Coup Plotters Are Now Facing Their Day of Reckoning

Though president Trump has declared that the "Collusion Delusion" is dead, killed off by the report released on March 22 by special counsel Robert Mueller, which exonerated him of charges that he "colluded" with Russian President Putin to rig the 2016 election, rabid anti-Trumpers continue their desperate search for phantom leads, in multiple Congressional committees, and in the Fake News rooms of major media across the U.S. and in western Europe.

Their flailing has become all the more hysterical in the last weeks, as a veritable tsunami of new leads is emerging.  Unfortunately for the anti-Trumpers, these leads are providing new evidence of the criminal actions of those who launched the Russiagate coup attempt, and in particular, the significance of the role of British intelligence operative, Christopher Steele.  Leading the investigation is U.S. Attorney General William Barr, who this week appointed a new prosecutor to investigate the origins of the anti-Trump, anti-Putin regime change coup, which was designed to prevent Trump's election, then to contain him, or remove him from office, after he won the 2016 election.

The central feature of the new revelations is the honing in on the role of the "dodgy dossier" fabricated by former British spy Christopher Steele, which was used by the FBI to obtain surveillance warrants issued by the super-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court (FISA).  Though Steele, who had been a top Russia hand in MI6, has been doing his best to disappear, his dossier, and its use in shaping the anti-Trump narrative, has now been forced into the open.  From the beginning, investigators from the LaRouche movement have pointed to the Steele dossier and its backers from the highest levels of British intelligence, including both MI6 and GCHQ, as key to grasp who was behind the attacks on Donald Trump, and why.


In a Senate hearing on April 10, Attorney General Barr described the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign—which was officially launched in July 2016, but with origins as early as 2015—as "spying on a political campaign."  When outraged Democrats on the committee demanded that he clarify the statement, he repeated, "I think spying did occur."  Current FBI Director Christopher Wray, in full damage control mode, tried to push back.  To say there was spying, he said, that's "a loaded word....That's not the term I would use."

But several reports released since have shown that is exactly what the FBI and its allies were doing.  The two most damaging for the nexus of British operatives and their U.S allies in the Obama intelligence leadership and the Clinton campaign are a New York Times (NYT) report and an article by John Solomon in The Hill.

On May 2, the NYT reported that the FBI had deployed an "informant" to a meeting in London in September 2016 with Trump campaign official, George Papadopoulos.  The informant, a "Ms. Azura Turk" flirted with Papadopoulos, while pumping him for information on what he knew about ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.  She was working with Stefan Halper, who has been identified as a shared asset of British intelligence and the CIA.  Halper's role in targeting Papadopoulos was coordinated by the FBI.  While the NYT may have run the story to pre-empt a more full investigation—as the paper has been a leader from the beginning in the witch hunt against the President—the story is in conformity with the bigger picture emerging, which is what prompted Barr's charge that "spying" is a key feature of Russiagate.  

On May 9, The Hill published John Solomon's report under the title, "FBI's Steele story falls apart."  Solomon reports about a memo written by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kevelac, which details a meeting she had with Steele on Oct. 11, 2016.  In her memo, she wrote that Steele's account was unreliable, and had a political purpose, to defeat then-candidate Donald Trump, and that Steele was desperate to get it out before the election. She sent her memo directly to an FBI official, Stephen Laycock, who forwarded it immediately to the team, headed by Peter Strzok, which was allegedly examining whether Trump was acting in "collusion" with Russian subversion of the U.S. election.

What Solomon reports is that, in spite of this report, which confirmed similar concerns about Steele's lack of veracity, and his political agenda, which had been voiced by senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr in August 2016, the FBI used the Steele dossier as the lead document in its application to the FISA Court for a warrant to surveil minor Trump operative Page, which was used as an opening for broader surveillance of the Trump campaign.  In their filing, ten days after Kevelac's meeting with Steele and eight days after the delivery of her memo, the FBI nevertheless vouched for Steele as credible and reliable, and his report as verifiable.  They did not mention that it had been paid for by the campaign of Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton.

The report on the Kevelac memo did not go unnoticed by President Trump, who has begun targeting the British role in the attacks against him.  On May 8, he tweeted, "The British Spy, Christopher Steele, tries so hard to get this (the Fake Dossier) out  before Election Day.  Why?"

These two major revelations are backed up by commentary about the use of "informants" by the FBI in targeting Trump and his campaign, from the likes of the former CIA official Larry Johnson and former U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C., Joe DiGenova.  In addition to identifying Halper, another asset shared by the Brits and U.S. intelligence was Joseph Mifsud, who planted the story with Papadopoulos of "Russian hacking" of the emails of the Clinton campaign, John Podesta, and the Democratic National Committee.  These shared assets acted in the manner of a classic FBI sting and entrapment operation.  

On May 13, AG Barr appointed a U.S. Attorney from Connecticut, John Durham, to conduct an investigation into what was behind the launching of Russiagate.  Durham, who will have subpoena power and can bring witnesses before a grand jury, has already been investigating leaks to the media by former FBI General Counsel, James Baker.  His investigation, with full support from Barr, means there are now three official investigations underway into the actions of the coup plotters.  A report is expected soon from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who is investigating charges of FBI abuse of the FISA process, as well as their handling of the probe into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server.  Horowitz previously was responsible for the release of the thousands of text messages between the leading FBI official on both the Clinton email case and the initial Russiagate investigation, Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page.  The texts demonstrated the high degree of hostility among leading FBI officials toward Trump, as the two proposed using the FBI's Russiagate investigation as an "insurance policy", to get rid of Trump, if he were elected.

The third investigation is that of a U.S. Attorney from Utah, John Huber, who is looking into FISA Court abuses in the applications for warrants to conduct surveillance of Trump campaign operatives.  In addition, there is a Senate investigation underway, under the direction of Sen. Lindsey Graham, with full backing from Senators Ron Johnson and Charles Grassley.  While Graham said they will defer to Durham's investigation for the moment, he added that they are prepared to proceed with their own independent probe.


Reactions from some of  the perpetrators behind Russiagate show they know they are in deep trouble.  John Brennan, for example, lied in an interview about the use of the Steele dossier in the FISA filing, saying "it went through a rigorous due process within the Justice Department and the FBI."  The Kevelac memo proves that Brennan has again been caught in a blatant lie.  When James Comey tried to defend himself from charges that he violated the law and FBI/DOJ protocol , saying that Brennan played the major role in pushing the Steele dossier for the FISA Court application, former Director of National Intelligence Clapper joined his co-plotter Brennan in pointing their fingers at Comey, saying he alone pushed it.

Comey was the subject of an op ed by Kevin Brock, the former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI, who wrote in The Hill on May 7 that, with the investigations underway, "Comey's mishandling of the FBI and legal processes likely will be fully exposed."  He asks, was Comey "unduly influenced by political agendas" of Obama and his intelligence chiefs?"  Asking this question, he concludes, "is what's causing the 360 degree head spins" in Washington.       

Another development causing heads to spin was the filing, on May 10, by attorneys for Roger Stone, of motions which challenge the fake story at the heart of Russiagate,  that the Russians hacked the DNC and gave the documents to Wikileaks, and thus "interfered" in the 2016 Presidential election to Donald Trump's advantage. Stone is seeking unredacted copies of CrowdStrike's forensic reports upon which the entire "Russia hacked the DNC and Podesta" narrative depends.  The filing includes an affidavit from former NSA Technical Adviser Bill Binney, who is prepared to testify on his forensic evaluations, which show that there was no external hack. Mueller never questioned Binney, relying instead on the fraudulent reports from CrowdStrike, which was paid by the Clinton campaign, along with his absurd indictments of Russian GRU officials—knowing that they will never to tried in a U.S. courtroom—to protect the fraudulent charge of Russian hacking.  Binney has been increasingly outspoken, including in multiple interviews given to LaRouchePAC, exposing the criminal behavior of DOJ and FBI officials, and in insisting that they be held accountable.  

If Stone' motion is successful, it will represent the first time that this false narrative of the Russian hack will be subjected to actual adversarial testing, which will show that the whole basis for Russiagate was a fraud.  It also provides the opportunity to get to the question of motive, of why Trump was targeted in the first place.  This news service has reported, from the outset, that the cause of the attack on Trump and Putin was the fear which gripped British imperial networks, that the two would move to overturn their geopolitical design, which intends to maintain a confrontational relationship between the U.S. and Russia, which has been in place since the end of World War II, and was reinforced by the British control of U.S. policy under every administration since the end of the Cold War.  

As this is an existential question for the British financial and military/strategic elite, the threat that a mutually beneficial, cooperative relationship between the two major powers would replace their collapsing empire required desperate and dangerous measures.  The most recent revelations of the anti-Trump, anti-Putin campaign run by the British-Obama "spy" ring confirm that defense of this geopolitical design, which has produced endless wars, regime change coups, huge military/defense budgets, and deadly austerity against the real economy and the vast majority of the people, is the actual origin of Russiagate.


Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Rob Eddowes
    followed this page 2019-05-21 21:21:16 -0400
  • Harley Schlanger
    published this page in Articles & Interviews 2019-05-21 15:05:27 -0400