WILL THE REAL RUSSIAGATE CRIMINALS BE PUT ON TRIAL?
Given the urgent insistence from President Trump that investigators get to the bottom of what is behind the coup attempt against him, there has been an intensified focus on the role of the British monarchy, which acted through its intelligence channels in the U.K. and in the U.S., in launching Russiagate. While the anti-Trump fanatics, including pro-impeachment Democrats, neo-con Republicans and mainstream media, continue to pound the "Russia hacking" line—that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, to elect Trump, citing the Mueller investigation and his fraudulent report as proof—the evidence of the British role is finally emerging into public view, with potentially devastating blow-back to come against the perpetrators.
Readers of this blog know that investigators in the LaRouche movement have presented compelling and fact-filled evidence, from Day One, of the British role in Russiagate, and our publications and interventions by our activists have played a crucial role in bringing it forward. A renewed focus on how the dodgy dossier of former British spy Christopher Steele provided the excuse for spying on the Trump campaign is provoking panic among British imperial circles, and the appointment by Attorney General Barr of a hard-edged prosecutor, the U.S. Attorney for Connecticut, John Durham, to look into the origins of the fabricated narrative of Russiagate, has deepened their concern.
So it is not surprising that a major public relations effort was undertaken, starting from the Queen herself, to convince President Trump that the so-called "Special Relationship" between the U.S. and the U.K. is as strong, and as important, as ever. That is what was behind the pageantry, the so-called "pomp and circumstance", which characterized last week's visit of the U.S. President to London. It occurred at a moment of increasing instability in the U.K., as the still-unresolved matter of Brexit adds to the sense that the British Empire is devolving into a full-blown existential crisis.
Do not be fooled by comments from Trump himself, extolling the "unique bond" between the U.S. and Britain. At the same time he expressed admiration for the Queen, reveled in the red carpet treatment he was given, and responded mildly to a lengthy and foolish lecture from Prince Charles on "global warming", Trump has remained focused on the British role in the coup attempt, and this is adding to the extreme nervousness in London. (Footnote 1)
"EX" SPY CAN'T HIDE ANY LONGER
Trump's focus became evident with his May 8 tweet, in which he wrote about the "former" British MI6 agent who compiled the infamous "pee-pee" dossier against him. "This British spy," he tweeted, "Christopher Steele tried so hard to get this (the Fake Dossier) out before the election. Why?" The tweet referred to a recently declassified memo from top State Department official, Kathleen Kevelac, which discredited Steele and his dossier, identifying it as "unverified", and asserting that Steele seemed desperate to get his dossier out in time to interfere with the U.S. election. Kevelac's memo was delivered to top FBI officials ten days before Steele's fraudulent charges were used as the primary source to obtain a FISA surveillance warrant against the Trump campaign. This warrant gave the FBI the basis to engage in what Attorney General Barr characterized as "spying" on Trump's campaign. The release of the still-partially-redacted Kevelac memo not only demonstrates criminal action by FBI Director Comey, but reaffirms Steele's place at the center of the criminal conspiracy to overturn Trump's election victory.
Trump again explicitly called out the British on May 24, in explaining his order to declassify all documents related to Russiagate. He said of his mandate to Barr, "I hope he looks at the UK and I hope he looks at Australia and I hope he looks at Ukraine." It is necessary, he added, to find out what happened and when, "because this was an attempted takedown of the president of the United States, and we have to find out why."
The Steele story popped up, during Trump's visit to the UK, in a June 5 article in the London Times, "Christopher Steele: MI6 Agent to Face Questions on Trump Russia Dossier". The news in the story was that Steele has finally agreed to testify before U.S. authorities, within certain conditions, on his relationship with the FBI. But even more important, the article reveals that the British government is disavowing any relationship with Steele, quoting a "senior official" who said the government was not involved in his decision to testify, "as this relates to issues arising many years after he left government employment." Last year, when Steele appeared in a London court, a top barrister employed by the British government accompanied him, to protect him and prevent the "compromising of any state secrets". It appears that this protection has now been lifted, leading to reports in the New York Times and elsewhere of mounting hysteria on the part of Steele, and among his defenders.
Such sophistry from her majesty's government is unlikely to divert Attorney General Barr's team from investigating other leads of "foreign interference" (i.e., British and its Commonwealth satraps, such as Australia) while questioning Steele, such as the coordination between Britain's GCHQ, the equivalent of the U.S. National Security Agency, and former CIA Director John Brennan, in launching Russiagate, months prior to the release of the Steele dossier; the role of "Five Eyes" spying on behalf of Obama's intelligence team, to maintain the fiction that U.S. intelligence is not spying on Americans; and the coordination between the MI6 and FBI in using shared operatives, such as Josef Mifsud, Stephan Halper and Alexander Downer, to set in motion the lie of "Russian hacking" in the 2016 election.
The New York Times reported on June 12 that Attorney General Barr and investigator Durham will interview two senior CIA officers because "Mr. Barr has been interested in how the CIA drew its conclusions about Russia's election sabotage, particularly the judgment that Mr. Putin ordered their operatives to help Mr. Trump by discrediting his opponent, Hillary Clinton....Mr. Barr wants to know more about the CIA sources who helped inform its understanding of the details of the Russian interference campaign... He also wants to better understand the intelligence that flowed from the CIA to the FBI in the summer of 2016."
This channel of the investigation should lead to exposing the still-accepted big lie of the Mueller report, that Russia engaged in hacking the DNC computers, as part of its strategy to aid Trump's election. The Guardian reported that in June 2016, British GCHQ spy head Robert Hannigan brought the first so-called evidence of Russian interference to CIA Director Brennan, which led to the opening of an official investigation, in July 2016. The January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment accepted, with no evidence presented, the story of Russian interference, which then became a central theme of the anti-Trump narrative. It was later given unquestioned status in the Mueller report, despite the absence of any forensic evidence to prove there was Russian hacking, which produced the emails later released by Wikileaks.
This fraud has been definitively refuted by former NSA Technical Director and whistleblower Bill Binney, whose actual forensic investigation found that there was not only no hacking, but that the emails were downloaded to a thumb-drive or similar device, as an "inside job," which was then delivered to Wikileaks.
MORE LIES FROM MUELLER
As impeachment-obsessed Democrats continue to demand that Mueller testify before a Congressional committee, more gaping holes are opening in his fictional report. On the British angle, he has yet to answer why he never interrogated Steele; why he never looked into the initiating role of GCHQ and Hannigan; why he ignored voluminous evidence of malicious, criminal intent on behalf of his long-time buddy James Comey and leading FBI officials, in their targeting of the Trump campaign, then the Trump presidency, using the faked Steele report;
and why he repeated, without question, the various stories designed to confirm Russia's role, planted by shared British-U.S. intelligence assets Josef Mifsud, Stephan Halper, and Alexander Downer, who were part of an elaborate sting operation targeting Carter Page—who was the subject of the initial FISA Court application—and minor Trump campaign official George Papadopoulos.
A new lead was reported by John Solomon in The Hill on June 6, which relates to Mueller's charge that Ukrainian businessman, Konstantine Kliminick, who was an associate of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, was an agent of Putin and Russia's secret services. Solomon reports on June 6 that there exist "hundreds of pages of government documents—which special counsel Robert Mueller possessed since 2018"—which describe Klimink "as a 'sensitive' intelligence source for the U.S. State Department who informed on Ukrainian and Russian matters."
Solomon points out that the Kliminik narrative is so important to Mueller's charges of Russian involvement that it appears in the opening of his report, on page 6, where he states that the FBI assessed that Kliminik had "ties to Russian intelligence," with no reference to his connection to the State Department! It is impossible that Mueller did not know that the FBI's "assessment" is false, meaning he relied on a deliberate lie to bolster the case of Russian interference!
Further, Klimink's relationship with the State Department, through the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, puts him in the circle of those, including Christopher Steele, who were instrumental in pulling off the anti-Russian regime change coup in Ukraine in February 2014, which triggered a devolution of relations between Russia and the Trans-Atlantic nations. Steele had a close relationship with State Department official Jonathan Winer, who channeled his reports on Ukraine to Victoria Nuland, who was a coordinator of the U.S.-British intervention there. Winer became a source for the circulation of Steele's dirty dossier during the 2016 election campaign.
It is not known if Trump followed through on a request made by Republican Congressman Nunes prior to his visit to the UK to ask Prime Minister May whether the British government was aware of, or took part in surveillance efforts against the Trump campaign. But one indication that Trump may not be so committed to the special relationship, as it emerged after being first described as such by Winston Churchill—an indication which would not be missed by leading British intelligence officials—was his quoting, during the D-Day celebrations, the prayer from President Franklin Roosevelt (FDR), as U.S. troops stormed the French beaches on D-Day. It is well-known that FDR had been sharply at odds with Churchill during World War II, with FDR repeatedly telling Churchill that the U.S. would not support the restoration of the British Empire after the war.
Despite his pleasantries with the Queen and her family, Trump's definition of national sovereignty does not include allowing the present-day British Empire to deploy its forces to sustain the presently imploding Trans-Atlantic globalist strategic and financial regime. With the investigation of the perpetrators of Russiagate proceeding under Barr's direction, the so-called special relationship may be finally meeting its well-deserved end.
Footnote 1: The fear among Britain's ruling oligarchy that Trump would disrupt the "Special Relationship" was the subject of a report issued by the House of Lords on December 18, 2018. The report, titled "UK foreign policy in a shifting world order," correctly identifies Trump as threatening the "post-war rules based International Order." An analysis of this diatribe, as an example of the thinking of the imperial elite, is the subject of a special report by researcher Barbara Boyd, on the British role in Russiagate, available from LaRouchePAC.