Seven Days in December: Obama and MSM's Failing CIA Soft Coup Against Trump

Seven Days in May is an American political thriller motion picture about a military-political cabal’s planned take-over of the United States government in reaction to the president’s negotiation of a disarmament treaty with the Soviet Union. Directed by John Frankenheimer, it stars Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas, Fredric March, and Ava Gardner, and was released in February 1964. The screenplay was written by Rod Serling based on the novel of the same name by Fletcher Knebel and Charles W. Bailey II, published in September 1962


Seven Days in December:
The Cold War 2.0 Tinfoil Premise Behind a Soon to Be Failed Coup

Through leaks and a ludicrously gullible legacy lugenpresse, these nameless faceless Amerikansky siloviki as the Russians would call them want to punish Trump for his skepticism of the CIA's beloved 'moderate rebels' funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. That is, the same 'rebels' U.S. State Department and Pentagon both admitted in briefings are so inseparable from Al-Qaeda as to make the U.S. bombing the terrorists without harming the 'moderates' impossible. Above all, the Mike Morrell and Gen. Michael Hayden linked Clinton cronies and dirty Deep State hardliners in the U.S. intelligence community want to stop Trump from following through on his campaign promise to seek detente with Russia. Which most likely will mean, flushing the 'moderate' jihadists the CIA has so lovingly supported for the last several years from Libya to Syria. This will also lead to the end of CIA careers, especially those tied to former Deputy Director and anti-Trump Clinton crony Mike Morrell and current lame duck director John Brennan. 

CIA not only refuses to make its supposedly damning evidence of a Russian plot to tip the scales for Trump public, the proponents of this Establishment-approved conspiracy theory can't even make a coherent case as to how Moscow managed to persuade literally millions of Americans who otherwise would've stayed home or voted for someone else to back Trump in the first place. Nonetheless, the crescendo of this messaging seems to be upon us, with the CIA now telling NBC News that Vladimir Putin (ala the Sith Emperor Palpatine of Star Wars: Return of the Jedi) was personally involved in the Hillary campaign destroying Kremlin active measures Death Star.

Legacy Media/WoTR and FPRI:
Making the Russians Ten Feet Tall and Masters of Mass Mind Control

Declaring that this in a supposedly fifty-fifty country, all it takes is a few tens of thousands of Americans rendered deplorable by what Wikileaks published (supposedly with the assistance of state-sponsored Russian hackers) to tilt the election is the theory pushed by (among others) one screaming Keith Olbermann. More respectably, War on the Rocks and Blogs of War, two sites targeting the retired and active duty military demographic, have pushed the notion that no secret evidence is required of Russian meddling in the election, because everything is out in the open. The Washington Post, despite its laughable and nearly libel-suit drawing promotion of, and Politico have most recently embraced this argument. This is the thesis of Clint Watts, a retired Army officer embedded within the neocon Cold War 2.0 demanding Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) think tank of Philadelphia, and Andrew Aaron Weisburd, a Carbondale, Illinois based attic dweller producing Glenn Beck chalkboard-style graphics linking supposed paid and unpaid 'Kremlin trolls' on Twitter.

This collective duping, this mass lurch of the deplorables to 'Putinism' electing Trump -- and not the notion that the Democratic National Committee MAY have been hacked by the Russians -- is what Mr. Trump dismisses as preposterous. Trump has repeated his line, 'It could have been the Russians, it could have been the Chinese, it could have been a 400 pound guy on his bed...' Theirony is that on Friday President Obama is holding a press conference denouncing the state that supposedly hacked America's election, which as recently as 20 months ago, he was dismissing as a mere 'regional power' with an economy 'in tatters'. In other words, the Obama/Legacy Media Narrative has gone in less than two years from the belief that the Russians were weak and pathetic with only propaganda organs like RT and Sputnik that no one in 'the West' watched or read to their name, to the belief that their 21st century propaganda is superior to that ofEdward Bernays, Josef Goebbels and Che Guevara combined

Rather than denying Russian hacking, Mr. Trump appeals to reasonable doubts the CIA claims are not justified, regardless of the agency normally responsible for U.S. cyber integrity and defense being the NSA. Which, aside from squawking ex-NSA employees like John R. Schindler noisily echoing the CIA from the pages of Trump's son-in-law's Observer, has been awfully quiet throughout this controversy.

Deep State Disunity: Why is NSA, America's Supposed Frontline Agency Against State-Sponsored Hacking, So Quiet? The FBI's War of Leaks With the MSM and CIA

True, NSA Director Mike Rogers did say a state entity had made a 'conscious effort' to sway the election, but has not elaborated on this statement since mid-November. For its part, shortly before the election, in a move that has been criticized by the lefties of The Huffington Post, the FBI stated to The New York Times Halloween edition that it had found no evidence of direct links between Mr. Trump and the Kremlin.

This FBI announcement denying any evidence of Trump or his campaign being tied to the Kremlin came on the heels of director James Comey announcing that the investigation into Hillary Clinton's bathroom server illegally holding classified data had been reopened -- thanks to the FBI and NYPD's seizure of a laptop belonging to Anthony Weiner; the ex-New York Congressman who was the husband of Hillary aide (and the daughter of Saudi-linked Muslim Brotherhood activists) Huma Abedin. Even many Democrat partisans have admitted Comey's announcement, partially retracted under heavy pressure on November 2, did far more to sway undecideds to the #CrookedHillary narrative than anything published by Wikileaks. In fact, the political impact of the Comey announcement, unlike the emails Wikileaks published, have been quasi-quantified by pollsters -- though very few polls predicted Mr. Trump's historic electoral college win.

There have been two ways partisans of the 'Russia hacked the U.S. election' Establishment-approved conspiracy line have tried to overcome these contradictions. One is to argue that the difference of opinion between the CIA and FBI is merely one of establishing intent, not Russian actions. Meaning the FBI remains uncertain as to the motives of Russian hackers who allegedly hit the DNC, whether they wanted to elect Trump as the CIA claims, or merely damage to the prestige of the democratic process in the U.S. A related Establishment uniparty line is that the FBI, which for decades has jealously guarded its domestic jurisdiction over counterintelligence versus the CIA, simply has a higher standard of evidence for prosecution compared to Langley. But as we'll see from the powerful pushback from the House Intelligence Committee Republicans, and from those accused of acting as front men for the Russians, none of these explanations add up.

Craig Murray/Wikileaks Claims the DNC 'Hack' Dump Came from Insiders, NOT RUSSIA

In an article reproduced at, Wikileaks adviser and former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray.asks why if the case is rock solid against Russian state sponsored hackers in the DNC leaks, there have been zero indictments or even discussion of indicting the perpetrators:

A little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they “know the individuals” involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of “We know who it was, it was the Russians” are beneath contempt.


Mr. Murray knows of what he speaks on this point. The U.S. has indicted serving People's Liberation Army officers of China in connection with confirmed state sponsored hacks of American computer systems before -- why would the CIA not turn over the data to the FBI and Justice Department to publically indict members of Russia's GRU or FSB, if it knows who at these agencies directed the hackers?

As we wrote in our previous post addressing the 'Julian Assange is a Russian agent and Wikileaks an FSB/SVR/GRU front' argument, if Mr. Assange has been cooperating Russia's security services, wouldn't the UK's GCHQ  have the evidence? It's not as if Mr. Assange, living in the fishbowl of the Ecuadorian Embassy smack in the middle of London, has been a hard target for some of the best hackers and signals intelligence spies in the world to monitor. And yet, we see no indictment of Mr. Assange, who as an Australian national is potentially subject to extradition to the United States, and hence accepts political asylum inside the sovereign embassy territory of Ecuador. Such simple logic however, is brushed aside by the likes of John R. Schindler (aka @20Committee or as we like to call him, the 20CON-mittee) and his ex-rock groupie fan girl Louise Mensch, of the neocon start up 'news' site Heat Street.

Mistrust and Never Verify:
The Pattern of Shoddy 'OSINT' Only from MH17 to 'Russia Hacked the Election'

Much like the satellite photographs of the Russian BUK missile launcher that supposedly took down Malaysian Airlines flight 17, which Secretary of State John Kerry claimed to have seen but which were never released, the U.S. government makes a serious accusation -- but appeals only to 'open source evidence' to verify it. The secret data is never released, with the usual 'sources and methods would be compromised' excuse. But as Glenn Greenwald's colleague Sam Biddle writes at The Intercept, you don't accuse the head of state commanding thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at the United States of an act of war on the basis of flimsy, circumstantial, and always kept hidden evidence.

It must be stated plainly: The U.S. intelligence community must make its evidence against Russia public if they want us to believe their claims. The integrity of our presidential elections is vital to the country’s survival; blind trust in the CIA is not. A governmental disclosure like this is also not entirely without precedent: In 2014, the Department of Justice produced a 56-page indictment detailing their exact evidence against a team of Chinese hackers working for the People’s Liberation Army, accused of stealing American trade secrets; each member was accused by name. The 2014 trade secret theft was a crime of much lower magnitude than election meddling, but what the DOJ furnished is what we should demand today from our country’s spies.

If the CIA does show its hand, we should demand to see the evidence that matters (which, according to Edward Snowden, the government probably has, if it exists). I asked Jeffrey Carr what he would consider undeniable evidence of Russian governmental involvement: “Captured communications between a Russian government employee and the hackers,” adding that attribution “should solely be handled by government agencies because they have the legal authorization to do what it takes to get hard evidence.”

Claudio Guarnieri concurred:

All in all, technical circumstantial attribution is acceptable only so far as it is to explain an attack. It most definitely isn’t for the political repercussions that we’re observing now. For that, only documental evidence that is verifiable or intercepts of Russian officials would be convincing enough, I suspect.

Given that the U.S. routinely attempts to intercept the communications of heads of state around the world, it’s not impossible that the CIA or the NSA has exactly this kind of proof. Granted, these intelligence agencies will be loath to reveal any evidence that could compromise the method they used to gather it. But in times of extraordinary risk, with two enormous military powers placed in direct conflict over national sovereignty, we need an extraordinary disclosure. The stakes are simply too high to take anyone’s word for it.


The Other Alternative -- or Concurrent Explanation:
Podesta if Not DNC Emails As Well Were Leaked by Rogue NSA Employees

Murray's claim that the Podesta emails also came from disgruntled insiders doesn't necessarily preclude nother theory, which has been put forward to explain NSA Director Mike Rogers' job being supposedly in jeopardy, and Rogers' meeting with the president elect at Trump Tower: that the Podesta emails came from a rogue element or officer inside the NSA. A theory that has been bitterly contested by ex-NSA analyst John R. Schindler, precisely because it would undermine everything Schindler and others have been saying about the un-possibility of NSA going rogue or influencing the democratic political process since the 2013 leaks attributed to Ed Snowden began. All the same, influential figures ranging from the Judge Andrew Napolitano to former NSA whistleblower William Binney (who knows vastly more about NSA bulk collection than the former Ft. Meade counterintelligence officer Schindler ever knew) have outright declared or suggested NSA warrant or warrantless collection as the source of the Podesta emails. Impossible -- scoffs Schindler and the Establishment in reply to the NSA DNC/Podesta leak theory.

...let’s start with William Binney. It has been speculated that the NSA or someone in the intelligence community leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks, and that they have all of them. I say speculated because I believe that Binney is fairly far removed from current activity within the intelligence community. Nonetheless, he’s probably right about the NSA having all of the emails. Here we are talking about the emails appurtenant to the DNC.

More recently, Judge Andrew Napolitano claimed that members of the “American intelligence community” (whatever that is) leaked the emails to Wikileaks.

”The CIA and FBI examined the exact same data that was produced for them by the NSA. The CIA analysts said the Russians are behind this. The FBI analysts said there is no evidence that the Russians are behind this. We do know this was leaking. This was not hacking. Leaking is the unauthorized exposure of something to a person to whom it wasn’t intended. Hacking is th altering of an operational system… You can’t affect the outcome of the election if you hack Clinton and the DNC. You can affect the outcome of an election if you affect those who register the voters or count the voters.”

”There is NO EVIDENCE that this was done by the Russians. But there is evidence for this. Who was harmed by Mrs. Clinton’s extremely careless use of state secrets? Whose agents’ lives were jeopardized by her failure to keep these state secrets? The American intelligence community. It is more likely than not that members of the American intelligence community leaked this to Julian Assange than that the Russians did… The suggestion comes from members of the intelligence community.”

Well of course the Russians didn’t do it. But the question for the Judge is this – are you being trolled by someone inside the NSA/CIA/FBI/DIA?


If 'White Hats' Inside the NSA Decided to Take Down Hillary and Podesta, Could the Public Handle the Truth? Or Does Blaming the Russians 100% Provide an Easy 'Out' for the US IC?

Months before the November election, NSA contractor Harold T. Martin III, who worked for the same Booz Allen Hamilton company that hired Snowden to work at NSA, was arrested. Investigators found terabytes of data on drives at his home, though Martin's defense lawyer denies any of that information was provided to a foreign power. Prosecutors didn't officially accuse Mr. Martin of being a foreign asset in court, but convinced a judge that he posed a flight risk and could be enticed or coerced by a foreign intelligence service if he were left free on monitored bail.

Could Mr. Martin, or more likely someone he worked with that he took the fall for, have obtained the Podesta emails? Could NSA have had a valid warrant for Podesta's emails obtained from the FISA court, due to John Podesta's brother Tony and his documented ties as a lobbyist for the overthrown Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and a Russian-Canadian mining consortium with Kremlin friendly oligarch links, which sought 20% of U.S. strategic uranium reserves? And was that valid surveillance 'take' with a legit FISA warrant for tapping an American citizen somehow seized or leaked to spies inside the NSA who hated Hillary Clinton for compromising American lives at Benghazi and secrets via her bathroom server which sure as hell WAS INDEED, 'hacked' by the Russians and every other competent foreign intelligence service under the sun? These are the questions John R. Schindler has asked himself, but instantly deemed negatory because answering them in the positive would prove too painful, both for his worldview and the public image (especially among Democrats) of his beloved NSA.

The Hillary Loyalist/CIA Soft Coup Seems to Be Failing, But What Comes Next?

Despite the lack of NSA speaking up and FBI skepticism regarding the CIA's evaluation of Russian motives, The Donald is called a Kremlin dupe if not puppet. Trump stands accused of hurting the delicate feelings of CIA officers we're assured to a man and woman are all super patriots who would never allow partisanship or their hatred of Putin if not Trump to effect their judgement. The question of why the CIA's declarations or those of allied intelligence agencies with grudges against Russia ought to be taken on faith of course, is not to be asked. Discussing the CIA's history of screw ups like Saddam Hussein's 'slam dunk' possession of WMDs and Cold War Operation Mockingbird manipulation of 'free media' in this context is called unpatriotic.

Ultimately what this fight boils down to is a fundamental question: who has more sway over American foreign policy, the dirty Deep State and its sock puppets in the Senate like John 'Hanoi songbird' McCain, or the President-elect of the United States? And if Trump represents a radical departure from decades of American foreign policy and alliances, should those waging an insurgency of leaks against him from inside Langley expect to not face the consequences of their actions, both reputational and legal?

It does seem to us that time, and what the Russians would've called the 'correlation of forces' in this case, are working against the dirty deep state dead enders. Simply put, there is a REASON we see Trump appointing so many generals or former military men, led by James 'Mad Dog' Mattis, to high positions in his cabinet and National Security Council. As the last prestige institution left in the federal government, only the military may be capable of standing up to the CIA's dirty side and defanging Langley's sock puppets in Congress. As the saying went in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, 'can Nixon go to China'?

There is mounting evidence the entire President Obama intelligence apparatus has been compromised beyond repair. This is the fundamental reason for the DoD rising up to take charge of National Security...

With General Mattis as Secretary of Defense, Michael Flynn as National Security Advisor, General John Kelly as Secretary of Homeland Security, a top-of-class West Point graduate in Mike Pompeo brought in to take over and undoubtedly purge the CIA, and a lame duck struggle breaking out over the NSA with Admiral Mike Rogers, the implications are pretty obvious.

The white hats we have needed within the national security and intelligence departments are responding from a select group within the Defense Department. This DoD surge appears to be why corporate interests are railing against “too many generals”. The DoD generals also appears to be why all of those interests -within all of those corrupted political intel institutions- are going nuts thinking about what lays ahead.

Mounting evidence supports the ongoing thesis the Department of Defense has actually seceded from the political elites. A wonderfully patriotic soft coup [the Russia Analyst like Dr. Steve Pieczenik would call it a counter coup versus the Cocaine Import Agency and its globalist, Saudi/Qatar-firster allies at the State Department - JWS] has taken place; and with the election of President Donald Trump, the white hats are poised on the horizon to reconstruct a nationalist-minded defense, security and intelligence apparatus.

This is the fundamental paradigm shift many have quietly discussed, yet few imagined possible.



It may very well be that only military men especially Mattis have the gravitas and forcefulness to say to the CIA in 2017, 'You've had your failed proxy war with the Russians in Ukraine, your fake half-assed war against ISIS in Syraq, and your moderate jihadists linked to Al-Qaeda have now lost the war with Assad. Follow us, or get the hell out of our way.' (Not to mention your Saudi buddies, director Brennan, are losing their war with qat-chewing sandal wearing Houthi tribesmen in Yemen!) It is precisely this message, as well as the popularity among ordinary Americans of destroying Daesh faster with Russian assistance, that terrifies Washington's neocons and Saudi/Qatar lobby.

In the sequel to this post, we'll expand on these ideas to produce a short outline of how the Trump Administration can fight back against the dirty deep state and Washington's globalists -- and win.