The Deep State War Heats Up :ph34r:

[Benjamin Franklin]

You can tie the House of Saud to plenty of global shenanigans. But that has nothing to do with the U.S. media not covering the stories.

 

He can explain everything. Why argue?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

He can explain everything. Why argue?

 

That's the exact opposite of what I claim.

[/dev/null]

You can tie the House of Saud to plenty of global shenanigans.

[Deranged Rhino]

Good article, worth the time. Tackles the real question that those who are blindly supporting the concocted Russian Hacking meme should be asking themselves:

(It also goes into the answers to the question you asked up thread K-9)

 

What’s Worse: Trump’s Campaign Agenda or Empowering Generals and CIA Operatives to Subvert it?

 

 

 

Nonetheless, Trump, as a matter of rhetoric, repeatedly affirmed policy positions that were directly contrary to long-standing bipartisan orthodoxy, and his policy and personal instability only compounded elites’ fears that he could not be relied upon to safeguard their lucrative, power-vesting agenda. In so many ways – due to his campaign positions, his outsider status, his unstable personality, his witting and unwitting unmasking of the truth of U.S. hegemony, the embarrassment he causes in western capitals, his reckless unpredictability – Trump posed a threat to their power centers.

 

It is often claimed that this trans-partisan, elite coalition assembled against Trump because they are simply American patriots horrified by the threat he poses to America’s noble traditions and institutions. I guess if you want to believe that the CIA, the GOP consulting class, and assorted D.C. imperialists, along with Bush-era neocons like Bill Kristol and David Frum, woke up one day and developed some sort of earnest, patriotic conscience about democracy, ethics, constitutional limits, and basic decency, you’re free to believe that. It makes for a nice, moving story: a film from the Mr.-Smith-Goes-to-Washington genre. But at the very least, Trump’s campaign assaults on their most sacred pieties was, and remains, a major factor in their seething contempt for him.

 

(snip)

 

 

Although it is now common to assert – as a form of in-the-know mockery – that the notion of a “Deep State” in the U.S. was invented by Trump supporters only in the last year, the reality is that the U.S. Deep State has been reported on and openly discussed in numerous circles long before Trump. In 2010, the Washington Post’s Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Dana Priest, along with Bill Arkin, published a three-part series which the paper entitled “Top Secret America: A hidden world, growing beyond control.”

 

The Post series documented that the military-intelligence community “has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.” The Post concluded that it “amounts to an alternative geography of the United States, a Top Secret America hidden from public view and lacking in thorough oversight.”

 

(snip)

 

That the U.S. has a shadowy, secretive world of intelligence and military operatives who exercise great power outside of elections and democratic accountability is not some exotic, alt-right conspiracy theory; it’s utterly elemental to understanding anything about how Washington works. It’s hard to believe that anyone on this side of a 6th Grade civics class would seek to deny that.

 

(snip)

 

The current storyline is that Kelly has aligned with Trump’s National Security Advisor, Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, to bring seriousness and order to the White House. In particular, these two military men are systematically weakening and eliminating many of the White House officials who are true adherents to the domestic and foreign policy worldview on which Trump’s campaign was based. These two military officials (along with yet another retired General, Defense Secretary James Mattis) have long been hailed by anti-Trump factions as the Serious, Responsible Adults in the Trump administration, primarily because they support militaristic policies – such as the war in Afghanistan and intervention in Syria – that is far more in line with official Washington’s bipartisan posture.

 

As the Atlantic’s Rosie Gray reports, McMaster has successfully fired several national security officials aligned with Steve Bannon and the nationalistic, purportedly non-interventionist foreign policy and anti-Muslim worldview Trump advocated throughout the election. As Gray notes, this has provoked anger among Trump supporters who view the assertion of power by these Generals as an undemocratic attack against the policies for which the electorate voted. Gray writes: “McMaster’s show of force has set off alarm bells among Bannon allies in the pro-Trump media sphere, who favored Flynn and regard the national-security adviser as a globalist interloper.”

 

In a bizarre yet illuminating reflection of rapidly shifting political alliances, Democratic Party think tanks and other groups have rallied behind McMaster as some sort of besieged, stalwart hero whose survival is critical to the Republic, notwithstanding the fact that, by all accounts, he is fighting to ensure the continuation of the U.S. war in Afghanistan and escalate it in Syria. As usually happens these days, these Democrats are in lockstep with their new neocon partners, led by Bill Kristol, who far prefer the unelected agenda of McMaster and Kelly to the one that Trump used to get elected:

 

(snip)

 

Whatever else is true, there is now simply no question that there is open warfare between adherents to the worldview Trump advocated in order to win, and the permanent national security power faction in Washington that – sometimes for good, and sometimes for evil – despises that agenda.

 

(snip)

 

It’s particularly ironic that many of the same people who have spent the year ridiculing the notion that the U.S. has any kind of Deep State are now trumpeting the need for the U.S. military to save the Republic from the elected government, given that this, roughly speaking, is the defining attribute of all Deep States, at least as they depict themselves.

 

(snip)

 

No matter how much of a threat one regards Trump as being, there really are other major threats to U.S. democracy and important political values. It’s hard, for instance, to imagine any group that has done more harm, and ushered in more evil, than the Bush-era neocons with whom Democrats are now openly aligning. And who has brought more death, and suffering, and tyranny to the world over the last six decades than the U.S. National Security State?

 

In terms of some of the popular terms that are often thrown around these days – such as “authoritarianism” and “democratic norms” and “U.S. traditions” – it’s hard to imagine many things that would pose a greater threat to all of that than empowering the National Security State (what, before Trump, has long been called the Deep State) to exert precisely the power that is supposed to be reserved exclusively for elected officials. In sum, Trump opponents should be careful of what they wish for, as it might come true.

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Scott Ritter (who himself is a VIP but did not sign the most recent report) chimes in, worth the read:

 

Time to Reassess the Roles Played by Guccifer 2.0 and Russia in the DNC ‘Hack’

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/time_to_reassess_roles_of_guccifer_20_and_russia_in_dnc_hack_20170727

 

This group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), used a portion of its collective experience to closely examine a forensic analysis of metadata-related information that the U.S. intelligence community and its supporters in Congress claimed was “hacked” by Russia. Documents from the DNC were copied by the persona Guccifer 2.0 on July 5, 2016, collated on Sept. 1 and released to select members of the press on Sept. 13.

 

(snip)

 

I agree with the argument of the July 24 VIPS memorandum that takes issue with the Jan. 6, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russian meddling. This NIA evaluation assessed “with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona … to release U.S. victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks.” The assessments contained within the Russia ICA, which lies at the very heart of the ongoing controversy surrounding accusations of collusion by people affiliated with the Trump presidential campaign and Russia, is demonstrably wrong. The VIPS memorandum to President Trump is a valuable contribution to a larger discussion of the intelligence community’s erroneous assessment that is, otherwise, lacking.

 

(snip)

 

Guccifer 2.0 has claimed he accessed the DNC server through remote hacking, and an investigation of unauthorized intrusions into the DNC server conducted by a private cybersecurity company, CrowdStrike, has attributed the theft of data to a hacking operation ostensibly overseen by Russian military intelligence, or the GRU. The FBI has endorsed the findings of CrowdStrike when it comes to the cyber-intrusion into the DNC server. As such, there is little doubt that the NIA is referring to a remote hack when it speaks of a “cyber operation” involving the DNC.

 

The analysis contained in the VIPS memorandum contradicts such an assertion. Unfortunately, this conclusion is not supported by the data.

 

(snip)

 

Metadata analysis of several Word documents related to that release clearly shows that the contents of at least four documents were cut from the original document and then pasted into a Word template specifically set up for the Cyrillic alphabet, and which showed document attribution, in the Cyrillic alphabet, to “Felix Edmundovich,” the first name and patronymic of the founder of the Soviet intelligence service.

 

This cut-and-paste activity was conducted after the documents were accessed by Guccifer 2.0, which means Guccifer 2.0, for no practical reason whatsoever, manipulated documents in a way that created the impression of a Russian connection at the same time he was denying any such link.

 

(snip)

 

The implications of the conclusions reached in the VIPS memorandum (if not the actual technical analysis it relied on) are staggering: The DNC “hack” was actually a cyber-theft perpetrated by an insider with direct access to the DNC server, who then deliberately doctored documents to make them look as if they had been accessed by a Russian-speaking actor prior to releasing them to the public. This is not the narrative being pushed by the U.S. intelligence, Congress and the mainstream media. Moreover, if true, the conclusions reached by VIPS point to a broader conspiracy within the United States to undermine the credibility of an admittedly unpopular, yet legitimately elected president that borders on sedition.

 

These are serious allegations that should not be made lightly. Indeed, if I were acting solely on the information contained within the VIPS memorandum, I would hesitate to make them—the issue of download rates for a data set dated July 5, 2016, seems irrelevant for a cyber-intrusion alleged to have taken place in April-May of 2016.

 

(snip)

 

The VIPS memorandum serves a larger purpose here: It questions a premise that has become de rigueur in the national narrative—that Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian actor.

 

(snip)

 

Rep. Schiff, the aforementioned Democratic co-chair of the House Intelligence Committee, stated in March 2017 that “a hacker who goes by the moniker, Guccifer 2.0, claims responsibility for hacking the DNC and giving the documents to WikiLeaks. … The U.S. intelligence community also later confirmed that the documents were in fact stolen by Russian intelligence, and Guccifer 2.0 acted as a front.”

 

The problem is that there simply isn’t any hard data in the public domain to back up these statements of fact. What is known is that a persona using the name Guccifer 2.0 published documents said to be sourced from the DNC on several occasions starting from June 15, 2016. Guccifer 2.0 claims to have stolen these documents by perpetrating a cyber-penetration of the DNC server. However, the hacking methodology Guccifer 2.0 claims to have employed does not match the tools and techniques allegedly uncovered by the cybersecurity professionals from CrowdStrike when they investigated the DNC intrusion. Moreover, cyber-experts claim the Guccifer 2.0 “hack” could not have been executed as he described.

 

(snip)

 

CrowdStrike claimed that the presence of the X-Agent malware was a clear “signature” of a hacking group—APT 28, or Fancy Bear—previously identified by German intelligence as being affiliated with the GRU, Russian military intelligence. Additional information about the command and control servers used by Fancy Bear, which CrowdStrike claims were previously involved in Russian-related hacking activity, was also reported.

 

The CrowdStrike data is unconvincing. First and foremost, the German intelligence report it cites does not make an ironclad claim that APT 28 is, in fact, the GRU. In fact, the Germans only “assumed” that GRU conducts cyberattacks. They made no claims that they knew for certain that any Russians, let alone the GRU, were responsible for the 2015 cyberattack on the German Parliament, which CrowdStrike cites as proof of GRU involvement. Second, the malware in question is available on the open market, making it virtually impossible to make any attribution at all simply by looking at similarities in “tools and techniques.” Virtually anyone could have acquired these tools and used them in a manner similar to how they were employed against both the German Parliament and the DNC.

 

The presence of open-source tools is, in itself, a clear indicator that Russian intelligence was not involved. Documents released by Edward Snowden show that the NSA monitored the hacking of a prominent Russian journalist, Anna Politkovskaya, by Russian intelligence, “deploying malicious software which is not available in the public domain.” The notion that the Russians would use special tools to hack a journalist’s email account and open-source tools to hack either the DNC or the German Parliament is laughable. My experience with Soviet/Russian intelligence, which is considerable, has impressed me with the professionalism and dedication to operational security that were involved. The APT 28/Fancy Bear cyber-penetration of the DNC and the Guccifer 2.0 operation as a whole are the antithesis of professional.

 

(snip)

 

Which brings up perhaps the most curious aspect of this entire case: The DNC servers at the center of this controversy were never turned over to the FBI for forensic investigation. Instead, the FBI had to rely upon copies of the DNC server data provided by CrowdStrike. The fact that it was CrowdStrike, and not the FBI, that made the GRU attribution call based upon the investigation of the alleged cyber-penetration of the DNC server is disturbing. As shown here, there is good reason to doubt the viability of the CrowdStrike analysis. That the FBI, followed by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. intelligence community, and the mainstream media, has parroted this questionable assertion as fact is shocking.

 

 

 

 

[Benjamin Franklin]

You just keep quoting the same group saying the same thing. You're in your echo chamber.

 

You're like Tyrion when he quotes himself.

[Deranged Rhino]

You just keep quoting the same group saying the same thing. You're in your echo chamber.

 

You're like Tyrion when he quotes himself.

 

This is a different (and controversial) figure chiming in on a report he didn't write while also offering new information.

 

Ritter's the guy who tried to warn everyone about the intelligence failings before the Iraq invasion.

[ALF]

Thanks D.R. this is very serious info if proven true

[grinreaper]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/memo-by-former-aide-warns-of-leftist-conspiracy-against-trump/ar-AApTSBW?li=BBnb4R7&ocid=HPCOMMDHP15

[Deranged Rhino]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/memo-by-former-aide-warns-of-leftist-conspiracy-against-trump/ar-AApTSBW?li=BBnb4R7&ocid=HPCOMMDHP15

 

 

From the article:

 

"The episode came to light during what appears to be General McMaster’s slow-rolling purge against hard-line aides on his staff who were close to Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s first national security adviser, and shared Mr. Bannon’s antiglobalist views."

 

I don't agree that Bannon or McMasters is at the head of this, but this is basically mainstream acknowledgement of my thesis in the OP written over half a year ago. Though I also disagree that it's anti-globalists versus globalists. Both sides are globalists. Globalism is inevitable.

 

Regardless, this cuts to the core of what's really going on (imo): an ideological struggle that isn't about politics or even the US vs Russia. It's monopolarist globalists versus unipolarist globalists fighting over how much of a say in our governments we the people actually get to have.

[4merper4mer]

Scott Ritter (who himself is a VIP but did not sign the most recent report) chimes in, worth the read:

 

 

Time to Reassess the Roles Played by Guccifer 2.0 and Russia in the DNC ‘Hack’

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/time_to_reassess_roles_of_guccifer_20_and_russia_in_dnc_hack_20170727

 

Is Scott Ritter that pedophile guy? GTFO

[Deranged Rhino]

Is Scott Ritter that pedophile guy? GTFO

 

He is a controversial figure, yes. He didn't author the report, just weighed in on it.

[Benjamin Franklin]

Is Scott Ritter that pedophile guy? GTFO

You'll find that when you dig into a DR "source," you often find a problem.

 

Hyperspace Research Imtitute.

[Deranged Rhino]

You'll find that when you dig into a DR "source," you often find a problem.

 

Hyperspace Research Imtitute.

 

Dig into the VIP report all you wish. It's solid. So solid MSM is now running with it.

************

 

Nothing to see here.

 

[4merper4mer]

He is a controversial figure, yes. He didn't author the report, just weighed in on it.

 

Pedophiles aren't "controversial". That guy is a sick man.

[Deranged Rhino]

Pedophiles aren't "controversial". That guy is a sick man.

 

No question. I'm not defending him. His expertise as a second set of eyes validating the work is what counts. He got WMD right, despite his skeletons. Since everyone else is ignoring the issue, gotta work with what we have.

[Deranged Rhino]

In the past week, both The Nation and Salon have come out with articles backing this up. These aren't conservative rags circling the wagons for Trump, these are left leaning rags with excellent reputations...

http://www.salon.com...-rather-ignore/

https://www.thenatio...years-dnc-hack/

(edit: more mainstream sources)

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/08/14/russian-hacking-2016-election-nsa-member-says-trump-story-false

Of course this has been known for weeks - longer if you actually read the DNI in full - which either those in the MSM never did or lied about doing.

Deranged Rhino, on 25 Jul 2017 - 11:54 AM, said:

RIP TO THE JANUARY 6th DNI REPORT:

 

Over the past few weeks, three pieces of evidence - real evidence, not evidence that relies on unnamed sources citing unnamed methods - have come to light that blow a huge hole in major portions of the "Russian collusion" story's main piece of evidence: The DNI report issued in January of this year.

 

Shockingly, much of this evidence has been ignored by the MSM and the loudest supporters of this narrative on this board - despite most of those same folks spending the past six months telling me I was wrong for raising these very same concerns...

 

Let's lay it out step by step.

 

1) Let's start with basic reading comprehension: https://www.nytimes....e-agencies.html

 

This is the DNI report issued in January, the same report being touted by many as being the best evidence because it comes from the USIC itself. The report was sold to the public as being comprehensive (if unclassified) analysis from all 17 US Intel agencies who unanimously agreed that Russia had "hacked" the election.

 

Many posters on here have held this report up as all the evidence they needed to believe the narrative being spun. When I pointed out to them, simply by reading the report itself, that it was not from all 17 agencies and in fact wasn't even presenting a consensus within the three agencies it actually came from (NSA, CIA, DHS), I was told - repeatedly - how I was wrong.

 

Then a funny thing happened at the end of June. The NYT's issued a correction, buried of course, that admitted a basic error in their now seven month long disinformation campaign:

 

 

 

 

This correction is important, not just because it shows that the NYT and other outlets knowingly lied for months about the unanimous consensus of the USIC, but because it completely omits the second most troubling part of the January DNI report - namely how the team was assembled... which brings us to:

 

2) On July 12th, this report came out detailing how the DNI report came to be: http://www.theameric...nsus-on-russia/

 

Again, much of this could be discerned by reading the DNI report itself, presuming you have a basic understanding about how intel is gathered, analyzed and processed within the USIC.

 

 

This exposes yet another lie which has been repeated to the point of now being taken for granted and absolute truth by the MSM and various talking heads within the USIC. The DNI Report was not a consensus of opinion within all 17 agencies, it wasn't even the consensus of opinion within the three agencies that actually compiled the report (DHS, NSA, CIA). Rather, it was the conclusion the small task force created by Directors Brennan and Clapper were ORDERED TO REACH.

After the WMD debacle in the early 2000's, the USIC rewrote their rule books to avoid repeating such a mistake of confirmation bias clouding active intel analysis. Part of this culture shift was the regulations to not create insular task forces within the USIC but rather to more freely exchange information and investigations between relevant branches. Clapper and Brennan's actions, by creating a separate investigative group and insulating them, is in direct violation of those new guidelines.

Think about that for a moment. Clapper and Brennan - two men who dealt with the WMD investigations at different times, both men who have perjured themselves before Congress and Senate on issues of domestic collection and various USIC programs' over reach, broke the protocols they were a part of creating to FORCE the conclusion they wanted to reach. It's, quite literally, a repeat of the WMD agenda. Only this time the stakes aren't a poorly thought out invasion of a weak country - but the undercutting of our national confidence in our electoral process while poking the nose of the world's largest thermonuclear power.

Motive is always important to examine in these cases, and it should be noted that both Brennan and Clapper have been at the forefront of the USIC's regime change war in Syria. It's an agenda they've been engineering and working towards for years now. And Trump's incoming administration - whether they meant it or not - campaigned and won in no small part because of their promises to end the nation's regime change addiction.

This means that both Clapper and Brennan had a clear motive to undercut 45's incoming administration and to paint a target on Russia by engineering a fear campaign through their chosen MSM outlets (the NYT, Washington Post, CNN primarily).

So, at the end of the day, the January DNI report which has been touted as proof by many here and in the media, has been completely blown out of the water just by these admissions:

- It's not a consensus.

- It was not compiled following proper USIC protocol.

- It was, by their own admission, an investigation designed to prove Russian meddling and hacking rather than an honest investigation into the event itself.

3) Now that we've established the DNI report itself was flawed in design and pushed onto the public by Brennan, Clapper, and the MSM in a dishonest and propagandizing way - what about the actual evidence offered in the report itself?

A new analysis was dropped this week by a collection of Intel vets working on behalf of the public - who signed their names and cited their sources and methods, more than the USIC has done to date. Their examination of the limited forensic evidence offered in the DNI report shows that the evidence itself was deliberately tampered with and that the story of hacking itself is impossible:

*edit: forgot the link: https://consortiumne...-hack-evidence/

 

Re-read that again, and consider this evidence in conjunction with the rest of the "narrative" spun about this January 6th DNI report. What this report is saying is that the evidence offered to the American public by the DNI report was tampered with and altered to hide the presence of a leaker (not hacker) and an attempt was made to pin it all on Russia.

This is proven even further by the Vault 7 drops by Wikileaks this year which released the USIC's cyber weapon cache to the public. Chief among these tools are Umbrage (http://www.independe...a-a7618661.html) and Marbles (http://thehackernews...-framework.html) both of which are programs which make it possible to mask/fake ISP addresses.

The forensic analysis of the DNI documents show proof of these programs in action. Meaning, the USIC deliberatley altered the key evidence it presented to the American public as proof of Russian interference and hacking in the election.

In other words, they lied to the American public. What makes anyone of us so certain they're not still lying?

All of this leads me back to a question I've asked many in this thread and have yet to hear an answer to. If you honestly believe Russian Intelligence agencies launched a massively successful hacking/propaganda campaign that duped the public into voting for Trump - is it not possible that the USIC has the same capabilities and reach to wage an information war on their own people?

Because the final analysis of the DNI report shows a concerted effort on behalf of Brennan, Clapper, elements within the US MSM and Congress to mislead the American public and scare them into buying into the next "Big Bad" that the US MiC will need generous budgets to combat.

This isn't partisan. This is absolute evidence that the DNI report touted by many on here was intentionally crafted to mislead the American public into a false conclusion.

And those of you on the left who are so blinded by your desire to remove Trump and sink him with this story, I ask you to consider this article in its entirety first:

With New D.C. Policy Group, Dems Continue to Rehabilitate and Unify With Bush-Era Neocon

It shows, once again, where the motivations for this narrative truly lie. It's not really about the DNC protecting it's party or Hillary making excuses. It's not really about protecting our "sacred institutions"... It seems to be about the continuation of regime change policies pushed by the neocon establishment which, with the help of this narrative, have now flipped to the left side of the aisle. A move that should outrage anyone who protested against W's wars in the desert.

Conclusion: We are in an information war. Up is not up and down is not down. Discernment is key. It's taken seven months for the MSM to admit the DNI report was flawed (at best). In that time, the narrative has been allowed to metastasize primarily by people flaunting the DNI report as proof.

What actual discernment and evidence shows is the Russian narrative has been concocted at worst, overblown at best, from the very beginning.

Stay frosty out there, people.

Then, yesterday the Washington Post - a paper who has the most to lose from this story coming more to the surface - writes an opinion piece that ***** all over the article without disputing any of the forensic evidence. Instead they focus on a blatantly false issue (home connection speeds versus connection speeds of larger entities - something which has nothing to do with the evidence despite the Washington Post trying to make it sound like it does... this is how disinformation works) and tie the Nation's story into Breitbart and Seth Rich in an attempt to make readers associate it with "conspiracy nonsense" or the "alt" right.

Again, there is no relevant rebuttal of the facts, just name calling, and smearing by association.

https://www.washingt...m=.27554cba3fcc

Reminder: Who's got a cushy new job at Washington Post on the editorial board and simultaneously has the most to lose from these facts coming to light?

Put the Washington Post's tired attempt to deflect aside.

We have actual evidence, forensic evidence that is incontrovertible, that the USIC attempted to mislead the American public into believing a foreign power hacked the DNC. Brenner, Clapper, Hayden - these men are ENEMIES of this country, not allies. They have known track records of lying in the past to the detriment of the American public. They used this "hacking" story as the foundation to make the anti-Russian hysteria narrative stick - along with other lies that have already been walked back (all 17 agencies agree, there's consensus). They did this not to protect our country, but to protect their foreign policy agenda which revolves around continued empire building and regime change. They did this despite the fact the American public voted in large numbers to STOP this dangerous and destabilizing agenda. Spelling it out even more: These men, along with their partners in the media and MIC, decided the American people should not and do not have a say in how this country's foreign policy is run.

That's called a coup in every other part of the free world.

Now that everyone has moved on to battling neo nazis in Virginia, no one is talking about this subject which, I argue, is THE only subject that threatens the freedoms and lives of everyone in the country. We have to hold the USIC accountable for their actions. We didn't do it in the aftermath of the WMD debacle that led to the invasion of Iraq, the creation of ISIS, and 17 years of endless war.

If we don't stand up now and hold not only the USIC accountable, but those in power (like Schiff, Warner, McCain, etc) and those in the media (editors of the NYT, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, et al), we will be silently assenting to unelected powers within the USIC and the MSM pulling off a soft coup.

Of course, in order to do this, we ALL have to put down our partisan blinders and work together. Left, right, middle, fringe. We have to come together as a people and remember who our enemies actually are. They aren't our fellow citizens, even ones with differing political views. They aren't the Russians or North Koreans or Syrians. They're people within our own society and institutions of power. The ones who are deciding that our democratic republic works better as an authoritarian oligarchy.

Stay frosty out there. We're being lied to non stop, we're being manipulated and distracted. Don't let them get away with it.

Edited August 16, 2017 by Deranged Rhino

[Deranged Rhino]

http://www.newsweek.com/isis-makes-100-million-year-smuggling-ancient-artifacts-iraq-and-syria-647524

[Deranged Rhino]

https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/899763183904317440

[GG]

https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/899763183904317440

 

Highly doubtful that was meant for Trump.