the ever-vigilant eye of the ruthless “former KGB agent” Vladimir Putin, thereby risking their positions, income, perhaps freedom, as well as the well-being of their families?

- ‘Originally it was said that his Russian sources were highly paid by Steele. Arguably, this might have warranted the risk. But subsequently Steele’s employer and head of Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, wrote in The New York Times that “Steele’s sources in Russia…were not paid.” If the Putin Kremlin’s purpose was to put Trump in the White House, why then would these “Kremlin-connected” sources have contributed to Steele’s anti-Trump project without financial or political gain – only with considerable risk?

- ‘There is the also the telling matter of factual mistakes in the dossier that Kremlin “insiders” were unlikely to have made, but this is the subject for a separate analysis.

‘And indeed we now know that Steele had at least three other “sources” for the dossier, ones not previously mentioned by him or his employer. There was the information from foreign intelligence agencies provided by Brennan to Steele or to the FBI, which we also now know was collaborating with Steele. There was … a “second Trump-Russia dossier” prepared by people personally close to Hillary Clinton and who shared their “findings” with Steele. And most intriguingly, there was the “research” provided by Nellie Ohr, wife of a top Department of Justice official, Bruce Ohr, who, according to the Republican memo, “was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump. Ohr later provided the FBI with all of his wife’s opposition research.” Most likely, it found its way into Steele’s dossier. (Mrs. Ohr was a trained Russian Studies scholar with a PhD from Stanford and a onetime assistant professor at Vassar, and thus, it must have seemed, an ideal collaborator for Steele.)’

The reference to “people personally close to Hillary Clinton and who shared their ‘findings’ with Steele” dovetails with another intriguing suggestion from former Clinton insider Dick Morris, who knows the modus operandi of the Clinton lie generator better than anyone else. On the Fox News “Ingraham Angle” show, Morris suggested to host Laura Ingraham that the bulk of the dossier was invented by veteran political dirty tricksters and Clinton-machine hatchet men Sid Blumenthal and Cody Shearer, who then engaged “former” spook Steele, because of the Brit’s known relationship with the FBI, as their conduit to give their garbage credibility. (Never underestimate the residual “colonial” mentality of Yanks to find any sort of gibberish convincing if delivered with a British accent, as confirmed by the ubiquity of posh Brit voices in American advertising.)

Andrew Wood is not Russian

But Steele isn’t the only limey link to #Dossiergate. In late 2016, after Trump’s election victory, Andrew Wood, a former British ambassador to Russia, told US Senator John McCain about the existence of compromising material on Donald Trump, according to Wood’s account to BBC4. Wood then set up a meeting between Steele and David Kramer, an associate of McCain’s. It’s unclear whether McCain already knew about the dossier at that point or whether Wood alerted the Senator to its existence.

For what it is worth – not much – Wood states that McCain had obtained the documents from the Senator’s own sources. “I told him I was aware of what was in the report but I had not read it myself, that it might be true, it might be untrue. I had no means of judging really,” and that he served only to inform McCain about the dossier contents: “My mission was essentially to be a go-between and a messenger, to tell the Senator and assistants that such a dossier existed,” Wood told Fox NewsWood elsewhere relates that McCain was “visibly shocked” at his description and expressed interest in reading the full report. That doesn’t sound as though McCain had already obtained the dossier from his “own sources” but, rather, that Wood was the instigator.

So which is it? Did McCain already know about the dossier, and if so how did it “happen” to get raised with a British diplomat? Conversely, was the initiative from Woods to induce the Senator – known to be a strong Trump critic as well as for his hostility to Russia – to pass the dossier on in Washington? Keep in mind that the dossier had already been used to secure a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to monitor Carter Page, a peripheral asteroid in the Trump orbit, and that Trump had already been elected. By this time the conspiracy’s purpose had shifted from preventing Trump’s victory to tying down his incoming administration, especially with respect to blocking any opening to Moscow as Trump said he intended to do. What better way to set the cat among the pigeons than for a supposedly totally non-political British diplomat (certainly no intelligence officer, he!) to quietly peddle the material from Steele (whom Wood called a “very competent professional operator … I do not think he would make things up.”) to the right man in Washington?

GCHQ is not Russian

Finally, while it’s clear the dossier served to get a FISA warrant for American services to spy on the Trump campaign and later the transition team, US agencies’ might not have been the only eyes and ears monitoring them. Amid all the hubbub over Michael Wolff’s slash-and-burn Fire and Fury, little mention (other than a heated denial on the floor of the House of Commons, from the notoriously truth-challenged former prime minister Tony Blair, and from the relevant British agency itself!) has been made of the suggestion that the UK’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) – Britain’s version of the NSA – was spying on Trump and providing their sister agencies in the US with additional data.

Keep in mind the carefully worded deflection last year from James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence (DNI), that “there was no wiretap against Trump Tower during the campaign conducted by any part of the national intelligence community... including the FBI,” thus begging the question of whether Trump was spied on not by a US “national” agency but by one of the Anglosphere “Five Eyes” agencies – most likely GCHQ – which then passed the information back to their American colleagues. With Steele’s and Wood’s involvement, and given the virtual control of America’s manifestly corrupted agencies of their counterparts in satellite countries like the United Kingdom, involvement by GCHQ and perhaps other “friendly” foreign agencies cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Madame Prime Minister is not Russian

To be sure, in 2016 the majority opinion in Russia was that Donald Trump’s election would be preferable to Hillary Clinton’s for the simple reason that the former openly advocated better relations with Moscow while the latter was a notorious warmonger. But there was also a strong minority view, especially among more pro-Western elements of the Russian establishment, that Hillary – “the devil you know” – was preferable to rolling the dice on an unpredictable and unknown quantity. Plus, Hillary was delightfully corrupt, with the Clinton Foundation an open invitation for many foreign powers to buy influence.

There was no ambiguity in the position of the British government, however. In 2016 Prime Minister Theresa May, like her German counterpart, made little effort to hide her disdain for the “just plain wrong” Trump and her preference for Hillary Clinton, whom she expected to win (as did most other observers).

Why should anyone be surprised that her MI6 and GCHQ minions would share the same views and perhaps acted on them to provide some helping “hands across the water” to their US counterparts whose anti-constitutional conspiracy now stands exposed?

 

Comments

Chupacabra-322 Sat, 02/10/2018 - 19:46 Permalink

The Nunes and Grassley/Graham memos both make it clear that Steele was playing a double game, acting as an FBI source while spreading the Clinton dossier through the media. And the FBI chose to ignore these abuses until it could no longer do so. The double game was criminal and political. 

Steele was spreading the Clinton dossier through the media to taint Trump politically. But he was also working with the FBI to go after Trump with a criminal investigation. The information was withheld by the DOJ so as not to expose the fact that his paymasters were actually in the Clinton campaign. 

Were the DOJ and the FBI covering up the origins of the Clinton-Steele dossier to protect the criminal investigation or the political campaign? The refusal to crack down on Steele’s media leaks (not to mention the plethora of leaks coming from within the FBI and DOJ) suggest that it was the latter or both.

Admitting a political origin on the FISA application suggests they were less worried about the court than about the public exposure of their actions. And that’s the situation that they find themselves in now.

The Clinton campaign had taken great care to conceal its ownership of the Clinton-Steele dossier. Having a law fire hire a smear firm which then hired a British former intel agent in another country indicates that the campaign was spending a lot of time and money trying to cover its tracks. It wouldn’t have needed to work so hard just to protect the distribution of opposition research to the media.

There was never any shortage of reporters eager to cooperate with Clinton officials. Would the same insider media that allowed the DNC to review articles and ask for changes have really refused to keep the origins of the Clinton-Steele dossier a secret? Even if the reporters who were briefed by Steele didn’t know that he was working for the Clinton campaign, they could have guessed it from their contacts. 

Concealing the origins of the Clinton-Steele dossier wasn’t necessary for opposition research. And that means that the dossier had always been intended to serve as the basis for a criminal investigation. Even before he wrote a single word, Christopher Steele had been hired to generate a criminal investigation.

The eavesdropping and the Mueller investigation aren’t unintended outcomes, as the apologists want us to believe, that a zealous Steele triggered by passing the information to the government. 

It had always been the intended outcome before Christopher Steele even officially came on board.

But because the campaign was underway, the dossier was a double game. Spreading it through the media acted as classic opposition research while routing it through the DOJ generated an investigation. And the Clinton campaign used Steele to do both. His Fusion GPS handlers ferried him from briefing reporters to briefing the FBI. And the FBI was obligated to keep his secret the way that the media did.

 

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/269246/clinton-dossier-daniel-greenfield

Blue Vervain lloll Sun, 02/11/2018 - 04:29 Permalink

This farce has its prototype in MI6 agent Graham Greene's novel "Our Man In Havana", where security services were spoon-fed fabricated reports from agents in return for cash. The reports provided whatever the security services were seeking. Before long the whole tangle of lies gets beyond anyone's control.

In reply to by lloll

Chupacabra-322 BlackChicken Sat, 02/10/2018 - 23:42 Permalink

@ Black,

 

The following is from the Deep State Washington Post.  

 

Much of the GOP memo is about the FBI obtaining a secret court order to monitor a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page. The memo alleges that the FBI did not fully disclose to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court that some of the information stemmed from intelligence reports provided by Christopher Steele, a former British spy under contract for a research firm working on behalf of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. The FBI, in a rare unsigned statement, said it has “grave concerns” about the accuracy of the memo.

 

Here’s the problem with the claim that the memo shows that FBI was spying on the campaign: Carter Page was no longer associated with the campaign when the court order was approved.

 

Here’s the timeline.

March 16, 2016: In an interview with The Washington Post editorial board, Trump names Page as one of his foreign policy advisers. (In 2013, Page was warned by the FBI that Russian intelligence operatives were trying to recruit him.)

“Well, I hadn’t thought of doing it, but if you want I can give you some of the names … Walid Phares, who you probably know, PhD, adviser to the House of Representatives caucus, and counterterrorism expert; Carter Page, PhD; George Papadopoulos, he’s an energy and oil consultant, excellent guy; the Honorable Joe Schmitz, [former] inspector general at the Department of Defense; [retired] Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg; and I have quite a few more. But that’s a group of some of the people that we are dealing with. We have many other people in different aspects of what we do, but that’s a representative group.”

 

July 7-8, 2016: Page attracts attention by traveling to Moscow and delivering a speech harshly critical of U.S. policy toward Russia. He emails campaign officials about “incredible insights” from his trip.

 

Aug. 5, 2016: The Trump campaign begins to back away from Page when The Washington Post reports on the unease in both parties caused by Page’s remarks in Russia. Asked to comment on Page’s public statements and campaign role, Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks said Page was an “informal foreign policy adviser” who “does not speak for Mr. Trump or the campaign.”

 

Sept. 23, 2016: The Trump campaign denies Page was ever part of the campaign. “Mr. Page is not an adviser and has made no contribution to the campaign,” campaign spokesperson Jason Miller said. “He’s never been part of our campaign. Period.” The statement comes as Yahoo News reports that a U.S. intelligence probe was trying to determine if Page had “opened up private communications with senior Russian officials — including talks about the possible lifting of economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president.”

 

Sept. 26, 2016: Page himself announces he is taking “a leave of absence” from the campaign, saying the reporting on his remarks has created a “distraction.”

 

Oct. 21, 2016: Nearly a month after the Trump campaign says Page was never part of the campaign, the FBI seeks and receives a FISA court order to begin surveillance on Page. The order is renewed at least three more times over the next year, meaning that the FBI is able to convince the judges that surveillance continues to provide assistance to investigators. The Wall Street Journal reported that all of the judges who approved the orders were appointed by Republicans.

 

Feb. 16, 2017: Trump denies he ever met Page. “I don’t think I’ve ever met him,” he told reporters at a news conference. “And he actually said he was a very low-level member of, I think, a committee for a short period of time. I don’t think I ever met him. Now, it’s possible that I walked into a room and he was sitting there, but I don’t think I ever met him. I didn’t talk to him, ever.”

 

In other words, the surveillance began long after Page had supposedly left the campaign. Trump denies he ever met or spoke to Page. So it’s hard to see how a court order on a former campaign adviser — less than three weeks before the election — would constitute spying on the campaign.

 

The memo also discloses that the FBI opened a counterintelligence operation in July because of allegations concerning other Trump adviser, George Papadopoulos. But Papadopoulos was never mentioned in the Steele dossier. He came to attention of the FBI because he had told an Australian diplomat that the Russians had obtained thousands of Clinton’s emails. He has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and is cooperating with the special counsel.

A spokesman for Rep. Raúl R. Labrador (R-Idaho) did not respond to a request for comment.

 

Update: After this article was published, Todd Winer, a Labrador spokesman, provided the following comment:

 

“The Nunes Memo makes it clear that federal officials were interested in Carter Page because he was connected to the Trump campaign. Why else would the FISA application contain the findings of the anti-Trump dossier? Why else would the application include the fact that the FBI was already investigating Trump advisor George Papadopoulos? Whether or not Carter Page was on the payroll of the Trump campaign on the date of the FISA order is irrelevant. By virtue of the fact that he had once worked on the campaign, he was connected to the campaign.

 

“For a year, the Washington Post and other media outlets have specifically mentioned Carter Page as one of the leading figures in the Trump-Russia collusion story. Now that the media narrative is falling apart, all of a sudden you want to argue that Carter Page has nothing to do with Trump. You can’t have it both ways.”

 

A spokesman for Duncan said: “Had the noncredible DNC funded dossier never been leaked to the media to fuel mass speculation of Russian involvement, and had it not been used as ‘evidence’ to elevate the investigation to the level of requesting FISA warrants, it’s very likely that there would have never been a perceived need for special counsel to be created in the first place.”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/02/03/does-the-gop-memo-show-the-fbi-spied-on-the-trump-campaign/?utm_term=.3ffa3131cbce

 

In reply to by BlackChicken

Give Me Some Truth Kayman Sat, 02/10/2018 - 20:45 Permalink

i've always wondered why we were supposed to automatically believe Steele or Fusion when they tell us Steele's sources were current and former Russian intelligence people with close ties to the Kremlin.

That's what they say.

This author is right to question this story, which to date has just been accepted as truth. We don't really know who the sources were, or if this was all or partially made up.

In reply to by Kayman

Anunnaki Give Me Some Truth Sat, 02/10/2018 - 21:37 Permalink

Because all the left wanted to believe it was all true. They were suckered by Steele who was lazy in his sourcing of this nonsense. Now the Presstitutes are saying it was the Kremlin who suckered Steele

 

so it always doubles back to the Russians.  But the joke is on the Tripod of Evil*. Joe Sixpack and Sally Housecoat don’t care

 

*1. Deep State

2. Presstitutes

3. Democrats

In reply to by Give Me Some Truth

Terminaldude Kayman Sat, 02/10/2018 - 20:59 Permalink

Absolutely Correct.  Russia is just something to keep the ill informed busy bickering back and forth.  Russia Russia Russia. 

It has been proven over and over that it was the Obama FBI, DOJ, NSA, CIA and DNC that are the problem.  Enough of the idiotic Russia BS.  These people know that people in the US are pre-conditioned to hate the Russians and it is like taking candy from a baby to get the US Citizens riled up over Russia.

It has been proven that the DNC emails were LEAKED (probably by Seth Rich) and NOT HACKED by anyone.  Why people keep allowing the MSM to call it Hacked emails is beyond me.  LEAKED from someone inside of the DNC.  Why did Brasile talk about being scared for her life (in her book)?  Maybe she knows what happened to Seth Rich and by who.

Enough Russia BS.  It was your own F-ing Government that is behind all of this mess and lawlessness.

In reply to by Kayman

MK ULTRA Alpha Manthong Sat, 02/10/2018 - 20:48 Permalink

Steele's handler? State Department under Clinton, FBI under Mueller/Comey, DNC, the Russian intelligence he was close to, or was his handler MI6.

Steele's handler and loyalty is MI6. Clinton was using Steele's position papers to write US foreign policy on the Ukraine and Russia. It was used as evidence to support the State Department foreign policy. State Department foreign policy was decided when DOD Gates and State Department Clinton violated the Logan Act for the big grand Bilderberg meeting with Kissinger and the Royals. There was absolutely zero US media coverage of two powerful US government leaders attending a secret meeting.

If anyone in the US government doesn't believe MI6 has in the past manipulated US foreign policy for it's national security then that government worker needs to be asked to leave. Steele working at the State Department supplying position papers, making deals on the ground in the Ukraine, participating in the State Department funded coup, well it wasn't all Blumenthal.

Blumenthal is featured in Clinton State Department emails, doing private intelligence work trying to arrange a coup in Libya, I guess later he went to work for Clinton at State, but he was a private citizen in the emails.

This is Clinton's dirty trick spy ring, but the handler and loyalty of the British spy is MI6. And MI6 belongs to who and I know you don't believe it, the Queen makes geopolitical policy and through her ministers and MI6 contacts carry it out.

Did the British MI6 use a so called former MI6 spy to spy on the Americans, supply geopolitical position papers for the purpose of providing false evidence to justify spending $4 billion and more on Clinton's Ukraine coup, and subsequent sour relation with the Russians and then to sabotage Trump's election because MI6 favored Clinton? Could some of this be plausible?

Recall the timeline of Ukraine, Libya, Syria etc. It was easy to see Libya was decided at that particular Bilderberg Meeting, the American beast of burden was used and Clinton was the facilitator and the traitor, sold us out coming and going, and there are hundreds of people in and outside Washington, active and inactive desperate to keep this manipulation of our foreign policy and thefts covered up.

The Ukraine coup State Department planner Victoria Nuland bragged before congress she spent over $4 billion tax payer dollars overthrowing Ukraine's government. Biden would periodically visit the Ukraine, the last trip he was handing over $18 billion, we don't know how much the federal government gave to the Ukraine in the form of aid, but the money was stolen, stolen, and the last Biden speech said this is the last money, you're going to have to do something about the corruption.

Bloomberg tried to get the state department to answer questions about the missing billions from the Clinton State Department era, this question was never answered. Did Clinton transfer State Department money to the Clinton Foundation?

In reply to by Manthong

Chupacabra-322 MK ULTRA Alpha Sat, 02/10/2018 - 21:12 Permalink

@ MK,

I’ll take it from here.  

 

This Steele Guy is going to get a visit from some “Wet Work” Individuals.

 

He was also feeding Victoria Nuland “Intelligence” on Ukraine to Kerry’s State Dept.  The Connection to the State Dept was through State Dept Official Johnathan Wiener who was the US Special Envoy to Lyiba from 2013-2016.

 

BENGAZI.

 

Weiner had a prior friendship with Steele, and passed on Steele’s analysis as a courtesy to The State Dept. Europe Bureau, lead at the time by assistant secretary Victoria Nuland.  The State Dept. received at least one Steele report a month. A coupe a dozen in total officials said.  

 

Who is Johnathan Wiener?

 

Lawer, Consultant & Diplomat from Maryland.  Served as the State Depts first Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Law Enforcement from 1994-1999 during the Clinton Administration and until January 2017 as the US Specual Envoy to Lybia in the Obama Administration.

 

The Washington Post (Deep State) is already acknowledging it feed / sent information to the FBI, is tight with Victoria Nuland? Who prepared the BENGAZI talking points?  All while Wiener was the Special Envoy to Lybia?  And, (Wiener) has a friendship with special friendship with Steele who’s being briefed by Hillary Clinton?

 

http://www.bongino.com/february-6-2018-ep-649-more-disturbing-revelations/

 

In reply to by MK ULTRA Alpha

GreatUncle Chupacabra-322 Sun, 02/11/2018 - 07:18 Permalink

Steele done a runner ... 6th Feb 2018 as per article on ZH.

Seems the ZH article vanished but I grabbed a copy.

The principle of GCHQ and MI6 spying on Americans is for US government to say "fuck the US constitution".

From that single concept many other such bypassing methods will and do occur.

In reply to by Chupacabra-322

7thGenMO MK ULTRA Alpha Sat, 02/10/2018 - 21:41 Permalink

Excellent points.  MI6 and the Mossad have been partners in crime with links to the Rothschilds (who also advise the Queen) since at least the days of Kim Philby - the famous Communist spy that was outed by Victor Rothschild's Mossad connection.  Also, let's not forget WJC's Oxford connection and HRC's connection to "show her our love" Lynn De Rothschild.

What would MI6's motivations be for wanting a pipeline through Syria and war with Russia?  Simple - the North Sea fields are depleted and the 60 million plus of the UK home islands don't have the money to buy Russian gas.  Also, the Rothschild's want back the assets they stole in the 90's - remember the CEO of Lukoil that Putin jailed and who was bankrolled by the Rothschild out of Switzerland?  It was reported that the Swiss Rothschild sued to recover his stolen shares of Lukoil.

In reply to by MK ULTRA Alpha

MK ULTRA Alpha 7thGenMO Sat, 02/10/2018 - 22:13 Permalink

Brilliant, I even remember right before Bush II invasion of Iraq, there was hysteria over high oil prices in Europe, France and the UK, it had been announced North Sea production had dropped significantly. Everyone was in a state of panic, I remember farmers driving tractors to Whitehall.

The US started the resource wars in agreement with Europe and for Europe, the primary steering group is the Bilderberg Group. Most believe like Paul Craig Roberts, Europe is a vassal of the US, this isn't correct. The US is a beast of burden, Europe got use to NATO being manned by Americans, thus, we are directed by the Europeans. US foreign policy was decided at Bilderberg meetings by foreigners.

The UK is deeply involved in manipulating US foreign policy,

I'm worn out, but I have so much detail explaining the thesis the US is controlled by the Bilderberg Group Meetings, no one has heard of it, because it's never told to the American people. How many Americans know the details of the Bilderberg Group meetings? There was a recent 2017 Bilderberg Group meeting held close to the US Capitol attended by McMaster, Ross, and some others, was this covered by the MSM?

Davos is an open celebrity kind of meeting, but Bilderberg Group meetings are secret meeting with state security, attended by European Royals, bankers, and government operatives like Clinton.

In reply to by 7thGenMO

GreatUncle thinkmoretalkless Sun, 02/11/2018 - 07:28 Permalink

Disagree ... pre 2008 it would have been much easier to throw the election to HRC as would have been BREXIT because people were not hurting so much economically. Now ... so many more have wised up ... they exposed themselves amongst all their economic manipulation for a decade that did absolutely diddly squat for the ordinary person.

Gaslighting "it is working for you when it is clearly not" is now confirm the deceit.

The stacked deciet upon deceit confirming "we lie to you all the time" gaslighting.

So is the DOJ, FBI, CIA, on this side too MI5, MI6, GCHQ etc. etc. telling the truth now?

Man I find them so incredibly dumb ...

They failed to recognise you can actually gaslight the inverse of what you wanted, brainwashing in reverse or against them.

 

In reply to by thinkmoretalkless

Give Me Some Truth Arrowflinger Sat, 02/10/2018 - 20:49 Permalink

It's clear to me that no MSM investigative journalists (if any still exist) have any intention of taking this info and now doing their own investigations. It's not going to be the "watchdog press" that breaks the real story. Hell, they are part of the story in the sense they are covering up the real story and helping to steer people in the wrong direction.

In reply to by Arrowflinger

Chupacabra-322 Arrowflinger Sat, 02/10/2018 - 21:59 Permalink

 

Much of the GOP memo is about the FBI obtaining a secret court order to monitor a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page. The memo alleges that the FBI did not fully disclose to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court that some of the information stemmed from intelligence reports provided by Christopher Steele, a former British spy under contract for a research firm working on behalf of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. The FBI, in a rare unsigned statement, said it has “grave concerns” about the accuracy of the memo.

 

Here’s the problem with the claim that the memo shows that FBI was spying on the campaign: Carter Page was no longer associated with the campaign when the court order was approved.

 

In reply to by Arrowflinger

FoggyWorld Arrowflinger Mon, 02/12/2018 - 00:58 Permalink

The media has played a role in all of this and they steered people to that Nunes memo rather than connect it to the Grassley effort.

It feels often to me that all of the in-crowd members of the media get walking orders every morning telling them just what and how to cover any sort of sensitive issue.  They then follow suit and do exactly what they are told.

In reply to by Arrowflinger

MoreFreedom Chupacabra-322 Sun, 02/11/2018 - 11:37 Permalink

The author missed two big points. 

".. would these purported Russian insiders really have collaborated with this “former” British intelligence agent under what is so widely said to be the ever-vigilant eye of the ruthless “former KGB agent” Vladimir Putin, thereby risking their positions, income, perhaps freedom ..."

If Putin's hackers had the emails off of Clinton's server and as a result was blackmailing Obama and Clinton, he'd want to help provide dirt.  Secondly it provides cash income to Russians who provided Steele with fake dirt.  I see no reason Putin would be upset, as he'd want a puppet Clinton (the Democrats are inclined to accuse their opponents of their own crimes).

Secondly and more importantly, the Obama administration was spying on Trump's campaign long before it obtained a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page.  This hasn't been publicized, but it was revealed by Dem. Rep. Jarrold Nadler in his 2/3/18 talking points memo in response to Nunes memo which has this gem:

"First, the Nunes memo appears to concede that the investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to the Russian government was well underway before the government applied for an order to conduct surveillance of Carter Page. ... There is no reason to dispute the Nunes memo’s assertion that the FBI was actively investigating the Trump campaign months before they approached the court about Carter Page."

I'd sure like to know all about the other spying going on (and the sniping by Clapper and Brennan suggests the NSA and CIA were spying on Trump as well) and on what basis it was done.  I expect it will eventually come out as well.  And it sure is troubling these agencies were spying on Papadopolous to protect Hillary's emails, as it suggests they were stolen and likely by Putin.  Especially considering all the appeasement and flexibility Obama/Hillary showed towards Putin, until Hillary lost.  I personally think Clinton was right to blame Putin's hackers for her loss, by making her and Obama a puppet and appeasing him.

In reply to by Chupacabra-322

novictim Chupacabra-322 Sun, 02/11/2018 - 12:05 Permalink

Nice summation and analysis.  But do not leave out the GCHQ/May fear and hatred for this brash President Trump.  When Trump supported Brexit and invited Nigel Farage to the USA, that was a declaration of War on the British Establishment.  The traitorous elites in Britain will never forgive Trump for that and they will do anything, corrupt any once respected British institution, into committing libel and defamation against this sitting President.  Everything is on the line with these swamp dwellers.  Brexit is the figurative sky falling on their heads and nothing is too dastardly to consider in "fixing" this "horrible" problem.

In reply to by Chupacabra-322

buzzsaw99 Sat, 02/10/2018 - 19:52 Permalink

i hope the brits choke on it.  i hope their economy goes into the toilet.  i hope brexit goes as badly as possible.  i hope they lose the falklands.  i hope russia doesn't sell them any natty.  i hope they eat frozen kipper in the dark forever. uk commie fuckwit meddling bitchez.  criminal hitlary loving nasty slimy limey assholes.

shimmy Sat, 02/10/2018 - 20:01 Permalink

Given there are still people who believe basically everyone in the U.S. was behind some grand conspiracy of JFK being killed (by Oswald), it isn't a surprise there are so many who believe in the 'Russiagate' farce.