• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Люди1137
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы694
      • Показать ещё
      Компании737
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации111
      • Показать ещё
      Разное519
      • Показать ещё
      Издания178
      • Показать ещё
      Формат17
      Показатели9
      Сферы3
Джеймс Клеппер
24 мая, 04:20

US Journalism's New "Golden Age"?

The Washington Post and other big media are hailing a new journalistic “golden age” as they punish President Trump for disparaging them, but is this media bias a sign of good journalism or itself a scandal, asks Robert Parry, via ConsotriumNews.com... The mainstream U.S. media is congratulating itself on its courageous defiance of President Trump and its hard-hitting condemnations of Russia, but the press seems to have forgotten that its proper role within the U.S. democratic structure is not to slant stories one way or another but to provide objective information for the American people. The Washington Post building in downtown Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Washington Post) By that standard – of respecting that the people are the nation’s true sovereigns – the mainstream media is failing again. Indeed, the chasm between what America’s elites are thinking these days and what many working-class Americans are feeling is underscored by the high-fiving that’s going on inside the elite mainstream news media, which is celebrating its Trump- and Russia-bashing as the “new golden age of American journalism.” The New York Times and The Washington Post, in particular, view themselves as embattled victims of a tyrannical abuser. The Times presents itself as the brave guardian of “truth” and the Post added a new slogan: “Democracy dies in darkness.” In doing so, they have moved beyond the normal constraints of professional, objective journalism into political advocacy – and they are deeply proud of themselves. In a Sunday column entitled “How Trump inspired a golden age,” Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank wrote that Trump “took on the institution of a free press – and it fought back. Trump came to office after intimidating publishers, barring journalists from covering him and threatening to rewrite press laws, and he has sought to discredit the ‘fake news’ media at every chance. Instead, he wound up inspiring a new golden age in American journalism. “Trump provoked the extraordinary work of reporters on the intelligence, justice and national security beats, who blew wide open the Russia election scandal, the contacts between Russia and top Trump officials, and interference by Trump in the FBI investigation. Last week’s appointment of a special prosecutor – a crucial check on a president who lacks self-restraint – is a direct result of their work.” Journalism or Hatchet Job? But has this journalism been professional or has it been a hatchet job? Are we seeing a new “golden age” of journalism or a McCarthyistic lynch mob operating on behalf of elites who disdain the U.S. constitutional process for electing American presidents? Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (right) talks with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office, with John Brennan and other national security aides present. (Photo credit: Office of Director of National Intelligence) For one thing, you might have thought that professional journalists would have demanded proof about the predicate for this burgeoning “scandal” – whether the Russians really did “hack” into emails of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and then slip the information to WikiLeaks to influence the outcome of the 2016 election. You have surely heard and read endlessly that this conclusion about Russia’s skulduggery was the “consensus view of the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies” and thus only some crazy conspiracy theorist would doubt its accuracy even if no specific evidence was evinced to support the accusation. But that repeated assertion is not true. There was no National Intelligence Estimate (or NIE) that would compile the views of the 17 intelligence agencies. Instead, as President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on May 8, the Russia-hacking claim came from a “special intelligence community assessment” (or ICA) produced by selected analysts from the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation, or as Clapper put it, “a coordinated product from three agencies – CIA, NSA, and the FBI – not all 17 components of the intelligence community.” Further, as Clapper explained, the “ICA” was something of a rush job beginning on President Obama’s instructions “in early December” and completed by Jan. 6, in other words, a month or less. Clapper continued: “The two dozen or so analysts for this task were hand-picked, seasoned experts from each of the contributing agencies.” However, as any intelligence expert will tell you, if you “hand-pick” the analysts, you are really hand-picking the conclusion. You can say the analysts worked independently but their selection, as advocates for one position or another, could itself dictate the outcome. If the analysts were hardliners on Russia or hated Trump, they could be expected to deliver the conclusion that Obama and Clapper wanted, i.e., challenging the legitimacy of Trump’s election and blaming Russia. The point of having a more substantive NIE is that it taps into a much broader network of U.S. intelligence analysts who have the right to insert dissents to the dominant opinions. So, for instance, when President George W. Bush belatedly ordered an NIE regarding Iraq’s WMD in 2002, some analysts – especially at the State Department – inserted dissents (although they were expunged from the declassified version given to the American people to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq). An Embarrassing Product Obama’s “ICA,” which was released on Jan. 6, was a piece of work that embarrassed many former U.S. intelligence analysts. It was a one-sided argument that lacked any specific evidence to support its findings. Its key point was that Russian President Vladimir Putin had a motive to authorize an information operation to help Hillary Clinton’s rival, Donald Trump, because Putin disdained her work as Secretary of State. Russian President Vladimir Putin addresses UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo) But the Jan. 6 report failed to include the counter-argument to that cui bono assertion, that it would be an extraordinary risk for Putin to release information to hurt Clinton when she was the overwhelming favorite to win the presidency. Given the NSA’s electronic-interception capabilities, Putin would have to assume that any such undertaking would be picked up by U.S. intelligence and that he would likely be facing a vengeful new U.S. president on Jan. 20. While it’s possible that Putin still took the risk – despite the daunting odds against a Trump victory – a balanced intelligence assessment would have included such contrary arguments. Instead, the report had the look of a prosecutor’s brief albeit without actual evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused. Further, the report repeatedly used the word “assesses” – rather than “proves” or “establishes” – and the terminology is important because, in intelligence-world-speak, “assesses” often means “guesses.” The report admits as much, saying, “Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents.” In other words, the predicate for the entire Russia-gate scandal, which may now lead to the impeachment of a U.S. president and thus the negation of the Constitution’s electoral process, is based partly on a lie – i.e., the claim that the assessment comes from all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies – and partly on evidence-free speculation by a group of “hand-picked” analysts, chosen by Obama’s intelligence chiefs. Yet, the mainstream U.S. news media has neither corrected the false assertion about the 17 intelligence agencies nor demanded that actual evidence be made public to support the key allegation that Russia was the source of WikiLeaks’ email dumps. By the way, both Russia and WikiLeaks deny that Russia was the source, although it is certainly possible that the Russian government would lie and that WikiLeaks might not know where the two batches of Democratic emails originated. A True ‘Golden Age’? Yet, one might think that the new “golden age of American journalism” would want to establish a firm foundation for its self-admiring reporting on Russia-gate. You might think, too, that these esteemed MSM reporters would show some professional skepticism toward dubious claims being fed to them by the Obama administration’s intelligence appointees. President Donald Trump being sworn in on Jan. 20, 2017. (Screen shot from Whitehouse.gov) That is unless, of course, the major U.S. news organizations are not abiding by journalistic principles, but rather see themselves as combatants in the anti-Trump “resistance.” In other words, if they are behaving less as a Fourth Estate and more as a well-dressed mob determined to drag the interloper, Trump, from the White House. The mainstream U.S. media’s bias against Putin and Russia also oozes from every pore of the Times’ and Post’s reporting from Moscow. For instance, the Times’ article on Putin’s comments about supposed secrets that Trump shared with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at the White House had the headline in the print editions: “Putin Butts In to Claim There Were No Secrets…” The article by Andrew Higgins then describes Putin “asserting himself with his customary disruptive panache” and “seizing on foreign crises to make Russia’s voice heard.” Clearly, we are all supposed to hate and ridicule Vladimir Putin. He is being demonized as the new “enemy” in much the way that George Orwell foresaw in his dystopian novel, 1984. Yet, what is perhaps most troubling is that the major U.S. news outlets, which played instrumental roles in demonizing leaders of Iraq, Syria and Libya, believe they are engaged in some “golden age” journalism, rather than writing propaganda. Contempt for Trump Yes, I realize that many good people want to see Trump removed from office because of his destructive policies and his buffoonish behavior – and many are eager to use the new bête noire, Russia, as the excuse to do it. But that still does not make it right for the U.S. news media to abandon its professional responsibilities in favor of a political agenda. The run-down PIX Theatre sign reads “Vote Trump” on Main Street in Sleepy Eye, Minnesota. July 15, 2016. (Photo by Tony Webster Flickr) On a political level, it may not even be a good idea for Democrats and progressives who seem to be following the failed strategy of Hillary Clinton’s campaign in seeking to demonize Trump rather than figuring out how to speak to the white working-class people who voted for him, many out of fear over their economic vulnerability and others out of anger over how Clinton dismissed many of them as “deplorables.” And, by the way, if anyone thinks that whatever the Russians may have done damaged Clinton’s chances more than her colorful phrase disdaining millions of working-class people who understandably feel left behind by neo-liberal economics, you may want to enroll in a Politics 101 course. The last thing a competent politician does is utter a memorable insult that will rally the opposition. In conversations that I’ve had recently with Trump voters, they complain that Clinton and the Democrats weren’t even bothering to listen to them or to talk to them. These voters were less enamored of Trump than they were conceded to Trump by the Clinton campaign. These voters also are not impressed by the endless Trump- and Russia-bashing from The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC, which they see as instruments of the elites. The political danger for national Democrats and many progressives is that mocking Trump and thus further insulting his supporters only extends the losing Clinton strategy and cements the image of Democrats as know-it-all elitists. Thus, the Democrats risk losing a key segment of the U.S. electorate for a generation. Not only could that deny the Democrats a congressional majority for the foreseeable future, but it might even get Trump a second term.

24 мая, 01:46

5 takeaways from intel leaders' Trump testimony

Former CIA Director John Brennan did not make the president's life easier.

23 мая, 12:22

Обстоятельства убийства Сета Рича ставят под вопрос причастность России к хакерским атакам

Частный детектив, расследующий убийство сотрудника Демократического национального комитета, утверждает, что именно Сет Рич, а не российская сторона, мог организовать утечку электронных писем лидеров Демократической партииThe post Обстоятельства убийства Сета Рича ставят под вопрос причастность России к хакерским атакам appeared first on MixedNews.

23 мая, 12:22

Обстоятельства убийства Сета Рича ставят под вопрос причастность России к хакерским атакам

Частный детектив, расследующий убийство сотрудника Демократического национального комитета, утверждает, что именно Сет Рич, а не российская сторона, мог организовать утечку электронных писем лидеров Демократической партииThe post Обстоятельства убийства Сета Рича ставят под вопрос причастность России к хакерским атакам appeared first on MixedNews.

23 мая, 12:22

Обстоятельства убийства Сета Рича ставят под вопрос причастность России к хакерским атакам

Частный детектив, расследующий убийство сотрудника Демократического национального комитета, утверждает, что именно Сет Рич, а не российская сторона, мог организовать утечку электронных писем лидеров Демократической партииThe post Обстоятельства убийства Сета Рича ставят под вопрос причастность России к хакерским атакам appeared first on MixedNews.

22 мая, 01:45

Matt Taibbi: How Did Russiagate Start?

Authored by Matt Taibbi via RollingStone.com, Amid the chaos of James Comey's firing, new questions about the timeline of his fateful investigation Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper appeared on This Week Sunday, and said some head-scratching things. Clapper back in March told Meet the Press that when he issued a January 6th multiagency intelligence community assessment about Russian interference in the election, the report didn't include evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, essentially saying he hadn't been aware of any such evidence up through January 20th, his last day in office. On Sunday, he said that didn't necessarily mean there was no such evidence, because sometimes he left it up to agency chiefs like former FBI Director James Comey to inform him about certain things. "I left it to the judgment [of] Director Comey," Clapper said, "to decide whether, when and what to tell me about counterintelligence investigations." Clapper said something similar when he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee last Monday. In prepared remarks, he essentially said that there was nothing odd about his not being informed about the existence of an FBI counterintelligence investigation involving Donald Trump's campaign. Speaking generally, Clapper seemed to imply that the Trump-Russia-collusion scandal, the thing colloquially known as #Russiagate all over the world now, may have originated in information gleaned by the intelligence community, who in turn may have tipped off the FBI. "When the intelligence community obtains information suggesting that a U.S. person is acting on behalf of a foreign power," he said, "the standard procedure is to share that information with the lead investigatory body, which of course is the FBI." He went on, explaining that in such a situation, it wouldn't be unusual for the DNI to not be informed about an FBI counterintelligence investigation. "Given its sensitivity," he said, "even the existence of a counterintelligence investigation's closely held, including at the highest levels." In his Senate testimony, Clapper went out of his way to say this didn't contradict his earlier statements. But if he's not contradicting himself, he's certainly added a layer of confusion to what is already the most confusing political scandal ever. Back on March 5th, when Clapper gave that interview to Chuck Todd on Meet the Press, he sounded definitive on a number of counts. Todd for instance asked Clapper if he would know if the FBI had a FISA court order for surveillance. Clapper answered unequivocally: "Yes." Clapper made it clear that he would have known if there were any kind of surveillance authority against "the president elect at the time, or as a candidate, or against his campaign." Todd realized this was an important question and re-asked it, to make sure Clapper heard it right. "You would be told this?" he asked. "I would know that," Clapper answered. Todd asked again: Are you sure? Can you confirm or deny that a FISA warrant exists? "I can deny it," Clapper said flatly. It wasn't until the fourth time Todd asked the question that Clapper finally added the caveat, "Not to my knowledge." Even so, there was no way to listen to the March 5th interview and not come away feeling like Clapper believed he would have known of the existence of a FISA warrant, or of any indications of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, had they existed up until the time he left office on January 20th of this year. Todd went out of his way to hammer at the question of whether or not he knew of any evidence of collusion. Clapper again said, "Not to my knowledge." Here Todd appropriately pressed him: If it did exist, would you know? To this, Clapper merely answered, "This could have unfolded or become available in the time since I left the government." That's not an unequivocal "yes," but it's close. There's no way to compare Clapper's statements on March 5th to his interviews last week and not feel that something significant changed between then and now. Clapper's statements seem even stranger in light of James Comey's own testimony in the House on March 20th. In that appearance, Comey – who by then had dropped his bombshell about the existence of an investigation into Trump campaign figures – was asked by New York Republican Elise Stefanik when he notified the DNI about his inquiry. "Good question," Comey said. "Obviously, the Department of Justice has been aware of it all along. The DNI, I don't know what the DNI's knowledge of it was, because we didn't have a DNI – until Mr. Coats took office and I briefed him his first morning." Comey was saying that he hadn't briefed the DNI because between January 20th, when Clapper left office, and March 16th, when former Indiana senator and now Trump appointee Dan Coats took office, the DNI position was unfilled. But Comey had said the counterintelligence investigation dated back to July, when he was FBI director under a Democratic president. So what happened between July and January? If Comey felt the existence of his investigation was so important that he he had to disclose it to DNI Coats on Coats' first day in office, why didn't he feel the same need to disclose the existence of an investigation to Clapper at any time between July and January? Furthermore, how could the FBI participate in a joint assessment about Russian efforts to meddle in American elections and not tell Clapper and the other intelligence chiefs about what would seemingly be a highly germane counterintelligence investigation in that direction? Again, prior to last week, Clapper had said he would know if there was a FISA warrant issued on this matter. But then on April 11th, law enforcement and government officials leaked – anonymously, as has been the case throughout most of this story – that the FBI had obtained a FISA warrant for surveillance of Trump associate Carter Page. So what's going on here? In talking to people on the Hill last week, I heard a number of theories. One interpretation is that the FBI, concerned about operational security, conducted a secret investigation during the last months of Barack Obama's presidency without informing the likes of Clapper and other agency chiefs. But why hide your investigation in Obama's administration, only to tell superiors about it under Trump? Why keep a secret from Clapper and not Coats? Moreover, why hide it from the voting public before the election, but announce it on live TV on March 20th? Another interpretation is that Clapper was simply not telling the whole truth, either on March 20th or last week. In this version of events, he knew of the FBI investigation all along. More than one person I spoke with found it implausible that Clapper could have been ignorant of any investigation, especially following the issuance of the reported FISA warrant against Page. But the context of these interviews still makes Clapper dissembling in his March interview a strange and unlikely possibility. Clapper has not been in the habit of doing Trump political favors this season. And if indeed it's standard practice for a DNI to not know what counterintelligence operations the FBI might be up to, it would have made a lot more sense for Clapper to say that on Meet the Press on March 5th. Instead, he did Trump a solid by stating unequivocally that there were no FISA warrants out, and that he would have known if there were, adding he had seen no evidence of collusion. Why? When James Comey was fired last week, I didn't know what to think, because so much of this story is still hidden from view. Certainly firing an FBI director who has announced the existence of an investigation targeting your campaign is going to be improper in almost every case. And in his post-firing rants about tapes and loyalty, President Trump validated every criticism of him as an impetuous, unstable, unfit executive who additionally is ignorant of the law and lunges for authoritarian solutions in a crisis. But it's our job in the media to be bothered by little details, and the strange timeline of the Trump-Russia investigation qualifies as a conspicuous loose end. What exactly is the FBI investigating? Why was it kept secret from other intelligence chiefs, if that's what happened? That matters, if we're trying to gauge what happened last week. Is it a FARA (Foreign Agent Registration Act) case involving former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn or a lower-level knucklehead like Carter Page? Since FARA is violated more or less daily in Washington and largely ignored by authorities unless it involves someone without political connections (an awful lot of important people in Washington who appear to be making fortunes lobbying for foreign countries are merely engaged in "litigation support," if you ask them), it would be somewhat anticlimactic to find out that this was the alleged crime underlying our current white-hot constitutional crisis. Is it something more serious than a FARA case, like money-laundering for instance, involving someone higher up in the Trump campaign? That would indeed be disturbing, and it would surely be improper – possibly even impeachable, depending upon what exactly happened behind the scenes – for Trump to get in the way of such a case playing itself out. But even a case like that would be very different from espionage and treason. Gutting a money-laundering case involving a campaign staffer would be more like garden-variety corruption than the cloak-and-dagger nightmares currently consuming the popular imagination. However, let's say the FBI is actually investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian state. That's the most serious possibility, and the one exciting so much public dread. If it's that, what's at the heart of that case? Why can't we be told what's going on? Operational secrecy would be a believable excuse, were it not for the fact that so much else has been leaked. Intelligence sources even appeared to give up their ability to capture Russian officials celebrating Trump's election win. If something like that can be leaked, and if even foreign governments can be told about "leverages of pressure" Russia allegedly has on Trump, it stands to reason that the American public should have heard what's behind the Trump-Russia investigation by now. Trump easily could have committed some disqualifying act in response to this scandal. The worry about that is why we've always needed an independent investigation. Such an investigation into Trump's campaign might very well uncover a range of improprieties and shady dealings by some of the campaign "associates" who've figured into news reports. This wouldn't be surprising, I don't think, even to some of the people in the White House. But when it comes to the collusion investigation, there are serious questions. A lot of our civil liberties protections and rules of press ethics are designed to prevent exactly this situation, in which a person lingers for extended periods of time under public suspicion without being aware of the exact nature, or origin, of the accusations. It's why liberal thinkers have traditionally abhorred secret courts, secret surveillance and secret evidence, and in the past would have reflexively discouraged the news media from printing the unverified or unverifiable charges emanating from such secret sources. But because it's Donald Trump, no one seems to care. We should care. The uncertainty has led to widespread public terror, mass media hysteria and excess, and possibly even panic in the White House itself, where, who knows, Trump may even have risked military confrontation with Russia in an effort to shake the collusion accusations. All of this is exacerbated by the constant stream of leaks and hints at mother lodes of evidence that are just around the corner. It's quite literally driving the country crazy. The public deserves to know what's going on. It deserved to know before the election, it deserved to know before the inauguration, and it deserves to know now.

Выбор редакции
16 мая, 19:48

HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED FOR LYING TO CONGRESS: James Clapper’s Assault on Democracy. “You k…

HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED FOR LYING TO CONGRESS: James Clapper’s Assault on Democracy. “You know what does seriously erode our system of checks and balances? It’s when high-ranking government officials lie under oath to members of Congress. That’s what James Clapper did on March 12, 2013, while testifying before the Senate Select Committee on […]

16 мая, 17:00

Clapper: Defender Or Destroyer Of Democracy & Constitution?

Mainstream media is painting James Clapper as a reluctant warrior, returning from retirement to fight for truth, justice and the American way rather than the lying political hack who pried into our private lives and ripped the Constitution to pieces. As Rand Paul has pointed out, the real investigation that needs to take place is whether the surveillance state was used as a political weapon in the last election. Follow David on Twitter - https://twitter.com/libertytarian Help us spread the word about the liberty movement, we're reaching millions help us reach millions more. Share the free live video feed link with your friends & family: http://www.infowars.com/show Follow Alex on TWITTER - https://twitter.com/RealAlexJones Like Alex on FACEBOOK - https://www.facebook.com/AlexanderEmerickJones Infowars on G+ - https://plus.google.com/+infowars/ :Web: http://www.infowars.com/ http://www.prisonplanet.com/ http://www.infowars.net/ :Subscribe and share your login with 20 friends: http://www.prisonplanet.tv http://www.InfowarsNews.com Visit http://www.InfowarsLife.com to get the products Alex Jones and his family trust, while supporting the growth of our expanding media operation. [http://bit.ly/2dhnhbS] Biome Defense™ [http://bit.ly/2bnEj91] Bio-True Selenium™ [http://bit.ly/1WYw8jp] Vitamin Mineral Fusion™ [http://bit.ly/1QYBNBv] Joint Formula™ [http://bit.ly/1nNuR3r] Anthroplex™ [http://bit.ly/1ljfWfJ] Living Defense™ [http://bit.ly/1Iobcj2] Deep Cleanse™ [http://bit.ly/1DsyQ6i] Knockout™ [http://bit.ly/1Kr1yfz] Brain Force™ [http://bit.ly/1R5gsqk] Liver Shield™ [http://bit.ly/1cOwQix] ProstaGuard™ [http://bit.ly/1mnchEz3] Child Ease™ [http://bit.ly/1xs9F6t] WinterSunD3™ [http://bit.ly/1L3gDSO] Ancient Defense™ [http://bit.ly/1EHbA6E] Secret-12™ [http://bit.ly/1txsOge] Oxy Powder™ [http://bit.ly/1s6cphV] Occu Power™ [http://bit.ly/1rGOLsG] DNA Force™ [http://bit.ly/1nIngBb] X2 Survival Shield™ [http://bit.ly/1kaXxKL] Super Female Vitality™ [http://bit.ly/1mhAKCO] Lung Cleanse™ [http://bit.ly/1mGbikx] Silver-Bullet - Colloidal Silver™ [http://bit.ly/1xcoUfo] Super Male Vitality™ [http://bit.ly/1z5BCP9] Survival Shield - Nascent Iodine™ [http://bit.ly/1o4sQtc] Patriot Blend 100% Organic Coffee™ [http://bit.ly/1iVL6HB] Immune Support 100% Organic Coffee™ All available at - http://www.infowarsshop.com/ INFOWARS HEALTH - START GETTING HEALTHY BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE - http://www.infowarshealth.com/ Newsletter Sign up / Infowars Underground Insider : http://www.infowars.com/newsletter The Alex Jones Show © copyright, Free Speech Systems .LLC 1995 - 2017 All Rights Reserved. May use for fair use and educational purposes

16 мая, 02:20

'Fake News'? James Clapper Notes "Curious Pattern" Of Deaths Among Russian Elites

Earlier in the year, a number of non-mainstream media outlets noted the fact that an unusual number of high-ranking Russian diplomats were turning up dead. Mainstream media shunned the narrative as 'conspiracy' or 'fake news', which makes the fact that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper pointing out to CNN that there is a "curious pattern" of deaths even more intriguing. As we noted previously, seven Russian diplomats have died in the last 3 months - all but one died on foreign soil. Some were shot, while other causes of death are unknown. Note that a few deaths have been labeled "heart attacks" or "brief illnesses." 1. You probably remember Russia's Ambassador to Turkey, Andrei Karlov — he was assassinated by a police officer at a photo exhibit in Ankara on December 19.   2. On the same day, another diplomat, Peter Polshikov, was shot dead in his Moscow apartment. The gun was found under the bathroom sink but the circumstances of the death were under investigation. Polshikov served as a senior figure in the Latin American department of the Foreign Ministry.   3. Russia's Ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, died in New York this past week. Churkin was rushed to the hospital from his office at Russia's UN mission. Initial reports said he suffered a heart attack, and the medical examiner is investigating the death, according to CBS.   4. Russia's Ambassador to India, Alexander Kadakin, died after a "brief illness January 27, which The Hindu said he had been suffering from for a few weeks.   5. Russian Consul in Athens, Greece, Andrei Malanin, was found dead in his apartment January 9. A Greek police official said there was "no evidence of a break-in." But Malanin lived on a heavily guarded street. The cause of death needed further investigation, per an AFP report. Malanin served during a time of easing relations between Greece and Russia when Greece was increasingly critiqued by the EU and NATO.   6. Ex-KGB chief Oleg Erovinkin, who was suspected of helping draft the Trump dossier, was found dead in the back of his car December 26, according to The Telegraph. Erovinkin also was an aide to former deputy prime minister Igor Sechin, who now heads up state-owned Rosneft.   7. The top official of Russia's space agency, 56-year-old Vladimir Evdokimov, was found dead in his prison cell (where he was being questioned on charges of embezzlement). Investigators found two stab wounds on Evdokimov's body, but no determination had been made of whether they were self-inflicted. If we go back further than 3 months... 8. On the morning of U.S. Election Day, Russian diplomat Sergei Krivov was found unconscious at the Russian Consulate in New York and died on the scene. Initial reports said Krivov fell from the roof and had blunt force injuries, but Russian officials said he died from a heart attack. BuzzFeed reports Krivov may have been a Consular Duty Commander, which would have put him in charge of preventing sabotage or espionage.   9. In November 2015, a senior adviser to Putin, Mikhail Lesin, who was also the founder of the media company RT, was found dead in a Washington hotel room according to the NYT. The Russian media said it was a "heart attack," but the medical examiner said it was "blunt force injuries."   10. If you go back a few months prior in September 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s driver was killed too in a freak car accident while driving the Russian President’s official black BMW  to add to the insanity. If you include these three additional deaths that’s a total of ten Russian officials that have died over the past 2 years. Many have questioned whether this rash of deaths was being undertaken by the deep state in retaliation for Putin's defiance... former acting director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Michael Morell openly conspired to “covertly” kill Russians and Iranians in Syria in an August 2016 interview with Charlie Rose. While Morell was talking about killing Russian and Iranian soldiers it is definitely a strange piece to add to this puzzle. Are we witnessing a battle between the deep state and Russia in a spy versus spy plotline or is this all just a freak coincidence? Well, as The Hill reports, James Clapper, speaking to host Jake Tapper Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union", is here to set things straight... "Well, this obviously has been a curious pattern."   "We have had difficulty, though, in actually generating an evidentiary trail that could equate convincingly and compellingly in a court of law a direct connection between certain figures that have been eliminated who apparently ran afoul of Putin." Aha... So that's the narrative - back to the "Putin is a killer" meme. Clapper said it is an “interesting pattern. I will put it that way."   The wife of one of Putin’s most prominent critics, activist and journalist Vladimir Kara-Murza, said her husband had been poisoned again, after experiencing kidney failure and being put in a medically induced coma in February. She reportedly said the doctors diagnosed him with an “acute poisoning by an unidentified substance." President Trump, during an interview in early February with then-Fox News anchor Bill O'Reilly, defended Putin and objected to him being called "a killer." “We have a lot of killers,” Trump said at the time. “You think our country is so innocent?” Of course, Clapper was not done, he had plenty more to say on Trump... "I think in many ways our institutions are under assault both externally -- and that's the big news here is the Russian interference in our election system -- and I think as well our institutions are under assault internally,"   "The founding fathers, in their genius, created a system of three co-equal branches of government and a built-in system of checks and balances," Clapper said. "I feel as though that is under assault and is eroding." Presumably Clapper was upset at being the man Trump pointed to as clarifying the lack of evidence of a Trump-Russia collusion?

Выбор редакции
16 мая, 00:00

James Clapper's Assault on Democracy

Tom Bevan, RealClearPoliticsFormer Director of National Intelligence James Clapper kicked off his week by appearing on two Sunday morning news shows to opine on President Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey. One...

15 мая, 22:24

Deep State Swamp Things Strikes Again

President Donald Trump intends on draining the swamp. Knowing full well who they are, the swamp things like the scum they are have begun rising to the top. James Clapper, former director of national intelligence aka the deep state, a man that lied to congress about the violation of the rights of every American citizen. Is somehow a credible spokesperson presented to a supposed gullible America on the Mockingbird media circuit. Meanwhile, Maxine Waters…a race baiting Trump Troll, incoherently lunges with walnut brained zeal at the prospect of continuing the Commiefornia cloward and piven divide and conquer scheme to her hordes of anti white anti American supporters. If the criminals in DC were smart they would contain Maximum Overdrive Maxine before the swamp’s floodgates burst. Help us spread the word about the liberty movement, we're reaching millions help us reach millions more. Share the free live video feed link with your friends & family: http://www.infowars.com/show Follow Alex on TWITTER - https://twitter.com/RealAlexJones Like Alex on FACEBOOK - https://www.facebook.com/AlexanderEmerickJones Infowars on G+ - https://plus.google.com/+infowars/ :Web: http://www.infowars.com/ http://www.prisonplanet.com/ http://www.infowars.net/ :Subscribe and share your login with 20 friends: http://www.prisonplanet.tv http://www.InfowarsNews.com Visit http://www.InfowarsLife.com to get the products Alex Jones and his family trust, while supporting the growth of our expanding media operation. [http://bit.ly/2dhnhbS] Biome Defense™ [http://bit.ly/2bnEj91] Bio-True Selenium™ [http://bit.ly/1WYw8jp] Vitamin Mineral Fusion™ [http://bit.ly/1QYBNBv] Joint Formula™ [http://bit.ly/1nNuR3r] Anthroplex™ [http://bit.ly/1ljfWfJ] Living Defense™ [http://bit.ly/1Iobcj2] Deep Cleanse™ [http://bit.ly/1DsyQ6i] Knockout™ [http://bit.ly/1Kr1yfz] Brain Force™ [http://bit.ly/1R5gsqk] Liver Shield™ [http://bit.ly/1cOwQix] ProstaGuard™ [http://bit.ly/1mnchEz3] Child Ease™ [http://bit.ly/1xs9F6t] WinterSunD3™ [http://bit.ly/1L3gDSO] Ancient Defense™ [http://bit.ly/1EHbA6E] Secret-12™ [http://bit.ly/1txsOge] Oxy Powder™ [http://bit.ly/1s6cphV] Occu Power™ [http://bit.ly/1rGOLsG] DNA Force™ [http://bit.ly/1nIngBb] X2 Survival Shield™ [http://bit.ly/1kaXxKL] Super Female Vitality™ [http://bit.ly/1mhAKCO] Lung Cleanse™ [http://bit.ly/1mGbikx] Silver-Bullet - Colloidal Silver™ [http://bit.ly/1xcoUfo] Super Male Vitality™ [http://bit.ly/1z5BCP9] Survival Shield - Nascent Iodine™ [http://bit.ly/1o4sQtc] Patriot Blend 100% Organic Coffee™ [http://bit.ly/1iVL6HB] Immune Support 100% Organic Coffee™ All available at - http://www.infowarsshop.com/ INFOWARS HEALTH - START GETTING HEALTHY BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE - http://www.infowarshealth.com/ Newsletter Sign up / Infowars Underground Insider : http://www.infowars.com/newsletter The Alex Jones Show © copyright, Free Speech Systems .LLC 1995 - 2017 All Rights Reserved. May use for fair use and educational purposes

15 мая, 17:11

These Two Former Intelligence Chiefs Differ Sharply on Russia and Trump

Paul J. Saunders Politics, Americas America needs more Robert Gates and less James Clapper. In extended interviews, two former U.S. intelligence chiefs have provided dramatically different assessments of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election and its aftermath. Comparing their statements raises some important questions about the media controversies swirling about the Trump administration, including President Donald Trump’s firing of National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and, more recently, his dismissal of FBI director James Comey. Doing so likewise demonstrates how America’s media and political environments have distorted both the investigations into what happened and wider U.S. policy debates. Speaking to CNN’s Jake Tapper, retired Lt. Gen. James Clapper, who served as director of National Intelligence in the Obama administration, declared that America’s institutions are “under assault”—externally by Moscow, and internally by Trump, whom he accused of attacking “checks and balances” established by the nation’s founders. Clapper also sought to distance himself from earlier statements that he was unaware of any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials, bizarrely asserting that he was unaware of the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation until Comey disclosed it in March 2017 because, while he was in office, he “deferred” to the FBI director regarding “whether, when and what” to tell him about such probes. Clapper’s startling remarks are important for three reasons. First, the former intelligence official doesn’t seem to have a very precise understanding of the “checks and balances” established in the Constitution, which use executive, legislative and judicial branches against one another to ensure that none of them can amass excessive power. Firing an executive branch official can’t “assault” checks and balances because it is clearly within the president’s authority. Almost every other observer has acknowledged this. Read full article

Выбор редакции
15 мая, 16:00

American institutions are 'under assault' by Trump. But do people care?

James Clapper says Trump is waging war on U.S. institutions. And he's right. The questions is whether he'll succeed.

15 мая, 00:00

U.S. Needs More Robert Gates, Less James Clapper

Paul Saunders, National InterestIn extended interviews, two former U.S. intelligence chiefs have provided dramatically different assessments of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election and its aftermath. Comparing their statements raises some important questions about the media controversies swirling about the Trump administration, including President Donald Trump’s firing of National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and, more recently, his dismissal of FBI director James Comey. Doing so likewise demonstrates how America’s media and political environments have distorted both the investigations...

14 мая, 22:46

Бывший глава разведки США назвал отставку директора ФБР "очередной победой России"

Экс-глава Национальной разведки США Джеймс Клеппер в интервью ABC News назвал увольнение директора ФБР Джеймса Коми "очередной победой России".

14 мая, 22:03

Экс-глава Нацразведки США назвал "победой России" увольнение Коми

Бывший глава Нацразведки США Джеймс Клеппер в эфире ABC заявил, что России следует считать "своей победой" увольнение Джеймса Коми с поста директора ФБР. — То, что сейчас развернулось, я имею в виду увольнение главы расследования потенциальной тайны договорённости между Россией и кампанией Трампа. Поэтому Россия должна рассматривать это в качестве ещё одной победы, — заявил Клеппер. Как ранее сообщал Лайф, на этой неделе президент США Дональд Трамп уволил Коми, поскольку, как сообщалось в письме, тот не способен эффективно руководить ФБР. Напомним, США неоднократно обвиняли РФ во вмешательстве в американский избирательный процесс, при этом не представив никаких подтверждений своих обвинений.

14 мая, 19:36

James Clapper: democratic institutions are 'under assault' by Trump

Former national intelligence director hammers the president’s actions, calling James Comey’s firing ‘another victory for Russia’Former director of national intelligence James Clapper has accused Donald Trump of placing American democratic institutions “under assault” following the sacking of James Comey and cautioned that the former FBI director’s removal is “another victory” for Russia.The forceful criticism comes as the justice department began screening candidates for Comey’s replacement and Democrats renewed calls for a special prosecutor to oversee an investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. Continue reading...

14 мая, 19:11

Clapper: Comey firing 'another victory' for Russia

President Donald Trump’s decision to fire FBI Director James Comey is “another victory on the scoreboard” for the Russian government that has put the institutions of the U.S. government “under assault,” former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said Sunday morning.Trump’s dismissal of Comey amid the bureau’s investigation into Russian interference into last year’s presidential election and the possibility of collusion between Trump associates and the Kremlin raised alarm in Washington and beyond, but Clapper said the move would be celebrated in Moscow."Their first objective was to sow doubt, discord, and dissension in this country. And the Russians have to be celebrating with a minimal expenditure of resources in what they have accomplished,” he told ABC’s “This Week,” one of two Sunday morning political talk shows on which he appeared. “The lead of the investigation about potential collusion and Russia and the Trump campaign has been removed. So the Russians have to consider this as another victory on the scoreboard for them."Further, Clapper told CNN’s “State of the Union,” the firing represents an “assault” on the institutions of government that Russia’s campaign of cyberattacks targeted during the 2016 presidential race.“In many ways, our institutions are under assault, both externally — and that's the big news here, is the Russian interference in our election system. And I think as well our institutions are under assault internally,” Clapper said.“Internally from the president?” CNN anchor Jake Tapper followed up.“Exactly,” Clapper replied. “The Founding Fathers, in their genius, created a system of three co-equal branches of government and a built-in system of checks and balances. And I feel as though that's under assault and is eroding.”The former director of national intelligence also refuted the suggestion made by the president and others that Clapper’s past statements that he was unaware of evidence of collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign should be interpreted to mean that no such collusion occurred. In fact, Clapper reiterated, he did not know of the existence of an investigation into Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election until it was confirmed by Comey in testimony before a Congressional committee.“My statements should not be considered exculpatory,” Clapper told CNN. “The bottom line is, I don't know if there was collusion, political collusion, and I don't know of any evidence to it, so I can't refute it and I can't confirm it.”

14 мая, 17:59

James Clapper On Donald Trump: 'Our Institutions Are Under Assault'

WASHINGTON ― Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said Sunday that “our institutions are under assault internally” by President Donald Trump, who is “eroding” the American system of “checks and balances” on political power. “The developments of the past week are very bothersome, very disturbing to me,” Clapper told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “I think in many ways, our institutions are under assault externally and that’s the big news here, is the Russian interference in our election system. And I think as well, our institutions are under assault internally.” Tapper asked Clapper if “internally” indicated Trump. “Exactly,” Clapper responded. Trump fired FBI Director James Comey this week, and told NBC News that he did so out of frustration with the agency’s continued investigation into alleged Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. Trump later tweeted that Comey should be careful about “leaking to the press,” in case “tapes” of conversations between Comey and Trump exist. The tweet was widely interpreted as a threat to Comey. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) called the tweet  “inappropriate” during an appearance on NBC Sunday. On Sunday, Clapper praised the American “system of three coequal branches of government” created by “the founding fathers” with “a built-in system of checks and balances.” “I feel as though that’s under assault and is eroding,” Clapper said, adding that congressional Republicans should publicly condemn the president’s recent activities. “I hope they’ll speak up,” he said. Clapper lied to Congress in 2013 about the Obama administration’s mass surveillance activities, infuriating some Democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans, some of whom called for the government to pursue perjury charges against him. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

14 мая, 14:30

Семеро на одно кресло. Кто станет новым директором ФБР?

Дональд Трамп действовал так стремительно, как только мог. 7 мая 2017 года бывший директор Национальной разведки Джеймс Клеппер и бывшая глава Министерства юстиции Салли Йейтс, уволенная президентом Трампом из-за отказа выполнять так называемый "миграционный указ" главы государства, дали в конгрессе показания по поводу "рашенгейта" — расследования о влиянии России на исход американских выборов. Когда два бывших высокопоставленных чиновника, причисляющих себя к врагам Трампа, заявили под присягой, что у спецслужб США нет и никогда не было никаких доказательств связи Трампа с российским президентом, присутствовавший на слушаниях зять президента Джаред Кушнер тут же позвонил в Белый дом: — Это наш шанс! Теперь у нас развязаны руки! Уже на следующий день в Белый дом пришло официальное письмо от министра юстиции США, генерального прокурора Джеффа Сешнса и его заместителя Рода Розенстайна, которые потребовали у президента увольнения директора ФБР Джеймса Коми. В тот же день Трамп распорядился подготовить указ об увольнении Коми. Сам Джеймс Коми узнал о своём увольнении из телевизора — в этот момент он находился в Лос-Анджелесе, где выступал перед сотрудниками местной штаб-квартиры ФБР. Внезапно один из агентов подал ему знак остановиться: — Прошу прощения, сэр, но вам нужно кое-что услышать… По телевизору как раз шёл выпуск новостей из Вашингтона, и пресс-секретарь президента зачитывал указ об отставке директора ФБР. Коми сначала не поверил своим ушам: — Хороший розыгрыш, ребята! Ха-ха-ха! — Сэр, но это не розыгрыш… Новость об увольнении директора ФБР стала шоком не только для Джеймса Коми, но и для всего мира — с тех пор как Коми всего за две недели до выборов возобновил расследование уголовного дела против Хиллари Клинтон, фактически обеспечив победу Дональду Трампу, он считался "непотопляемой фигурой". Более того, именно Коми открыл расследование связей Трампа с российскими должностными лицами, что только упрочило репутацию Коми как человека, крепко ухватившего американского президента за нежные филейные части. Но, как выяснилось, Дональд Трамп не любит чувствовать себя должником слишком долго. Примечательно, но именно дело Клинтон, так и не доведённое до логического конца, и стало поводом для увольнения Коми. Как писали Джефф Сешнс и Род Розенстайн, "нарушение принципов и процедур в ходе расследования дела Клинтон нанесло значительный ущерб репутации и авторитету не только ФБР, но и всего Минюста". Немало раздражения у президента вызвало и желание Коми продолжить расследование "рашенгейта", который сам Трамп называл "фарсом, устроенным за счёт средств налогоплательщиков". Но Коми как будто бы игнорировал намёки Трампа. Накануне своей отставки он просил Конгресс США выделить ФБР дополнительный бюджет на продолжение расследования. Сомнительный ирландец  Что ж, сразу же после отставки Джеймса Коми встал логичный вопрос: кто будет следующим руководителем ФБР? Пока что исполняющим обязанности главы бюро стал заместитель директора Эндрю Маккейб — профессиональный агент, проработавший в бюро свыше 20 лет. Правда, в самом ФБР он считается временной фигурой. Выходец из семьи ирландских иммигрантов, Эндрю Маккейб подал заявление о приёме в ФБР ещё в 1990 году, сразу после окончания Университета Дьюка в Северной Каролине. Правда, тогда ФБР из-за структурных реформ объявило трёхлетний мораторий на приём новых сотрудников, так что Эндрю пришлось эти три года провести в "листе ожидания". В 1993 году он был принят в ряды ФБР, а в 1996-м получил своё первое назначение — в штаб-квартиру ФБР в Нью-Йорке, где ему поручили заниматься организованной преступностью. Интересно, что в то же самое время в нью-йоркской полиции по линии борьбы с итальянской коза ностра работал и его дядя Кеннет Маккейб, прославившийся на всю страну после ареста самого "крёстного отца" Джона Готти, который получил у журналистов кличку Тефлоновый Джо — до этого главаря мафии трижды оправдывали в подкупленном суде присяжных. Также Кеннет Маккейб участвовал в деле и против деятельности "семьи Гамбино" — итальянского мафиозного синдиката, который со времён сухого закона контролировал всю организованную преступную деятельность в Нью-Йорке. Интересно, что все мафиозные дела рассматривались в окружном суде Нью-Йорка под председательством судьи Лео Глассера, помощником которого и был будущий шеф ФБР Джеймс Коми — тоже, кстати, выходец из ирландской диаспоры. Неудивительно, что при покровительстве родственников и земляков карьера Эндрю Маккейба стремительно пошла вверх. В 2003 году он стал руководителем специального отдела ФБР по борьбе с "евразийской организованной преступностью", затем возглавил вашингтонскую штаб-квартиру ФБР — крупнейший в стране полевой офис бюро. В 2009 году — новое назначение. Маккейб стал главой Комиссии по расследованию законности применения пыток в ЦРУ и в американской армии. Вывод комиссии обрадовал всех силовиков: пытки, вернее, "высокоагрессивные методы допроса" (например, обливание водой или утопление), были признаны законным методом получения информации. Благодарность не заставила себя ждать: в 2012 году Маккейб был назначен руководителем Отдела ФБР по борьбе с терроризмом (The Counterterrorism Division CTD) — своего рода "спецслужбы внутри спецслужбы", сотрудники которой обладают безграничными полномочиями. Правда, вскоре выяснилось, что и у Маккейба с его безупречной репутацией законника есть свои скелеты в шкафу. В 2015 году Джилл Маккейб, супруга Эндрю, объявила о своём желании баллотироваться в Сенат США от штата Северная Виргиния — как кандидат от демократической партии. Губернатор штата Терри Маколифф, доверенное лицо Билла и Хиллари Клинтонов, обещал ей полную поддержку и даже выделил в её избирательный фонд 467 тысяч долларов из средств Фонда Клинтонов. Ещё 200 тысяч пожертвовал местный комитет демократической партии. Выборы Джилл Маккейб проиграла — обычное дело, с кем не бывает? Информация о пожертвованиях всплыла через год, когда её супруг возглавил расследование скандала с электронной перепиской Хиллари Клинтон. Бывшего руководителя внешнеполитического ведомства в администрации Барака Обамы уличили в использовании личного почтового сервера для служебного общения, что граничило с разглашением гостайны.  Ещё больше вопросов возникло в связи с тем, что пожертвования будто бы "растворились" в воздухе — по данным The Wall Street Journal и других СМИ, полученные средства Эндрю Маккейб будто бы скрыл от налогообложения, что является серьёзным преступлением по законам США. Но подозрения так и остались подозрениями. Расследование в отношении Хиллари Клинтон было приостановлено "за отсутствием улик". Сам же Эндрю Маккейб пошёл на повышение — Джеймс Коми назначил его своим заместителем. Ещё одно "пятнышко" на мундире Маккейба — организация незаконной прослушки телефона бывшего советника президента Майкла Т. Флинна, которого ФБР уличило в переговорах с российским послом Сергеем Кисляком. Впрочем, на фоне "разоблачений" "рашенгейта" на такую "мелочь", как законность прослушивания телефонных переговоров советников главы американского государства, решили попросту не обращать внимания. Но теперь Маккейбу могут припомнить и прослушку Флинна, и красноречивую фразу, оброненную на одном из заседаний с участием представителей спецслужб: "Если мы ударим по Флинну, мы ударим по Трампу!" Мэр, начальник полиции и враг зятя Трампа Между тем, пока ФБР приходит в себя, американские медиа уже опубликовали некий "список кандидатур", которых Дональд Трамп хотел бы видеть во главе самой могущественной спецслужбы США. Список производит странное впечатление — практически все упомянутые кандидатуры можно считать "непроходными".   Возглавляет список настоящий политический тяжеловес США — 72-летний экс-мэр Нью-Йорка Рудольф Джулиани. Джулиани — юрист по образованию, он начинал свою политическую карьеру с работы в прокуратуре, а в начале 80-х он прославился как обвинитель Джозефа Бонанно (Бананового Джо), известного босса нью-йоркской мафии.  Правда, сам Джулиани, консультирующий главу Белого дома по вопросам кибербезопасности, уже поспешил опровергнуть слухи о своём назначении: — Я не являюсь кандидатом, — заявил он журналистам. — Президент не собирается спрашивать меня, а я не собираюсь становиться директором ФБР. Второй кандидат — это 76-летний бывший начальник полиции Нью-Йорка Рэймонд Келли, известный тем, что он дольше кого бы то ни было в истории командовал полицейским департаментом NYPD. Впрочем, за плечами Келли богатый опыт работы в самых различных областях. Келли уже предлагали возглавить ФБР — после расследования взрыва во Всемирном торговом центре в 1993 году. Но тогда он отказался, мотивируя это тем, что не хочет переезжать из родного Нью-Йорка в Вашингтон. По иронии судьбы, после этого Келли в первый раз уволили с должности начальника полиции Нью-Йорка и вторично отправили во Вьетнам, но теперь уже не как морпеха, а как посла США. Вернувшись из Ханоя, он снова пошёл служить в полицию — это произошло как раз накануне терактов 11 сентября 2001 года. Именно Келли тогда создал программу компьютерной слежки за каждым подозрительным человеком на улицах мегаполиса, после чего сам президент Барак Обама предложил Келли возглавить Министерство внутренней безопасности США. И вновь Келли отказался от повышения, решив уйти со службы в частный бизнес.  Почему сейчас президент Дональд Трамп рассчитывает получить от Келли какой-либо иной ответ — совершенно непонятно.  Ещё один совершенно непроходной политический тяжеловес — бывший конгрессмен-республиканец и бывший агент ФБР Майкл Роджерс, курировавший работу Комитета Конгресса по делам разведки. Несколько лет назад Роджерса даже прочили на должность директора ЦРУ — тогда Обама отчаянно нуждался в поддержке республиканцев и был готов поделиться с оппозицией ключевыми должностями. Но в итоге Роджерс остался на скамейке запасных. Невелики его шансы и сегодня — дело в том, что Роджерс на недавних партийных выборах-праймериз выступал доверенным лицом несостоявшегося кандидата в президенты от республиканцев Криса Кристи, бывшего судьи, который осудил отца Джареда Кушнера, президентского зятя. И Кушнер скорее костьми ляжет на пороге Белого дома, чем пропустит кого-либо из окружения Кристи к власти. В листе ожидания упомянут и Кеннет Леонард Вайнштейн — бывший советник по национальной безопасности президента Джорджа Буша — младшего. Это один из самых засекреченных американских политиков — вот уже много лет Кен Вайнштейн входит в группу Blue Ribbon (BRSPB). Это правительственная исследовательская группа по изучению угрозы применения биологического оружия. Именно люди из Blue Ribbon ищут и успешно "находят" в Ираке и в Сирии химическое и биологическое оружие.  "Народный шериф" Пожалуй, самый неожиданный, но в то же время самый экзотичный и харизматичный член "трамповского списка" — это "ковбой" Дэвид Кларк. Чернокожий шериф из графства Милуоки, штат Висконсин. Архиконсерватор в ковбойской шляпе и с медалью "Народного шерифа" на груди. Кларк действительно вышел из народа — он родился в бедной семье фермеров из Милуоки. С детства играл в баскетбол, который стал его пропуском наверх. Как члена баскетбольной команды его приняли в колледж, а затем в Университет Висконсина, где Дэвид Кларк получил диплом юриста. Затем он продолжил образование в Квантико — престижной академии ФБР, где готовят лучших из лучших агентов бюро. Однако в 70-е годы путь в Нью-Йорк для чернокожего фермера был закрыт. И Кларк вернулся в родной штат, где стал простым патрульным офицером. После 11 лет службы в патруле он был назначен в отдел по расследованию убийств. 15 лет назад Кларк выиграл свои первые выборы на должность шерифа графства, и с тех пор он стал настоящим символом полиции Милуоки. И полным опровержением всех стереотипов об Америке — он чернокожий полицейский, который презирает все "чёрные" правозащитные организации, обвиняя их в расистской идеологии. Правозащитники платят шерифу такой же монетой, и неслучайно именно в Милуоки летом прошлого года, после убийства 23-летнего чернокожего грабителя, застреленного полицейским в ходе погони, вспыхнули массовые беспорядки. Толпа из сотни человек накинулась на полицейские участки, некоторые били стёкла патрульных автомобилей, один из участков был подожжён. Шериф тогда твёрдо занял сторону своих подчинённых. — Полиция вне политики, — говорил шериф Кларк. — Если кто-то нарушает закон, мне совершенно наплевать, какого у него цвета кожа, республиканец он или демократ… Выступление шерифа и последовавшая затем публичная поддержка от кандидата в президенты Дональда Трампа только подлили масла в огонь — в августе 2016 года беспорядки на расовой почве прокатились уже по всей Америке, многие чернокожие стреляли по офицерам полиции. Что ж, в ответ шериф Кларк совершенно неожиданно для многих местных политиков заявил о полной поддержке кандидатуры Трампа и стал его добровольным доверенным лицом. — Трамп — это единственный политик, который говорит с афроамериканцами как взрослый человек со взрослыми людьми, — так он объяснил свой выбор журналистам. — Остальные говорят с афроамериканцами очень снисходительно, что только потворствует самыми низменным инстинктам. В ответ Трамп заявил, что только такие люди, как шериф Кларк, и достойны управлять Америкой. Так что совсем не случайно Трамп вспомнил о суровом шерифе из Милуоки — возможно, только такой "ковбой" и сможет навести порядок в американских спецслужбах. Правда, на пути шерифа Кларка есть и существенное препятствие: кандидатуру директора ФБР должен утвердить Конгресс США, а вот парламентарии вполне могут предпочесть брутальному "ковбою" какую-нибудь послушную "тёмную лошадку". Ещё по теме: Большой босс ФБР. Как Джеймс Коми боролся с мафией и уничтожил Клинтон "Теневой кабинет" Трампа. Кто на самом деле правит в Вашингтоне? Они шпионили за Дональдом. Грандиозный политический скандал в США Тайная война спецслужб. Кто придумал "русских хакеров" и взломал Хиллари?

01 октября 2014, 00:30

«Исламское государство» — проект американского происхождения

Подняв флаг борьбы с «Исламским государством» (ИГ), США наносят теперь авиаудары по позициям ИГ не только в Ираке, но и в Сирии. Делается это без согласия правительства Сирии и без принятия соответствующего решения Советом Безопасности ООН. Начинают оправдываться опасения Москвы и Тегерана на тот счёт, что целью ракетно-бомбовых ударов является окончательное уничтожение сирийской инфраструктуры. По заявлению представителя Пентагона Джона Кирби, США нанесли авиаудары по 12 нефтеперерабатывающим заводам в Сирии. Якобы их контролировали боевики-экстремисты. Таких атак по позициям ИГ, говорит Джон Кирби, «будет больше». Здесь следует напомнить, что мятеж в Сирии, продолжающийся четвёртый год, стал разрастаться практически синхронно с подписанием 25 июня 2011 г. в Бушере меморандума о строительстве нового газопровода Иран – Ирак – Сирия. Борьбу американцев с правительством Башара Асада справедливо называют войной за нефть и газ. Дамаск попал в число врагов Америки в 2009 году, когда Асад отказался принять американский план строительства газопровода из Катара в Европу. Вместо этого Сирия предпочла сделку с Ираном, дав согласие на участие в строительстве газопровода через Ирак к своим портам на Средиземном море. Именно тогда всемирную известность приобрели слова бывшего госсекретаря США Генри Киссинджера: «Нефть слишком важна, чтобы оставлять ее арабам». Создание халифата на обширной территории Ирака и Сирии ведет к потере Соединенными Штатами (ExxonMobil Corporation) и Великобританией (BP и Royal Dutch Shell) позиций в нефтегазовом секторе Ирака и возможности доступа (после приближаемой американцами смены режима в Дамаске) к сирийским запасам углеводородов. Пока террористы ИГ воевали с сирийскими правительственными войсками, они американцев устраивали, но как только они вторглись в Ирак и объявили о создании собственного государства, Америка объявила им войну. Никаких двойных стандартов у США здесь нет. Налицо неизменное стремление американской элиты к мировому господству, и война с «Исламским государством» – всего лишь локальная операция. В позиции США много нестыковок и противоречий, а объясняются они тем, что Вашингтону всё труднее диктовать свои условия остальному миру. Нет сомнения в том, что Сирия остается для США главной мишенью на Ближнем Востоке, в том числе с точки зрения реализации планов по ослаблению России. «Исламское государство» — это проект американского происхождения, его цель — создание мощной дестабилизирующей волны, которая распространится вглубь Евразии. На первом этапе, переключая внимание международного сообщества на борьбу с ИГ, американцы подготавливают под шумок свержение президента Башара Асада. Именно так оценивают односторонние действия Вашингтона против «Исламского государства» многие страны мира. Поэтому не получилось у Обамы и формирование «широкой» коалиции. Американцам удалось добиться возмещения своих расходов монархиями Персидского залива (Бахрейн, Катар, Саудовская Аравия и ОАЭ), удалось склонить Иорданию предоставить свою инфраструктуру, привлечь к нанесению авиаударов некоторых союзников по НАТО - Великобританию, Францию, Бельгию и Данию. По данным Госдепартамента, 54 страны и три международные организации - ЕС, НАТО и Лига арабских государств – тоже обещали внести в эту кампанию свой вклад. Однако анонсированное Джоном Керри «всемирное» участие в коалиции не состоялось. Доверие к Америке осталось лишь у немногих. Мир еще не забыл, как в 2003 году США вторглись в Ирак без санкции ООН. Вашингтон тогда заявлял, что Ирак ведёт разработки оружия массового поражения и разоружить его нужно силой. Голосование в СБ ООН по этому вопросу так и не состоялось, поскольку Россия, Китай и Франция дали понять, что наложат вето на любой проект резолюции, подразумевающий применение военной силы против Ирака. Тогда, как и сейчас, США вызывающе пренебрегли международным общественным мнением, агрессия против Ирака началась, страна была разрушена, и последствия этого мы наблюдаем по сей день. Сегодня история повторяется. Джеймс Клеппер, глава Национальной разведки США, во время своего ежегодного выступления перед сенатской комиссией по разведке (29 января 2014) отчитался в угрозах, нависших над Америкой. Коснулся он и Сирии, сообщив ничему не соответствующие данные о составе «повстанцев». Его главный тезис состоял в том, что на 80% это «умеренные» противники режима, которые вполне могут принимать финансовую помощь США, за предоставление которой американский сенат в свое время тайно проголосовал. Теперь эти «умеренные» в одночасье превратились в непримиримых террористов, и против одной из их организаций американцы начали войну. Заметим: не против террористов вообще, а лишь против «Исламского государства». Интересно, а что думают руководители американской разведки об «умеренности» группировки «Джебхат ан-Нусра», этого сирийского отделения «Аль-Каиды»? В ответ на авиаудары по территории Сирии лидеры «Джебхат ан-Нусра» уже заявили о готовности противостоять Америке совместно с ИГ. Своими действиями американцы консолидируют терроризм. В эфире телеканала CBS Обама заявил, что в свое время американским военным удалось нанести поражение «Аль-Каиде» в Ираке, после чего организация «ушла в подполье», но «за последние два года, воспользовавшись хаосом во время гражданской войны в Сирии, боевики смогли восстановить свои силы». О том, что хаос и гражданская война в Сирии - прямое следствие действий США на Ближнем Востоке, американский президент не сказал. Председатель Объединенного комитета начальников штабов США генерал Мартин Демпси считает, что для успешной борьбы с группировкой «Исламское государство» в Ираке и Сирии необходимо провести наземную операцию. По мнению Демпси, нужно принять политическое решение и ввести войска в эти страны. Если это произойдёт, дестабилизирующая волна начнёт распространяться за пределы Сирии и Ирака, ряды террористов пополнятся новыми непримиримыми бойцами, а перед военно-промышленным комплексом США откроются захватывающие дух перспективы.