Deep State Plotted Coup Against Trump After Comey was Fired

Andrew McCabe Admits Top NatSec Officials

Plotted Coup Against Trump

After the James Comey firing, McCabe discussed removing Trump from office and began a counterintelligence investigation of Trump's alleged ties to Russia.

FEBRUARY 14, 2019 
By Madeline Osburn, The Federalist

Former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe publicly admitted that after the firing of James Comey, national security officials strategized on invoking the 25th amendment to remove President Trump from office.

“There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment,” Scott Pelley said he learned in his “60 Minutes” interview with McCabe.

Pelley described the top bureaucrats as “counting noses,” and speculating on where various cabinet members might stand on the question of the president’s removal.

“These were the eight days from Comey’s firing to the point that Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel. And the highest levels of American law enforcement (read Deep State) were trying to figure out what to do with the president,” Pelley said.

More than once, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein offered to wear a wire into the White House to attempt to record incriminating conversations with the president. McCabe said this was an idea he took seriously and discussed with FBI lawyers.

McCabe, who was fired last March, admitted to ensuring a counterintelligence investigation of President Trump and his alleged ties to Russia. “I was very concerned that I was able to put the Russia case on absolutely solid ground, in an indelible fashion,” McCabe said. “That were I removed quickly, or reassigned or fired, that the case could not be closed or vanish in the night without a trace.”

In a statement to CBS, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said that McCabe had “opened a completely baseless investigation into the president.”

https://twitter.com/NorahODonnell/status/1096020537069977600

After CBS aired a portion of the “60 Minutes” interview Thursday morning, Trump mocked McCabe on Twitter, saying he was “a disgrace to the FBI and a disgrace to our Country.”

Donald J. Trump✔

@realDonaldTrump

Disgraced FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe pretends to be a “poor little Angel” when in fact he was a big part of the Crooked Hillary Scandal & the Russia Hoax - a puppet for Leakin’ James Comey. I.G. report on McCabe was devastating. Part of “insurance policy” in case I won....

McCabe’s new book, “The Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump,” is self-described as “a dramatic and candid account of his career,” and details the behind-the-scenes events that unfolded between Trump’s election and McCabe’s firing.

================================================================================================

Ever Wonder What Deep State is Doing Behind the Scenes?

November 22nd, 1963, was the day Deep State performed a coup

on the United States of America.

They have been largely in charge ever since.

Trump disrupted the order of things and so efforts to remove him

began even before he took office. Obama was certainly involved.

Collapse of Michael Flynn case is latest sign ‘RussiaGate’

was a complete fraud

By Post Editorial Board

NY Post

The US Justice Department is moving to drop charges against Gen. Michael Flynn stemming from the "Russiagate" probe. AP

With the Justice Department moving to drop charges against Gen. Mike Flynn, pretty much the entire “RussiaGate” investigation stands exposed as a fraud. But will any of the witch-hunters pay?

Lefties are already claiming that Attorney General William Barr is simply playing politics, but the facts say otherwise. Brandon Van Grack, a top Justice Department prosecutor and former member of special counsel Bob Mueller’s team, was withdrawn from the Flynn case (indeed, many of his cases) earlier Thursday because he’d plainly abused his power by withholding bombshell evidence from the defense and the court.

Flynn’s supposed crime was lying to FBI agents in a January 2017 interview at the White House. Yet the concealed evidence included 1) a top FBI official’s notes suggesting the entire purpose of the interview was to catch Flynn in a lie, or get him to admit to a technical violation of the Logan Act — all in order to force him from office. And 2) an internal Justice Department memo, from the day before that interview, calling on the FBI to close the Flynn investigation because agents had dug up absolutely no wrongdoing.

In fact, they already had the transcript of Flynn’s call with the Russian ambassador that was the supposed reason for the interview — and knew he’d said nothing improper, just things an incoming national-security adviser should discuss.

Now-disgraced agent Peter Strzok intervened to keep the case open anyway and proceed to the interview, which even then-FBI chief Jim Comey later admitted was in violation of multiple standard procedures.

Yet both Strzok and the other agent in the interview left agreeing that Flynn hadn’t attempted any deception at all. It was months later that prosecutors working under Mueller decided that he had lied — and proceeded to nearly bankrupt Flynn with legal fees, then threaten to prosecute his son, before the general finally agreed to plead guilty.

This is how Deep State America works, people! 

And this is hardly the only recent eye-opener: Soon-to-be-released transcripts of 2017-18 House Intelligence Committee interviews reportedly show that the FBI’s Russia investigation had come up empty all across the board before President Trump even took office.

Ironically, current Intel Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has apparently been pushing to prevent the release — perhaps because he for years has claimed he saw “direct evidence” of Trump-Russia collusion that neither the FBI nor even Mueller’s endless probe ever found.

It seems that none of the 53 witnesses interviewed by the committee — including Obama officials Jim Clapper, Loretta Lynch, Sam Power, Susan Rice, Sally Yates and Andrew McCabe — said they’d seen any evidence of collusion.

Indeed, it looks like the only “evidence” the FBI ever had was the hearsay claims (which various Russians were paid to make) in the opposition-research dossier that Hillary Clinton’s campaign commissioned — a fact that the FBI and Justice Department concealed from the courts even as it was the only basis for their wiretap requests.

No wonder Schiff is trying to delay: Democrats need all this stuff swept under the rug until after Election Day.

===========================================================================================

EXPLOSIVE transcripts show Flynn wanted to work with Russia against ISIS, Kislyak warned Trump ‘Russiagate’ was targeting HIM

Caution: This story comes from RT so bias is certainly possible if not mandatory.

Heavily redacted cover page from the declassified transcript between Gen. Michael Flynn and

Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak ©  screenshot

Transcripts of conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak show that incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was looking out for US interests and sought Russian help against terrorists, while the FBI framed him.

Flynn and Kislyak spoke several times in December 2016 and January 2017, during the presidential transition. Within days of President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the FBI interviewed Flynn with an intent – as shown by recently published documents – to catch him in a perjury trap. After a description of his call with Kislyak was leaked to the Washington Post, Flynn was accused of misleading the White House about the calls and pressured to resign.

Those invested in the ‘Russiagate’ conspiracy theory have claimed for years that Flynn discussed easing US sanction against Moscow.

Actual transcripts of the calls, made public on Friday by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), paint a drastically different picture. They show Flynn asking Moscow to not play the game of “tit-for-tat” escalation triggered by outgoing President Barack Obama’s expulsion of Russian diplomats, that would have “boxed in” the incoming president – and seeking to work together with Russia against “a common threat in the Middle East,” which from the context appears to be a reference to Islamic State terrorists.

“Do not allow this administration to box us in, right now, okay?” Flynn tells Kislyak in a call on December 29, 2016, asking Russia to make its response “reciprocal.” He doesn’t want to create a situation where “everybody's got to go back and forth and everybody's got to be the tough guy here, you know?” 

“We don't need that right now,” Flynn says. “We need cool heads to prevail, and uh, and we need to be very steady about what we're going to do because we have absolutely a common uh. threat in the Middle East right now.” 

Two days later, on December 31, Kislyak informs Flynn that their conversation “was taken into account” in Moscow. In fact, President Vladimir Putin decided not to retaliate at all, saying he didn’t want to ruin the holidays for American diplomats and their families.

Flynn called this decision “wise.” Kislyak then said something that would turn out to be prophetic – that Russia judged these actions by the Obama administration to be aimed not just against Moscow, but against Trump.

“And I just wanted to tell you that we found that these actions have targeted not only against Russia, but also against the president-elect… and with all our rights to respond we have decided not to act now because, it's because people are dissatisfied with the loss of elections and, and it’s very deplorable,” the ambassador said.

Margot Cleveland

@ProfMJCleveland

Replying to @ProfMJCleveland

6/ Read the --- damn transcript!  General Flynn did not interfere with the Obama administration.  The Obama administration interfered with the Trump administration.

Margot Cleveland

The events that unfolded proved Kislyak correct. The pretext for the FBI and DOJ to go after Flynn was that he supposedly violated the Logan Act – an archaic law banning ordinary Americans from conducting foreign policy, but which did not apply to him as the incoming presidential adviser anyway. Instead, what the transcripts show is that the outgoing administration was seeking to sabotage the incoming one. 

On January 4, 2017, FBI agent Peter Strzok – who had previously vowed to “stop” Trump from getting elected in texts with colleague and lover Lisa Page – improperly ordered the FBI background investigation of Flynn to stay open. The following day, FBI chief James Comey went to the White House and discussed investigating Flynn with Obama personally. On that same day, January 5, the president’s chief of staff sent a request to the NSA to “unmask” Flynn. All of this was revealed only a month ago, in documents presented as evidence in the trial of Flynn for allegedly lying about the calls. 

Deep State finds a work-around to prevent peace with Russia

Russia eventually retaliated only in July 2017, when a Republican-majority Congress overrode Trump and passed a toxic sanctions bill based entirely on unsubstantiated ‘Russiagate’ claims of meddling in the presidential election. Just as Flynn feared, this would trigger a chain of “tit for tat” expulsions and closures that left both countries short of diplomatic staff – and cut off all avenues of further cooperation against IS, for peace in Syria, or anything else.

Deep State, in the guise of politics, is trying desperately to get rid of this thorn in their side, Trump. They, along with NATO countries are doing everything they can to keep tensions high with Russia so they can sell more and more weapons and defence systems to Russia-proximity countries. That's what Deep State is all about. They pull the strings of politicians on both sides of the house and won't be happy until Trump is gone. 

I'm not a Trump fan! In fact, I quite despise the man. But the alternative is a country controlled by the wealthiest oligarchs who are singly-minded, bent on profit at all cost, and it is regular Americans who pay the cost. The oligarchs have absolutely no conscience.

==========================================================================================

In the War on Christianity in North Korea - A Long-Awaited Counter-Offensive

South Korean Christians launch group promoting

religious freedom in North Korea

ByYonhap News Agency

Kenneth Bae, a South Korean-American, spent about two years in a North Korean labor camp.

File Photo by Yonhap/EPA

SEOUL, (UPI) -- South Korean Christian leaders and activists on Friday launched an association to secure and promote religious freedom in North Korea.

The International Coalition for Religious Freedom in North Korea held its inaugural meeting in central Seoul on Friday, bringing together some 200 activists and Christian advocates.

Among them are Thae Yong-ho, who served as a high-ranking North Korean diplomat based in London before defecting to South Korea in 2016, and Kenneth Bae, a Christian missionary who was detained in North Korea from 2012 to 2014 on subversion allegations.

Taking responsibility for the task of introducing and fostering religious freedom, the coalition is planning to rally national and international support to the cause.

In a forum held during the inaugural meeting, Thae accused North Korea of "annihilating, not suppressing" religions in the communist country.

"The first step toward inter-Korean reunification should be giving religious freedom to North Korea," he said.

He then proposed building one or two Christian churches in 10 years as a way to realize religious freedom.

Recalling his two-year imprisonment in the North, Bae said North Korea considers religious diffusion more threatening to the regime than American nuclear weapons.

He also urged South Korean President Moon Jae-in and U.S. President Donald Trump to put religious freedom on the agenda of their future summits with North Korean chairman Kim Jong Un.

Britain and Ecuador Discuss Wikileaks Founder's Fate

Time's running out on the Whistle Blower-in-Chief

By Sommer Brokaw

British and Ecuadorean leaders are holding talks on the fate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange who may soon have to leave an embassy in Britain after staying there six years. File photo by Hugo Philpott/UPI | License Photo

UPI -- Officials in Britain and Ecuador are discussing the fate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who has been holed up in Ecuador's British embassy for six years.

Assange, 47, who has rarely seen daylight in the years he's been held in asylum, could face expulsion soon from the embassy, a source told The Times.

Government officials in both countries are pondering the eviction of Assange, who gained notoriety for publishing thousands of U.S.-classified documents on the website, WikiLeaks, from Ecuador's London embassy, where he has been in asylum since 2012 and gained citizenship late last year.

Ecuador's President Lenin Moreno told the BBC Friday that he was never "in favor" of Assange's activities, and that both countries were holding talks.

The British government has become more concerned about his welfare as Ecuador cut off his internet connection in March over concerns about his use of social media interfering with diplomatic relations and cut back extra security in May after spending $5 million on protection costs.

"It is our wish that this is brought to an end, and we would like to make the assurance that if he were to step out of the embassy, he would be treated humanely and properly," British Foreign Office minister Alan Duncan told parliament last month.

"The first priority would be to look after his health, which we think is deteriorating."

Ecuador granted political asylum to Assange in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden over rape allegations. Assange faced a count of unlawful coercion and two counts of sexual molestation, which expired in 2015 due to statutes of limitations under Swedish law, while the investigation for one remaining rape allegation, which had an expiration date of 2020, was dropped in May 2017.

Although the Swedish investigation has been dropped, Assange fears an arrest for bail breach in the sexual assault case would allow him to be extradited to the United States for publishing the classified documents on Wikileaks. 

The website grabbed worldwide attention in April 2010 when it released footage of U.S. soldiers fatally shooting at least 18 civilians from a helicopter in Iraq.

Perhaps Assange should have allowed himself to face American justice before Trump began loading the Supreme Court with right-wing cronies. He might have had a chance to be pardoned as a whistle-blower. I doubt that chance exists anymore.

I think Britain would demand assurances that he not face the death penalty for treason before handing him over to the US, but I seriously doubt that he would get a fair trial in America.

Astonishing Article About EU & US Establishment Worried Trump Will Make Peace With Russia

If you have ever suspected that Deep State and NATO were closely linked, if not one and the same, this article should confirm your suspicions. NATO has been obsolete since 1990 and has been wondering around looking for a raison d'etat. 

In the 21st century they have been aggressively provoking Russia by abandoning their verbal agreement to not recruit neighbouring countries into NATO. They accuse Russia of aggression and it is NATO who is the aggressor. Should the USA make peace with Russia, it will once again underline the obvious view that NATO is obsolete.

EU countries should be happy that they may have to spend much less on NATO, but they are not. It is in the nature of Deep State to spend as much as possible on arms; that is their purpose. 

The UK needs NATO to continue the fantasy that Russia is a threat to all Europe and so the EU and the UK need each other. It is Theresa May's pathetic attempt to lessen the impact of Brexit.

German officials join UK and US establishment worried how Trump-Putin summit will affect NATO

© Carlos Barria / Reuters

German politicians are nervous over the meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, fearing the US president could take actions that are not in line with NATO, echoing concerns across the channel and the Atlantic.

Ahead of the meeting on July 16 in Helsinki, several German officials expressed their worry in interviews with newspapers throughout the country. The transatlantic coordinator for Chancellor Angela Merkel's ruling coalition, Peter Beyer, told the Funke Mediengruppe newspapers that "there are great concerns in the alliance about what agreements Trump and Putin could reach" during the summit, and he lamented that NATO member states had not been included in the planning.

He said that Trump would let Putin "put one over on him" during the meeting in Helsinki, using the US president's recent meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un as justification for his rather frank comment.

"Kim has only made promises thus far. We don't know if he has stopped enriching uranium. Only Trump has billed the summit as such as a success," said Beyer, a member of Merkel's Christian Democrats Union (CDU). 

Beyer isn't alone when it comes to concerns surrounding the meeting and the apparent belief that the two leaders can't simply meet in the same way that other world leaders meet every day - and the same way German Chancellor Angela Merkel has met with both Trump and Putin on numerous occasions.

Christian Lindner, the head of Germany's Free Democrats, told Deutschlandfunk in an interview that he did not trust Trump, and that his actions in the areas of trade and security were not in Washington's long-term interest.

"He is too volatile...within 24 hours, Mr. Trump can change his position by 180 degrees," Christian Lindner, the head of the Free Democrats, told Deutschlandfunk. He called for Europe, as the world's largest single economic zone, to take a united stance and act as a counterweight to Trump and Putin. The EU is currently in loggerheads with the US over tariffs on aluminum, steel and other goods.

And then there's Wolfgang Ischinger, the head of the Munich Security Conference and a former German envoy to Washington, who expressed concern that Trump might refuse to sign a communique at next week's NATO summit in Brussels. "It cannot be ruled out," he told Die Welt in a clear reference to Trump refusing to sign the document from G7 meeting in June.

Amid all this scaremongering, Merkel herself said in a Saturday video address that Germany "would like to have reasonable relations with Russia. That is why we will always have discussions in the NATO-Russia Council." She expressed her support for NATO in the next breath, saying it is needed in the 21st century "as a guarantor of our transatlantic alliance," and stating that it "must show determination to defend itself."

The comments come as Trump continues to pressure NATO states to pay their fair share towards the alliance, as Washington currently accounts for more than two-thirds of all defense spending by NATO members. It is one of only six countries to meet the two percent GDP quota.

A page out of Britain's book

The comments by German officials come less than two weeks after The Times reported that the UK also fears that Trump will undermine NATO by striking a "peace deal" with Putin during the meeting. 

OMG no!, Not a peace deal! How could he? What a maniac!

It cited cabinet ministers who are worried that the Russian president could persuade Trump to downgrade US military commitments in Europe, thus compromising NATO countries' defense against so-called "Russian aggression."

Alexander Bartosh, a military expert and former Russian diplomat, told RT that such concerns would come as no surprise, as the UK "has been one of the most active supporters of a hard line towards Russia." He added that the UK feels "a certain loss of its weight in Europe and tries to turn Russian into a kind of boogeyman, seeing the 'Russian threat' as a unifying factor for nations, looking for closer ties with London."

Bartosh also noted that the meeting between the two leaders will merely include trying to find a "unifying agenda for the US and Russia because the relations of the two countries affect not only their own wellbeing, but international security as a whole...none of the sides will be aiming to undermine the integrity of NATO."

They will certainly not be seen to undermine NATO, but it will happen as a consequence of any firm deal which Russia agrees to that prevents them from invading any EU country. And it won't be very long after that that Trump cuts the NATO budget.

Trouble on the homefront

It's not just Europe that fears what could happen in the meeting between Trump and Putin. Even former CIA director John Brennan told MSNBC last week that Trump "is not sophisticated enough" to deal with Moscow.

"I must tell you the Russians will feign sincerity better than anyone I've ever dealt with in my life. So I would be very careful about being swept in and I think Mr. Trump is not sophisticated enough, unfortunately, to deal with these foreign leaders in a manner that is going to protect US national security interests. I think he's naive in these issues," he said.

In fact, many within the US establishment dread the possibility of the summit succeeding, political analyst and media and government affairs specialist Jim Jatras wrote in an op-ed for RT. 

Jatras noted that Trump's desire to actually get along with Russia sounded alarms long before he won the 2016 election. "US reconciliation with Russia would yank the rug out from under the phony justifications for spending hundreds of billions of dollars annually to counter a 'threat' that ceased to exist over a quarter century ago," he wrote.

Exactly!

Journalist Neil Clark voiced a similar point in his own op-ed for RT, stating that a successful summit simply won't do, because Russia "must always be regarded as the enemy - unless of course it does absolutely everything the West demands of it." And while he noted that positive moves between Moscow and Washington would be celebrated by ordinary folks, he stated that defense industry lobbyists (read, Deep State) wouldn't be nearly as enthused. 

Peace is not profitable for the war industry!

Does Little Angela Have the Courage to Stand Up to the School Yard Bully?

Spend on schools or bow to US demands?

German politicians debate NATO strategy

© Matthias Schrader / Reuters

US President Donald Trump has accused Germany of not contributing enough to the NATO budget – but will German Chancellor Angela Merkel dance to Washington’s tune?

On Thursday, Trump warned NATO members that they will be “dealt with” if they fail to fulfill their financial obligations to the US-led military alliance. Germany was singled out as one of those said to be delinquent on their obligations.

Martin Dolzer of Die Linke (Left Party) said that buying into Trump’s ideas may send the world order “into chaos,” citing US policy in the Middle East as evidence. Dolzer stressed that Germans do not want war, and said that more vital issues should be on agenda instead of boosting military spending.

“The German population does not want any more military expenses, the German population needs money for kindergartens, for education, for the growth of civil society organizations and the social sector,” Dolzer said. “There has to be a change. And the people in Germany, I think most of them want this change, but the government does not follow it.”

Though Merkel has shown no interest to raising defense spending, Alternative for Germany (AfD) chief whip Hansjorg Mueller believes she is poised to “bend down before the wish of the big brother” – a reference to Trump and the US.

“Our government is the government of a vassal state and governments of vassal states always obey to the wish of the big brother,” Mueller said.

Mueller believes a rise in defense spending would only further split German society, which is already divided over the chancellor’s immigration policy, and significantly weaken Merkel’s position. “We are viewing the doom of her leadership over Germany,” he told RT.

Nord Stream 2

Apart from its reluctance in meeting Washington’s demands, Berlin is also at odds with its ally over the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. The US is opposed to the project and signaled that it might be targeted by sanctions. The measures could also affect German companies.

The situation with the project is “pure blackmail,” said Mueller, adding that he hopes Merkel does not give in the “dead-end game.”

Meanwhile, Dolzer believes the pipeline is necessary for stability. “If we want to have stable organization of the industry this is very, very necessary to build this Nord Stream pipeline and to not follow the sanctions,” Dolzer said, adding that the US government must be reminded that it cannot act like “a monopoly power” around the globe.

2% of GNP going to NATO is far too much. It is at least twice what is needed. Indeed, were it not for the relentless propaganda against Russia, there might be very little need for NATO. NATO was designed to be a deterrent to war with Russia, and now it seems determined to be the cause of it.

The USA is being insistent on raising levels of defense spending in all NATO countries for one reason only - so they can sell more weapons systems to NATO countries. Trump's resurgence of the American economy is significantly dependent upon that very thing.

What he has to do with Nord Stream 2 is very disturbing. In a world where countries treat each other with some semblance of respect, where they recognize the autonomy of other states, the US would have no business even commenting on Nord Stream 2. They oppose it because Trump wants Europe to buy American natural gas which would have to be shipped to them at a premium of about 30% above Russian natural gas through Nord Stream 2. Unable to compete in the marketplace fairly, the US has resorted to bullying tactics that are most unbecoming, almost colonial in its context.

Someone has to punch this bully square in the nose, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is little Angela. If she doesn't, I hope that all EU countries that give-in to the bully will include legislation forbidding them to procure any weapons systems outside of the EU.

'Year Late & Bad Info': California Says DHS Falsely Accused Russia of Hacking its Voting Systems

Campaign to demonize Russia - American style

© Thomas Samson / AFP

It appears that in its eagerness to accuse Russian hackers of meddling in the US presidential election, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) wrongly claimed California's election systems had been breached.

California Secretary of State Alex Padilla released a statement in which he confirmed that DHS officials had told him that the state's election system had been “scanned” by Russian hackers.

“Last Friday, my office was notified by the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that Russian cyber actors 'scanned' California’s Internet-facing systems in 2016, including Secretary of State websites. Following our request for further information, it became clear that DHS’ conclusions were wrong,” he wrote in a statement published on Wednesday. 

He went on to stress that last Friday's notification from the DHS wasn't just “a year late,” but was also “bad information.”

It's very curious that it took a year for DHS to inform California and other states about this, and that even after a year, they got it wrong.

Now the DHS instead maintains – without any stated evidence – that “Russian scanning activity...occurred on the California Department of Technology statewide network,” rather than Secretary of State websites.

California's Secretary of State does not use the Department of Technology to provide IT services for its website, internet-facing applications, or the statewide voter registration database, according to Padilla's office.

Padilla’s statement added that based on this additional information, “the California Secretary of State elections infrastructure and websites were not hacked or breached by Russian cyber actors.”

As for the Department of Technology allegedly being breached, the office said its security systems were able to block “suspect activity.” However, claims that Russians were behind any such attempt remain unsubstantiated.

Padilla's statement comes after California – along with 20 other states – was told last week that its systems were targeted last year “by Russian government cyber actors seeking vulnerabilities and access to US election infrastructure.”

The DHS' mistake in California is the second time in a week that the department's credibility has come into question, as it was forced to backtrack earlier this week on its claim that Russian hackers attempted to hack Wisconsin's election infrastructure.

Just as in the case of California, the DHS quickly pointed to another government department which the elusive Russians allegedly tried to hack – the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. It is an interesting – and once again unproven – claim, considering the office merely oversees job training and unemployment benefits.

Despite ongoing claims and an investigation into Russian meddling in the US presidential election, no evidence has been provided to support the hysteria.

A congressional investigation into Russia’s alleged meddling in the US election has been dragging on 10 months, with any hard evidence explicitly pointing to the role of Russian authorities yet to be produced.

Moscow has repeatedly denied interfering in the election campaign.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has rebuffed the meddling claims, on one occasion noting that the US is not “a banana republic,” for others to interfere with its people's choice.

In an interview with filmmaker Oliver Stone in June, Putin instead accused the US of meddling in Russia's most recent presidential elections in 2012, by campaigning on the side of the Russian opposition. 

Moreover, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said in August that there is “no doubt” the US will again try to meddle in the 2018 presidential election. 

That same month, US President Donald Trump told a rally in West Virginia that the Russia story is a “total fabrication” and an excuse used by Democrats for the “greatest loss in the history of American politics.”

He said that prosecutors should instead be focused on Hillary Clinton's 33,000 deleted emails rather than alleged Russian meddling. 

Deep State Secures Loose Cannon - Steve Bannon

Chief strategist Steve Bannon exits Trump White House

Former Breitbart executive Steve Bannon is the latest casualty of White House power struggles. US President Donald Trump’s chief strategist has departed at the urging of the chief of staff, retired General John Kelly.

Bannon joined the Trump presidential campaign as chief executive in August 2016, and went on to become President Trump’s “chief strategist,” a position created specifically for him, while former GOP chairman Reince Priebus was appointed chief of staff.

Kelly and Bannon “have mutually agreed today would be Steve’s last day,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. “We are grateful for his service and wish him the best.”

The president’s critics have called for Bannon’s removal almost from the very beginning, accusing the former Breitbart News chief executive of being a racist, white supremacist, and Islamophobe.

But mostly he was not 'Deep State'. His influence on Trump has been undermined from the beginning and now that he is gone, Trump remains the only obstacle between 'Deep State' resuming complete control over the US government. 

Whether they can control Trump or feel they have to remove him will be seen by the first anniversary of his inauguration.

Bannon is a former US Navy officer who worked at Goldman Sachs in the 1980s and was one of the founders of Breitbart, a conservative news outlet.

Earlier this week, when reporters asked Trump about Bannon and his alleged support for white nationalism, Trump called him a friend.

“He is not a racist, I can tell you that. He’s a good person,” Trump said at a press conference on Tuesday. “I think the press treats him very unfairly.”

It was the same phrasing he used about his former national security adviser, General Michael Flynn, who resigned under media pressure in February.

On Wednesday, the left-leaning publication American Prospect published an interview in which Bannon talked about the US “trade war” with China and dismissed the prospects of military confrontation with North Korea. Bannon also described white nationalists as “losers” and “a fringe element” that needs to be crushed.

Bannon is the latest casualty of the purge of Trump’s senior staff that began in late July with the departure of press secretary Sean Spicer, followed by Priebus and communications director Anthony Scaramucci, who was on the job for only 11 days. Kelly, a retired Marine who previously headed the Department of Homeland Security, was appointed the new chief of staff to “restore order,” according to reporters covering the White House.

If the Elites are Wrong about Global Warming, the Damage will be Enormous

John Robson, National Post

If it turns out the science isn't settled, and global warming is a bust, how much less will people trust 'the experts' and 'the authorities' on the next issue, and the one after that? Jim Cole / Associated Press

It’s impossible to ignore Donald Trump for any length of time. Even if he didn’t have his “finger on the button”, and whether you blame a “basket of deplorables” or “the elites” for his success, the obvious breakdown of trust between the public and those in authority is ominous. So we shouldn’t go about making it worse, right?

Clearly I am one of those who often uses “elites” in a pejorative sense, along with synonyms like “the chattering classes.” I have nothing against people earning respect through intelligence, wisdom, energy and above all character. But I resent those in authority treating leadership as a privilege rather than a responsibility. And I think we have been badly served, indeed badly let down, by those who should know better, in areas from fiscal policy to social policy to, yes, environmental policy.

Because I fear the ongoing dissolution of social cohesion I do not welcome rudeness in public discussion. But I do make a living trying to direct pointed remarks at the right people for the right reasons, including university administrators unwilling or afraid to uphold free speech and free inquiry.

Then there’s this huge ruckus over “man-made climate change.” It has become orthodoxy in the smelliest sense, with dissent treated as heresy to be stamped out frantically, not coolly refuted or invited to dinner and reasoned with.

Protesters chant during a rally against climate change in San Diego, California on February 21, 2017. SANDY HUFFAKER/AFP/Getty Images

It is of course possible that the dissenters are wrong about the science. But it is not possible that they are wrong to express their doubts. Remember Galileo? When those in authority shout them down, hound them from their posts, and shame them, they don’t just betray science. They betray social trust.

Now some people may say debate is all fine and good. But these “deniers” are kooks, tin-foil-hatters, UFO enthusiasts, flat-earthers. Don’t you know, to quote Barack Obama’s May 16, 2013 tweet, “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous”.

In fact this 97 per cent claim is part of the problem. In addition to the multitude of scientists who work in fields so remote from climate as to have no professional opinion, there are countless geologists, physicists, chemists and others who dissent over how much (a) climate is changing (b) man is responsible and (c) it is dangerous. I’m about to hear a lot of their voices at a Heartland Institute Conference in Washington. To say they do not exist is to be, how shall I put it, a “denier.”

Mario Hoppmann/AFP/Getty Images

If you want to see the studies advancing this claim of overwhelming scientific consensus refuted, visit the Friends of Science website and search “97 per cent.” But this number is used to intimidate, not illuminate. And science does not work that way.

It is far from harmless, especially when reputable opinion swings intolerantly behind bad science in service of bad policy. Governments in B.C., Ontario and elsewhere aim to reduce CO2 and equivalent emissions by nearly 80 per cent by 2050, with disastrous impact on Canada’s conventional energy industry and all of us who like to warm our homes, cook our food and get around. And to conceal the worldwide disaster in alternative energy programs merely compounds the offence.

Now consider this scenario. Within a decade the hair-raising theories advanced by the likes of Al Gore and shouted at us by too many politicians and journalists are exposed as not just wrong, but bunk. Suppose their predictions fizzle and it becomes clear that we have long known a great deal about the history of the Earth that is plainly incompatible with the alarmist thesis (as I will show in my new documentary “The Environment: A True Story” so please visit Johnrobson.ca and support it).

How much less will people trust “the experts” and “the authorities” on the next issue, and the one after that? How much more willing will they be to back the next Donald Trump precisely because reputable opinion fears and loathes him?

There are aspects of populism I find distasteful or alarming. But to me the worst thing is the extent to which it is a reaction to the failures of people meant to be upholding sound economic ideas, free inquiry, and elementary decency in public debate.

I shudder to think of the reaction if there’s a “hard landing” on global warming. So stop the name-calling and take a sober look at the evidence. Otherwise enjoy Donald Trump, because he’s just the beginning.

Robson gives us a glimpse at where the documentary is going in the brief video at his site: 

He then states that every one of these statements is wrong and he will attempt to prove them so in his forthcoming documentary. He will also reveal just how incredibly damaging climate change fanaticism will be to societies. 

I would hope, but don't expect, that he would recognize that child sex abuse is a million times more of an atrocity in the world today than climate change and yet we focus on making a difference in the global temperature that will be too small to measure while ignoring tens of millions of children whose lives are being destroyed every single year. Our priorities are sure screwed up.

Please consider supporting him.

Why the Spy Trade is Such a Booming Industry

Profession is thousands of years old, but motivations behind it remain basically the same

By Brian Stewart, for CBC News

Russian President Vladimir Putin's alleged attempt to meddle in the U.S. election has raised new concerns about global espionage. But, as Brian Stewart explains, there's been a massive surge in spying for years. (Alexander Zemlianichenko/Associated Press)

The alleged Russian plot that targeted the U.S. presidential election has raised concerns we're headed for Cold War levels of spying, but there's actually plenty of evidence the world soared past that point years ago.

In a CBC News documentary that aired four years ago, intelligence experts described new global threats as almost a pandemic of espionage that seems to know no limits.   

It was clear revolutionary forms of spying had emerged, the most powerful of which was the kind of cyberattack skulduggery Russia allegedly used to try to destabilize the Democrats and help Republican Donald Trump win the presidency. 

Sure, Cold War espionage was baffling enough — dubbed "a wilderness of mirrors" by the British — but it was at least more focused on the big power struggle between the U.S. and Soviet Union and far more technologically limited than today's sleuthing free-for-all.

There are now an estimated 120 countries involved in espionage, each trying to infiltrate military, political and economic targets all over the world.

High-tech snooping dramatically increased espionage threats and the quantity of information governments collect. (Kirill Kudryavtsev/AFP/Getty Images)

And those are just the official spy operations. Non-state and corporate spies have become much more active, not to mention rogue cyber warriors who sell their wares as independents and major organized crime and terror groups.

I suggest there are other categories of cyber-spies. Powerful organizations such as might be operating under the UN banner, or for oligarchs like George Soros, the Koch brothers, etc., could well be entering the field of play. Remember, 2 years ago Lord Christopher Moncton overheard a British envoy to the UN Climate Change forum predict the fall of Conservative Prime Ministers from Australia and Canada. They were standing in the way of a global agreement on climate change that would cede powers to the UN to fine or punish countries for failing to meet targets in CO2 reduction. Both PMs were gone within a year. The climate change agreement was seen by Monkton as the first major step into a one-world government.

More threats, bigger budgets  

Globalization naturally helps the growth of espionage by making it easier for covert operators to move around more open societies. At the same time, high-tech internet snooping ensures it's often possible to steal sensitive information without even leaving a secure base. 

These growing threats naturally boost national spy agency budgets. The British MI6 foreign intelligence service is reportedly expanding by 40 per cent over four years, while U.S. spy operations already spend $70 billion a year.

More threats and more information to be analyzed has resulted in budgets hikes for spy agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency. (Reuters)

So the shadow world keeps expanding, but this brings us to the big question: why the global addiction to espionage and its many dark crafts? 

Spying is known as one of the world's oldest professions and the motives behind it have remained consistent over thousands of years: fear, avarice, insatiable curiosity and a desire to undercut real or imagined opponents.    

At the most basic level, spies seek to feed governments with as much information as possible on threats emanating from other powers, as well as intelligence about economic and scientific competitors, and sometimes even antagonistic political groups that might do them harm.

Information overload 

It's often said 90 per cent of all useful intelligence can be had from open public sources, but that secret 10 per cent that can only be obtained through covert means is still gargantuan.

Modern espionage produces information overload. And the fact that the goal is to collect, send and analyze this deluge of data for risks and opportunities as quickly as possible means intelligence operations are only getting bigger.  

And consider how competition works in spying. Governments tend to prefer analysis of secrets from several sources rather than just one, so you have the U.S. with 17 separate intelligence hubs and Russia with a half dozen.

See my next post: U.S., Russia - Long History of Election Interference.

The National Security Agency is one of 17 separate U.S. intelligence groups. (Jason Reed/Reuters)

Historical jitters have also contributed to the insatiable craving for more secrets that motivates leading espionage powers.  

It's no coincidence that the U.S., Russia, China, Israel and Iran, to name just a few, all suffered sneak attacks in war that left them convinced the best defence is an espionage offence and that they can never learn too many secrets.

The U.S., for example, has been exposed for spying on allies like Germany, while Russia has alarmed several governments including Poland, Ukraine, Germany, Sweden and Norway with a surge in espionage and covert interference.

Kremlin's goals

Moscow's methods of political sabotage allegedly include hacking political parties and state agencies, creating fake news stories to stir up xenophobic passion and providing money to far-right parties.

The goal seems to be to sow discord through the Western alliance and destabilize the EU while also trying to ensure an end to sanctions against Moscow.

Putin's goals include disrupting NATO and destabilizing the EU. (Mikhail Klimentyev/AP)

Mark Galeotti, a leading authority on Russian security, says even President Vladimir Putin's most aggressive espionage efforts are primarily motivated by defence.

"Every external operation is first and foremost a domestic one," he wrote in a study for the European Council on Foreign Relations. "This means carrying out operations to prevent 'foreign interference' as the Kremlin sees it, as well as dividing strategic rivals such as the EU."  

Whatever the mindset, the aggression comes at a time when international nerves are already on edge because of political turmoil in the EU, constant concern about terrorism, as well as a potentially unpredictable new era with Trump in charge of the U.S.

U.S. President Donald Trump says he'll make cyberwarfare a 'priority' in the fight against ISIS and other terrorist groups. (Carlos Barria/Reuters)

The fact it's so difficult to track and expose so many cyber threats from Russia and other sources only means we can expect even more of them.   

A new term, "hybrid warfare," is increasingly used in NATO to characterize clandestine and cyberattacks that could target governments, military sites, energy infrastructure like nuclear plants, stock markets and basically entire economies.

In a very rare public warning, MI6 boss Alex Younger recently said the difficulty in dealing with so many global phantoms "should be a concern to all who share democratic values."

"Data and the internet have turned our business on its head."

Canada not immune

No country seems immune to hacking and meddling — certainly not Canada. Top security figures including former CSIS director Richard Fadden have warned that other countries have likely already tried to influence our elections.

Canadian government computers have been hacked, including those at our premier scientific research body, the National Research Council, in 2014. The Harper government described the perpetrator as "a highly sophisticated Chinese state-sponsored actor."

Former CSIS director Richard Fadden says other countries have likely already tried to influence Canadian elections. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

Canada, like all advanced countries, is a target of economic espionage. That's where foreign countries, trade  competitors and cybercrime groups try to steal secrets from key sectors such as aerospace, biotechnology, chemicals and nuclear energy. 

Adding pure greed to the mix of state insecurities makes the global scourge of spying even more difficult to combat, especially when few countries have totally clean hands.

A great many international conferences and studies over years have struggled to find ways to control espionage, especially cyberattacks. Some even argue progress will come only if perpetrators, including the U.S., China and Russia, come to fear retaliation by equally damaging attacks. 

But escalating covert attacks to combat bad behaviour does have a chilling Cold War ring to it, and there's also the risk counterattacks might actually make this espionage pandemic even worse.  

Brian Stewart

Canada and abroad

One of this country's most experienced journalists and foreign correspondents, Brian Stewart is currently a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Munk School for Global Affairs at the University of Toronto. He also sits on the advisory board of Human Rights Watch Canada. In almost four decades of reporting, he has covered many of the world's conflicts and reported from 10 war zones, from El Salvador to Beirut and Afghanistan.

Rex Murphy: Curb Your Climate Change Enthusiasm

Rex Murphy

    AP Photo/Mosa'ab Elshamy - Catherine McKenna, Canada's environment minister, chairs a 
    panel featuring Canadian Indigenous leaders discussing climate change, at the COP22 climate
    change conference n Marrakech, Morocco, Wednesday, Nov. 16, 2016.

At the critical moment of every second-rate movie ever made, when the town is under siege from the bandits, or the maiden is tied to the railway tracks and the hero is lost on what must be done, there will come a voice from the crowd: “What we need now is action!”

With that insight, the posse forms, the hero swoops, the town is saved, the maiden rescued from the onrushing locomotive, Stetsons fly into the air, and the victors ride off into the sunset.

I thought of these old and desperate melodramas when I read of Catherine McKenna, our environment and climate change minister, on safari to save the planet, this time in Marrakesh, Morocco, trailing her own posse.

The minister signalled to the world that Canada was, again, on the case: “We’re moving forward, as is the world. Everyone is absolutely committed to climate action.” Great news. Everyone is agreed that what we need now is action. Almost makes you wonder why in all their multitudes they went to Marrakesh at all, what with everyone “absolutely committed” to … action.

Does the everyone of which she speaks include President-elect, Donald Trump? And does that “whole world” contain the greatest industrial powerhouse of our troubled globe, the U.S.? Does Trump’s charming disinclination to heed the belief that the Earth is doomed without a carbon tax subtract from McKenna’s universalist optimism? It should.

For if the U.S. decides that Paris and its tenuous, non-binding resolutions are not of interest, is not her buoyant outburst more than a little out of key? With the U.S. out of the climate game, China multiplying coal-powered plants and free to spew emissions, India emergent as an industrial power, and half the world paying lip service to the cause, whence comes McKenna’s furious optimism? From an empty place, I would offer.

But regardless of what a Trump administration might do to the concert of consensus, McKenna soldiers on: The rest of the world “recognize(s) that pricing pollution is the best way to reduce emissions.”

The minister is playing semantic shuffle here. Carbon dioxide does not make smog. She is taking the lingo of the fight against pollution, which was sensible and has had demonstrable results, and using it for brush work on the different terrain of (contested) theories of imminent climatic disaster.

Nor is “pricing pollution … the best way to reduce emissions.” The best way would be to forbid all use of fossil fuel by diktat. Or, more congenially, to ask all countries to stop all industrial activity based on the use of oil, gas and coal. This would obviously be a huge hit in China, India, Africa, Cuba — now that it is in the sunshine again  — and, of course, Canada. Though drastic, it would at least have the merit of matching in substance the fever of the hyperbolic, apocalyptic rhetoric that trails around world climate conferences.

As ice to the fevered brow, let me offer a more contained understanding of what it means for the climate change file now that Trump will be adding Air Force One to his fleet. Brad Wall, premier of Saskatchewan, does not have McKenna’s gift for unmoored enthusiasms, but he does have a good eye for irresistible facts. His view is it “makes no sense for our federal government to push ahead with imposing a national carbon tax when our biggest trading partner — and our biggest competitor for investment and jobs — is not going to have one.”

Could Wall, who is not in Marrakesh, be on to something? At a time of economic stress in the Western provinces, the Alberta economy blistered by oil prices, Fort McMurray still reeling from the after-effects of the inferno last spring, Newfoundland wandering into debt hell — why impose artificial and unilateral restraints on our national economy? In particular, why impose restraints that will place us at major disadvantage with the one economy that matters most to Canada?

I doubt Wall’s more realistic take on these matters will do much to suppress the Trudeau government’s enchantment with posturing on the world stage. On this file, McKenna is clearly speaking the wishes of her prime minister, who prefers to see the election of Trump as having no bearing on his beloved climate tax. Justin Trudeau insisted in a recent interview that it is he, not Trump, who is “on the right side of history,” an awkward phrase in the best of times. Being “on the right side of history,” and Trudeau should know this, has an unfortunate provenance, and is always more of a cloudy boast than a fact.

He went on to assert that “there is tremendous economic disadvantage from not acting in the fight against climate change; for not pushing toward cleaner jobs and reducing emissions.” If he really wished to substantiate that argument, Ontario provides a perfect illustration: its green energy policy is a master plan for plunging a prosperous province into lacerating debt, while financing its dream with power bills that are stirring a populist revulsion.

The rhetoric of climate change has an aversion to reality, seduces governments into ignoring the needs of their citizens, and fires the minds of politicians who imagine themselves saving the world. In other words, it tempts them to feel they are more important than they are, that they are working with “history,” rather than operating administrations faced with more immediate, if mundane, needs. That is always a snare and a delusion.

National Post