Why is a Leading RussiaGate Pushing BBC Hack Admitting the Narrative is in Trouble Now?
1) it acknowledges the Trump-Kremlin collusion narrative is in trouble and growing awareness in the Trump Administration and among its allies on Capitol Hill like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) that all RussiaGate roads lead to London, with serious potential repercussions for the ‘Special Relationship’. The contempt President Trump has shown for the G7 and Theresa May's government in particular may be blowback from POTUS legitimate sense that British intelligence spied on his campaign and has since waged an information war against his presidency (for examples, see Atlantic Council fellows like the Leicester, UK-based @EliotHiggins of Bellingcat, whose Twitter feed is a veritable sewer of Trump hating in between the obscenities hurled at Russian diplomats).
2) The Theresa May government is now distancing itself from the actions of ‘ex’ MI6 director Sir Richard Dearlove and others whose close connections with their former colleagues at Vauxhall Cross and Whitehall make official disavowals of advance MI6/GCHQ knowledge of Steele’s DNC/Fusion GPS funded 'intelligence product' and Steele's attempts (possible illegal in kind contribution to a campaign in violation of U.S. election laws prohibiting foreigners from doing so) to influence the election through promoting the dossier to the American press laughable. Mr. Wood’s dismissal of the meeting between junior campaign aide George Papadopoulos and Australian diplomat and Clinton Foundation friend Alexander Downer as the basis for the FBI opening a counterintelligence investigation (the story ex-Obama Administration and Comey loyalists at Lawfare maintained after the previously hyped Steele Dossier was downplayed) and Wood pointing to GCHQ intercepts of Trump campaign members communications with Russian nationals as the real basis for FBI CI action (which likely prompted the FBI's no. 2 for CI Peter Strzok's visit to London) undermines Cheltenham’s previous furious denials, in which GCHQ dismissed Fox News contributor Judge Andrew Napolitano's claim that the NSA’s 5Eyes partner spied on Trump’s team. It is notable that although members of Trump's team led by then National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster apologized to the British Ambassador in Washington for then White House spokesman Sean Spicer repeating Napolitano's accusation against GCHQ, the President never did, instead joking at a press conference that being wiretapped by NSA/GCHQ was something he and German Chancellor Angela Merkel "had in common".
3) Wood also mentions, to the tweeted delight of The Atlantic journalist Natasha Bertrand, “An American lawyer I know told me that he was approached by a Cambridge Analytica employee after the election. They had had the Clinton emails more than a month before they were published by WikiLeaks.” If this claim is true, it appears to contradict previous claims published a year ago by Lawfare (an online magazine edited by Comey's friend and crony Benjamin Wittes) of another seemingly random 'former' British intelligence employee, Matt Tait. Tweeting under the handle @PwnAlltheThings, Mr. Tait is a former GCHQ data security specialist and Cyber Security Fellow at the University of Texas at Austin's LBJ School for Public Affairs. In a June 30, 2017 article misleadingly titled "The Time I Got Recruited to Collude with the Russians" Tait details his interactions with Peter W. Smith, a Chicago North Shore businessman and wealthy Republican donor who reportedly committed suicide in May 2017 and thus is no longer around to contradict Tait's version of their communications.
According to Tait, Peter W. Smith was maintaining an arms length relationship with leading figures in the Trump campaign while working on their behalf, and the businessman knew retired since indicted retired Army Lieutenant General and former Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) chief Michael Flynn. Most relevant to the latest claim by BBC hack Wood's anonymous source, Tait wrote that Smith was seeking the missing and presumed hacked by state actors 33,000 emails Hillary Clinton had on her home bathroom server, including through anonymous contacts on the dark web Tait warned Smith could represent Russian intelligence. Tait of course admits he has no proof Smith was ever in contact with agents of the Russian security services as opposed to anonymous cyber scammers seeking money -- rendering the Lawfare headline bogus. But the question remains, if Cambridge Analytica already had copies of all or at least some incriminating classified emails Hillary Clinton had on her infamous home server that the Russians or other parties hacked (a question Comey has always deferred FBI knowledge of in Congressional testimony and which Mr. Tait says he doubts), why did no one in the campaign tell Mr. Smith? Better yet, perhaps both claims advanced by Mr. Wood's anonymous source and Mr. Tait are equally bogus bits of British deep state propaganda?
The main reason of course, why we are seeing a flurry of 'new' claims about supposed Russian support for Brexit and the Trump campaign through UKIP's Nigel Farage and Cambridge Analytica is because the President is pushing ahead on direct talks with Russian leader Vladimir Putin. It should be mentioned here that Farage has been named a 'person of interest' in reporting on the Russia investigation but neither Mueller nor the British authorities have produced anything incriminating after two years of reported investigation, and Leave.EU patron Arron Banks has denied receiving any Russian money for Brexit.
Trump has insisted that improving relations with Moscow would not only be nice -- a line that drew polite applause from tends of thousands on the campaign trail and infuriated his deep state adversaries like now ex-CIA director John Brennan and the aforementioned CNN employed perjurer Clapper -- but at the G7 in Canada, he argued they are necessary for global peace and prosperity. To that end, despite the opposition of many advisers and from Capitol Hill, LaRouchePAC's Harley Schlanger writes the President is moving ahead to direct talks with Putin in Vienna, Austria.
by Harley Schlanger
June 22 -- The worst nightmare of those British and U.S. intelligence operatives responsible for the fraud known as "Russiagate" appears to be on the verge of coming true. Reports coming from Trump administration sources confirm that planning for a Trump-Putin summit is well-advanced, possibly to take place as soon as the second week of July, either before or after the NATO summit in Brussels on July 11-12. National Security Council (NSC) spokesman Garrett Marquis tweeted on June 21 that at the end of June, National Security Advisor John Bolton will "travel to Moscow to discuss a potential meeting between Presidents Trump and Putin." The Russiagate scandal was launched precisely to prevent Trump from developing a collaborative relationship with Putin, which would break with the anti-Russian policy of his predecessors.
The Times of London immediately reacted with a nasty article citing numerous unnamed British officials as being upset by the news. A "senior western diplomatic source" said a Trump-Putin summit would cause "dismay and alarm", while a Whitehall source told the Times, "Everybody is perturbed by what is going on and is fearing for the future of the alliance", referring to NATO. The Times charges that Trump's call at the G7 meeting for reinstating Russia had the effect of "wrecking Mrs May's efforts to further isolate Mr Putin after the Salisbury poisonings." Not surprisingly, The Times did not mention that the British charge against Russia in the Skripal affair remains unproven, and was one of a series of provocations by London against Russia and Putin, to deter a Trump-Putin get-together.
Similar anti-Trump, anti-Putin comments have been heard in the U.S. Ned Price, a former spokesman for the NSC under Obama, tweeted on June 21 that for Trump to meet with Putin "before or after the NATO summit is a slap in the face to the alliance....And that's probably just as Trump intended." Members of both parties in the Congress have criticized Trump for moving to fulfill his campaign pledge to achieve a good, positive collaborative relationship with Putin. Senator Charles Schumer, the Senate Minority leader, attacked Trump for his call at the G7 summit in Quebec to bring Russia back into the G7, saying he is "turning our foreign policy into an international joke." Republicans have been less outspoken than Schumer in attacking the decision to work with Putin, but many warn that Putin cannot be trusted -- which is the same line many elected officials have -- including Schumer and Republican Senators such as Marco Rubio, Bob Corker and John McCain -- in criticizing Trump for meeting with North Korea's Kim Jong-un, and for pursuing a collaborative friendship with China's President Xi Jinping.
Congressional anti-Russian hysteria was behind the August 2017 vote in the U.S. House and Senate for sanctions against Russia over unproven allegations of election meddling. The votes of 419 to 3 in the House and 98-2 in the Senate were condemned by Trump, but he signed them anyway, as a veto would have been easily overturned. Despite positive meetings with Putin on the sidelines of summits in Hamburg and Vietnam, the President has been constrained, until now, by the Russiagate investigation which has targeted him, his family and his campaign, to prevent him from building on those encounters.
The constraints now seem to have been broken by Trump, who is acting as "a sovereign U.S. President", in the words of Helga Zepp LaRouche. In a statement released on June 17, "History Is Now Being Written in Asia -- The EU Summit Must Follow the Example of Singapore", she hailed the breakthrough of the Trump-Kim meeting, pointing to it as proof that formerly "unfriendly" nations can make historic agreements, in the new strategic environment shaped by the "New Silk Road Spirit". This model could be employed, she wrote, to change the direction of Europe, away from the failed policies of the European Union, which are based on the axioms of the old paradigm, which have been in place for the last three decades, with U.S. presidents playing a leading role in its enforcement.
It was Trump's engagement with China, Russia, South Korea and Japan, which opened the door for the process which led to the success of the Singapore summit. The first major step in this direction was Trump's decision to take the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement, which was a central part of President Obama's "Asia Pivot", which was designed to undermine the emerging role of China, and to counter its Belt-and-Road Initiative (BRI). It has been the adoption by many world leaders of the Chinese "win-win" approach, of pursuing policies of mutual benefit, which is demonstrating that peace and prosperity can result from this kind of engagement.
At the same time, the visible unraveling of the fraudulent narrative of Russiagate, has given Trump room to follow through on his diplomatic initiatives, in spite of at-times strident opposition of opponents, even within his own administration. This is the theme of a June 15 article by Susan Glasser in The New Yorker magazine, on Trump's decision to proceed with the summit with Putin. "There's no stopping him," a senior administration official told her. "He's going to do it. He wants to have a meeting with Putin, so he's going to have a meeting with Putin."
Glasser compares Trump's resolve to meet with Putin with his decision to meet with North Korea's Kim. It was "a major policy move carried out in spite of his advisers, not because of them, and with little genuine support from either Republicans or Democrats." He "has increasingly acted like a President unbound," she concludes, "undeterred by the troublesome politics that would make a Putin summit unimaginable at this point in any other Presidency."
RussiaGate Hoaxers on the Defensive
The release last week of the report by Department of Justice's (DOJ) Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz on corrupt practices by officials of the DOJ/FBI in their handling of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server is further enabling Trump to break out of containment. The charges that Russia "meddled" in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and that Trump and his campaign "colluded" with the Russians, were hatched in a collaboration between the highest level of British intelligence and officials of the U.S. intelligence community under President Obama. The narrative was prepared, as admitted by the FBI's number two counterintelligence official, Peter Strzok to "stop" Trump's election, or to provide an "insurance policy" were he to win.
Strzok's comments were made in a text message to his mistress, a former FBI attorney, Lisa Page, and are part of the evidence of bias against Trump contained in the IG's report. Referring to the text saying "we'll stop" Trump, the IG wrote it is "not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate's [Trump's] electoral prospects." The texts "demonstrated extremely poor judgment and a gross lack of professionalism." He concluded that the communications are "deeply troubling" and "cast a cloud" over the Clinton investigations. The IG's report did not include an investigation of DOJ/FBI improprieties in Russiagate, though it should be noted that many of those involved in the Clinton case, including Strzok and Page, were also assigned to Russiagate, and the two were initially part of special counsel Mueller's team. Further, Strzok was the FBI liaison to CIA Director John Brennan, who has been identified as the leading player in the U.S. in initiating the Russia/Trump investigation. Strzok and Page were removed from Mueller's team when the existence of their texts was first revealed by Horowitz.
In addition to Strzok and Page, a deputy to disgraced former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe -- who is awaiting possible criminal charges for his role in leaking classified intelligence on Russiagate to the media -- three other FBI officials were identified as exhibiting extreme hostility to Trump.
As to the actions of former Director of the FBI James Comey, who was fired by Trump, the IG found Comey to be "insubordinate" in his handling of the Clinton email case, and in violation of protocol, as he "usurped" the authority of the Attorney General. The report says "we find it extraordinary that...Comey engaged in his own subjective ad hoc decision-making," and his actions have "negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the Department [DOJ] as fair administrators of justice." The exposure of Comey's corruption has severely damaged Mueller's case against Trump for "obstruction of justice." Trump's firing of Comey is justified by his abuse of his office, and not as an effort by Trump to shut down the investigation. However, despite the evidence produced, the IG's report shockingly concludes that Comey was not "politically biased in his actions" and concludes, on Strzok and Page, that there was no evidence "to connect the political views expressed in these messages to the specific investigative decisions"!
These conclusions were lambasted in Congressional hearings on June 19-20, as numerous Republicans pointed to the absurdity of the claim that personal bias did not impact decisions made in pursuing the phony charges against Trump. For example, Horowitz was challenged by Rep. Mark Meadows to look into charges that FBI agents altered documents related to the Clinton email and Russia probes. Horowitz told the Committee he had received information on this, and would follow it up. If confirmed, it could wreak havoc on Mueller's investigation, as there is already evidence that some FBI agents involved in the questioning of Trump's first National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty to "lying to the FBI", were not convinced that Flynn had lied. Peter Strzok, who was involved in the interrogation of Flynn, has agreed to appear before the House Judiciary Committee to answer questions.
Trump has repeatedly referred to this investigation as a "witch hunt", leading his opponents in both parties, as well as the mainstream media in the U.S., the U.K. and Europe, to attack him as paranoid and delusional. His repeated calls for a summit with Putin, to shift away from a post-Cold War provocative containment of Russia to a new era of cooperation, were cited by the anti-Trumpers as evidence of his debt to Putin, who demanded instead he inflict further punishment on Russia, in the form of crushing sanctions and NATO deployments to the borders of Russia. According to his opponents, any concession to Putin, even meeting with him, proves the charges that Trump owes his election to the misdeeds of the Russian President, and/or that he is subject to blackmail by him, based on the deceitful and salacious memos drafted by former MI6 operative Christopher Steele.
The initiating role of British intelligence in the scandal is now in the spotlight. LaRouchePAC issued a memo calling for an end to the "Special Relationship" between the U.S. and the U.K., and a declassification of all documents relating to contacts between the intelligence communities of both nations. This in particular aims at the role of anti-Russian officials John Brennan, the former CIA director, and James Clapper, Obama's Director of National Intelligence, both of whom played a leading role in launching Russiagate, and continue to attack Trump and Putin, now as "commentators" on mainstream news outlets and on op ed pages.
LaRouchePAC's demand that the British role be investigated is being taken up increasingly in non-mainstream publications. Indicative is an article by Alexander Mercouris on June 15 under the headline "Letter from Britain: An Establishment Blinded by Russophobia", published by Consortium News. He opens by writing, "Hostility to Russia is one of the most enduring, as well as one of the most destructive realities of British life." After detailing the collusion between MI6, GCHQ and other British institutions with the CIA and FBI, he concludes that this hostility is not only a "constant and enduring fact of British political and cultural life," but it "appears to be a predominantly elite phenomenon."
The strategic direction chosen by President Trump, of collaboration with the emerging economic powerhouse associated with the BRI, offers the prospect of consolidation of a New Paradigm, and the defeat of the dangerous war and financial speculation paradigm of the City of London and their American neocon, neo-liberal followers. Trump's initiatives have opened the door for the New Paradigm. As Mrs. LaRouche concluded in her memo, "Needed now, are the people to make it happen."