Two developments this past week demonstrate conclusively that the so-called Russiagate narrative was never anything more than a dirty operation by defenders of the Old Paradigm of geopolitical imperial power to prevent a duly-elected U.S. President from breaking with that old, collapsing paradigm.
With the Mueller investigation into "Russian meddling and Trump collusion" going nowhere, and with President Trump's success in moving toward a diplomatic solution on the Korean peninsula, in collaboration with Russia and China, the efforts to remove him, or to constrain him, were exposed as ineffective. The announcement by House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Conaway that his committee's investigation found no evidence of Trump, or his campaign, colluding with Russian operatives sent the usual anti-Trump stalwarts, such as Rep. Adam Schiff into fits of rage, but after a year of probing, it had become clear to all—except to furious Democrats like him, and the "Deep State" networks working with special counsel Robert Mueller—that THERE WAS NO COLLUSION!
Parallel to the efforts to find Trump guilty of an impeachable offense, or a major criminal act, there has been a full flight forward assault, by neocon operatives in the Congress, think tanks and media, against Trump's intent to work with Russian President Putin and China's President Xi Jinping, Their increasingly vitriolic attacks have not prevented him from sticking to his campaign pledge to cooperate with the two superpowers to end the fighting in the Middle East, combat terrorism, and work out equitable trade agreements.
With their efforts flagging, two of the major forces which have actually been engaged in collusion to overturn the results of the U.S. election, by running a regime change coup against Trump, escalated their efforts. First, in London, British intelligence networks reported that the poisoning of a former Russian spy and his daughter was the work of "Russian agents." Without offering a shred of evidence—after all, in this era of Fake News, who needs evidence?—British Prime Minister Theresa May immediately demanded that leaders of the United Kingdom's major Trans-Atlantic allies join her in taking actions to "punish" Russia, imposing new sanctions, with other yet-unspecified actions to follow.
Trump seemed initially hesitant to sign on. He said that he had not yet seen any evidence, and, as the anti-Trump Guardian pointed out, he certainly had his reasons to be suspicious of charges coming from the same British intelligence networks which accused him of colluding with the Russians to win the election! However, on March 15, he cosigned a statement with French President Macron and German Chancellor Merkel supporting May's position. (For more on the fraudulent "Skripal case", go to larouchepub.com.)
Secondly, at the same time, in the United States, a new organization, calling itself "National Security Action", put out a manifesto, declaring war against President Trump. His main crime, according to their statement, is that he was not acting to contain the threat posed to U.S. interests by Russia and China. Of the sixty-eight original signers of this group—ironically, NSA for short!—all had been either members of Barack Obama's administration or closely tied to it, and many of them had expected to continue in government positions under Hillary Clinton
OBAMA NETWORKS COME INTO THE OPEN
A proper report on the origins of "Russiagate" would include the copious details that show, from the start, that there was "collusion" in concocting the story between British intelligence networks, centered in MI6 and its cyber warfare division, GCHQ, the Hillary Clinton campaign, and intelligence and political networks tied to Barack Obama. The investigation by the House Intelligence Committee, which found no Trump collusion, is now honing in on the coordination between numerous Obama officials, including those leading intelligence agencies—James Clapper (DNI), James Comey (FBI) and John Brennan (CIA), and subordinates, such as the FBI's Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok—and Obama officials, such as National Security Adviser Susan Rice and U.N. Ambassador Samantha Powers, who were involved in "unmasking" the names of Trump campaign officials caught by NSA surveillance speaking with foreign nationals, and then breaking federal law by leaking their names to the press.
Not surprisingly, many of these officials were among the initiators of the new NSA. Co-chaired by Ben Rhodes (Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor) and Jake Sullivan (Deputy Assistant to Obama and Hillary Clinton's leading advisor), prominent names include Susan Rice, Samantha Powers, Penny Pritzker, a leading fundraiser and later Commerce Secretary, Michele Flournoy and Tony Blinken.
Rice, Rhodes and Powers were among the most outspoken Obama administration officials against Russia, with Powers using her position at the U.N. to repeatedly denounce Russia's successful intervention into the Syrian civil war, while Rice was one of the architects of Obama's anti-China "Asian Pivot" doctrine. Flournoy, after serving Obama as Under Secretary of Defense, became a member of the Board of the neocon Center for New American Security, where she recently welcomed Victoria Nuland as CEO. (Nuland, a hard-line neocon married to Robert Kagan, one of the founders of the unilateralist Project for a New American Century, played a hands-on role as Deputy Secretary of State, in running the coup in Ukraine.) Flournoy also serves on the Board of the anti-Russian Atlantic Council. Blinken was a Deputy National Security Adviser and Deputy Secretary of State under Obama, and is now working as a commentator on the anti-Trump network, CNN.
Their manifesto, published on their website, makes clear that their intention is to remove President Trump, for the "crime" of not engaging in war-like provocations against Russia and China. On Trump, they write that under his
"reckless leadership, the United States is weaker in the world, less safe, and more isolated. He is retreating from the world stage, undercutting the intelligence and law enforcement agencies that keep us safe, undermining the diplomacy that prevents wars, insulting our allies, attacking democratic traditions, and cozying up to dictators while abandoning America's commitment to universal rights and human dignity.... Impulsive, erratic, and staggeringly ignorant of how the world works, Trump is unfit to lead our men and women in uniform, and he diminishes our country's standing in the eyes of the world."
Rejecting cooperation with Russia and China as a worthwhile goal, they write that
"Instead of confronting Vladimir Putin over his brazen and ongoing attack on our democracy, Trump bows to the whims of Moscow while undermining legitimate investigations into his own hidden financial interests. Instead of standing up to China, the Trump family businesses received special deals after Trump met with the Chinese president."
Further, they attack Trump for "erratic behavior", which has "raised the risk of a catastrophic conflict with North Korea." In reality, it has been Trump's diplomatic efforts with Russia and China which have brought about progress on the Korean peninsula, after the Obama administration's refusal to engage with the North led to the danger coming from an isolated and nuclear-armed pariah state.
Rather than making the world less safe, it has been Trump's willingness to work with Putin and Xi which creates the possibility that the three major powers can usher the world into a New Paradigm, based on mutual respect and cooperation. It was the confrontational policies of imperial geopolitics, which dominated the foreign policy of the Bush and Obama administrations, that heightened the danger of war. The ongoing assault against Trump on his "softness" toward Russia and China is designed to put him in conflict with those nations. When combined with the lying characterizations of Russia and China as aggressive nations seeking to become dominant empires, the prospect of a new war, possibly involving nuclear weapons, becomes much more likely.
Trump won the 2016 election because he effectively attacked the endless war policies of the Bush-Obama-Clinton machines, and a war-weary American population responded to his challenge that they back him, to take power away from the arrogant, bankrupt establishment. That is the unambiguous message he must continue to convey to the American people today, if he is to succeed in defeating that establishment.