Facebook, The CIA & The Clintons

Secrecy

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
June 20 2017

This article recounts key events along a time line that stretches from 1986 to the present. Follow the bouncing ball.

Since Facebook went public with an IPO (Initial Public Offering) of stock in 2012, I’ve been following the trail of its stock price.

In 2012, I wrote:

“But now the Facebook stock has tanked. On Friday, August 17 [2012], it weighed in at half its initial IPO price. For the first time since the IPO, venture-capital backers were legally permitted to sell off their shares, and some did, at a loss.”

“Articles have begun appearing that question Zuckerberg’s ability to manage his company. ‘Experts’ are saying he should import a professional team to run the business side of things and step away.”

“This has the earmarks of classic shakeout and squeeze play… First, [insiders] drive down the price of the stock, then they trade it at low levels that discourage and demoralize public investors, who sell their shares…As the stock continues to tank, the insiders quietly buy up as much of it as they can. Finally, when the price hits a designated rock bottom, they shoot it up all the way to new highs and win big.”

In 2013, I followed up and wrote: “Facebook launched its IPO and went public on May 18, 2012. The opening stock price was 42 dollars a share.”

“In September 2012, the collapsing stock hit a low of 17.55.”

“On October 17, 2013, a year later, after a long climb, the stock reached an all-time high: 52.21.”

“So…Facebook, a company with CIA-front connections, a company that encourages people to offer up surveillance data on themselves [and censors politically incorrect news], goes through a financial transformation. Its IPO price collapses like ice in a heat wave. It keeps trading at its new low prices, scaring lots of investors.”

“They sell their shares. Insiders buy up those shares at delicious discounts.”

“Then, when the insiders have scooped up enough, they begin to move the price. Up. The long climb begins.”

Now, in June of 2017, it’s time to check in again. What’s happened to Facebook’s stock price since the high of $54 a share in 2013?

From October 2016 to December 2016, there was another shakeout that convinced many shareholders to dump their stocks—and of course, insiders gobbled up those shares for themselves. The shakeout took the stock price down from an all-time high of $127.88 a share to $115.05.

Then, once again, the relentless climb resumed. On June 2nd of this year, the stock reached a new all-time high of $153.61.

All in all, quite a ride. From the IPO price of $42, down to $17…and now $150.

Are some of the insiders who have been engineering Facebook’s long-term stock-rise front-men for the CIA?

I ask that question because of Facebook’s CIA connections:

The big infusion of cash that sent Mark Zuckerberg and his fledgling college enterprise on their way came from Accel Partners, in 2004.

Jim Breyer, head of Accel, attached a $13 million rocket to Facebook, and nothing has ever been the same.

Earlier that same year, a man named Gilman Louie joined the board of the National Venture Capital Association of America (NVCA). The chairman of NVCA? Jim Breyer. Gilman Louie happened to be the first CEO of the important CIA start-up, In-Q-Tel.

In-Q-Tel was founded in 1999, with the express purpose of funding companies that could develop technology the CIA would use to “gather data.”

That’s not the only connection between Facebook funder Jim Breyer and the CIA’s man, Gilman Louie. In 2004, Louie went to work for BBN Technologies, headed up by Breyer. Dr. Anita Jones also joined BBN at that time. Jones had worked for In-Q-Tel and was an adviser to DARPA, the Pentagon’s technology department that helped develop the Internet.

With these CIA/DARPA connections, it’s no surprise that Jim Breyer’s jackpot investment in Facebook is not part of the popular mythology of Mark Zuckerberg. Better to omit it. Who can fail to realize that Facebook, with its endless stream of personal data, and its tracking capability, is an ideal CIA asset?

From the time Mark Zuckerberg was a child and attended the summer camp for “exceptional children,” CTY (Center for Talented Youth), run by Johns Hopkins University, he, like other CTY students, Sergey Brin (co-founder of Google), and Lady Gaga, have been easy to track.

CTY and similar camps filter applications and pick the best and brightest for their accelerated learning programs. Tracing the later progress of these children in school and life would be a walk in the park for agencies like the CIA.

When Zuckerberg founded an interesting little social network at Harvard, and then sought to turn it into a business, the data-mining possibilities were obvious to CIA personnel. Through their cutouts, as described above, they stepped in and lent a helping hand.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Facebook/CIA presented an anti-Trump stance, which meant a pro-Hillary stance. Is that a pro-CIA stance? Let’s look at a fascinating piece of history involving the CIA and the other Clinton: Bill.

The source here is the explosive 1995 book, Compromised, by Terry Reed and John Cummings.

According to the authors, Bill Clinton, way back in the 1980s, was involved with the CIA in some very dirty dealings in Arkansas—and I’m not just talking about the cocaine flights landing at the Mena airport.

It seems Bill had agreed to set up CIA weapons-making factories in his home state, under the radar. But because Arkansas, when it comes to money, is all cronies all the time, everybody and his brother found out about the operation and wanted in. Also, Bill was looking for a bigger cut of the action.

This security breach infuriated the CIA, and a meeting was held to dress down Bill and make him see the error of his ways. His CIA handlers told him they were going to shut down the whole weapons operation, because Bill had screwed up royally. A screaming match ensued—but the CIA people backed off a bit and told Bill HE WAS STILL THEIR MAN FOR AN EVENTUAL RUN FOR THE PRESIDENCY.

Of course, there are people who think Reed and Cumming’s book contains fiction, but John Cummings was a top-notch reporter for Newsday. He co-authored the 1990 book, Goombata, about the rise and fall of John Gotti. He exposed US operations to destroy Cuban agriculture with bio-weapons. It’s highly doubtful he would have put his name on Compromised without a deep conviction he was correctly adding up the facts.

Here, from Compromised, is an account of the extraordinary meeting, in Arkansas, between Bill Clinton and his CIA handlers, in March of 1986, six years before Clinton would run for the Presidency. Author Terry Reed, himself a CIA asset at the time, was there. So was Oliver North, and a man named “Robert Johnson,” who was representing CIA head Bill Casey.

Johnson said to Bill Clinton:

“Calm down and listen….We are all in this together. We all have our personal agendas…but let’s not forget, both the Vice President and Mr. Casey want this operation to be a success. We need to get these assets and resources in place and get them self-sustaining and prospering on their own while we have the chance. This is a golden opportunity. The timing is right. We have communists taking over a country in this hemisphere. We must all pull together and play as a team. This is no time for lone wolves…

“I’m not here to threaten you [Bill Clinton]. But there have been mistakes. The Mena operation survived undetected and unexposed only because Mr. [Barry] Seal carried with him a falsely created, high-level profile of a drug runner. All the cops in the country were trying to investigate a drug operation. That put the police in a position where we could control them. We fed them what we wanted to feed them, when we wanted to feed them; it was our restaurant and our menu…now we have to shut it down….

“Bill, you are Mr. Casey’s fair-haired boy. But you do have competition for the job you seek. We would never put all eggs in one basket. You and your state have been our greatest asset. The beauty of this, as you know, is that you’re a Democrat, and with our ability to influence both parties, this country can get beyond partisan gridlock. Mr. Casey wanted me to pass on to you that unless you fuck up and do something stupid, you’re No. 1 on the short list for a shot at the job you’ve always wanted.

“That’s pretty heady stuff, Bill. So why don’t you help us keep a lid on this and we’ll all be promoted together. You and guys like us are the fathers of the new government. Hell, we are the new covenant.”

By this account, Bill Clinton was the CIA’s boy back in 1986, long before he launched himself into his first 1992 Presidential campaign.

That speaks of major planning. In 1992, an obscure governor from a rather obscure state suddenly gains national prominence and vaults to the head of the line in the race for the White House.

Now, consider the role of the CIA-connected Facebook in the 2016 presidential election. Did Facebook’s strategy of cutting off pro-Trump postings/information and instead supporting ANOTHER CLINTON, HILLARY, signal the continuation of a long-running covert CIA op to put and keep the Clintons in power?

Since 1986, have the Clintons been a package deal for the CIA?

Was the most recent incarnation of that deal the Facebook op to put Hillary in the White House?

Most people have a problem looking at log-term ops. They conceive of covert actions taking place along severely limited time lines. That’s exactly what major operatives count on. They can plan in the dark for two or three decades ahead (or longer) and feel they’re in the clear.

And when a little social networking company comes along and needs an infusion of cash, they can step in, help, and, seeing the possibilities, they can help push the stock to new highs and accomplish elite surveillance and censor true information and support their favored presidential candidate—all during the same dozen years.

It’s an easy program.

All sorts of cards can be played from the bottom of the deck.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Catherine Austin Fitts – Breakaway Truth – A Tale Of Two Civilizations – DarkJournalist

Source: DarkJournalist
June 19, 2017

The Deep Interview

In this exciting special episode, Dark Journalist Daniel Liszt welcomes back Former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Catherine Austin Fitts. Catherine is the President of The Solari Report, a quarterly journal and website that integrates economic trends with a larger geopolitical picture.

Ascent of the Black Budget Underworld

Catherine sees the forces vying for power in the 21st century as a combination of Black Budget underworld with its covert influence in drug running, money laundering and high finance, and the robotic, transhumanist corporate culture that is attempting to create a new kind of digital slavery.

In either case, the public civilization is only vaguely aware of the impact of these forces on their daily lives. In everyday living in modern society, an average person doesn’t often get the opportunity to see the massive plan being brought to bear for the global dominance of a worldwide smartgrid capable of cataloging every person according to its harvesting algorithm.

Thierry Meyssan On The Revolution Against Political Islam

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
June 17, 2017

Regular readers here know two things about my  attitude toward Islam: (1) I am definitely not friendly to its doctrine, and (2) I definitely do not believe every last Muslim of the world’s billion-plus Muslims are out to “get” everyone else. From my viewpoint, the history of that ideology, especially in the twentieth century, has been one long frustration – usually by the imperial powers of the West, and particularly by Great Britain and Imperial (and later, Nazi) Germany – of the indigenous attempts of those within Islam to reform the religion and the culture. Indeed, for the German contribution to this sad story, one can read my The Third Way.

Which makes the following article by Thierry Meyssan, notwithstanding its glaring inaccuracies concerning early Christian history, all the more important, for as I mentioned in the previous week’s News and Views, Meyssan’s hypothesis is that Mr. Trump’s recent visit and arms deal with Saudi Arabia is about more than just continuing the same old pattern of support of a royal-clerical state. The deal, Meyssan contends, could not have been made without commitments from the Middle Eastern nations involved, and particularly Saudi Arabia, to move away from “political Islam” and support of radical groups like the Brotherhood:

A wind of secularism blows over the Muslim world

Behind the hypothesis, however, Meyssan is also implying that there is a fundamental break between London – which in his view continues to support “political Islam” – and the Trump Administration, which he contends is trying to lead an initiative to break from prior policy of tacit support and funding of such groups and the states that support them:

We know today that the « Arab Springs » were a British initiative aimed at putting the Muslim Brotherhood in power and thus reinforcing Anglo-Saxon domination over the « Greater Middle East ».

For 16 years, the Western powers have been rightfully accusing the Muslims of not cleaning up their own house, and of tolerating terrorists. However, it is clear today that these terrorists are supported by the same Western powers in order to enslave Muslims by means of « political Islam ». London, Washington and Paris have no problems with terrorism until it spills over from the « Greater Middle East », and they never criticise « political Islam », at least as far as the Sunnis are concerned.

By giving his speech in Riyadhh, on 21 May 2017, President Trump intended to put an end to the terrorism which is consuming the region, and is now spreading to the West. The words he spoke did indeed act as an electroshock. His speech was interpreted as an authorisation to finish with the system.

What resulted, according to Meyssan, was something akin to uncorking a bottle that had been living under pressure for centuries, and now, with the bottle uncorked, the result cannot be undone:

What had seemed unthinkable over the last few centuries suddenly took shape. Saudi Arabia agreed to cut off all contact with the Muslim Brotherhood, and raged against those who continue to pursue their collaboration with the British, and particularly against Qatar. Riyadh gave the signal for a cleansing which will sweep much frustration along with it. In a spirit of Bedouin vengeance, diplomatic relations have been interrupted, and an economic blockade was organised against the Qatari population – while in the Emirates, a sentence of 15 years of imprisonment was established by law for any individual who showed as much as a little compassion for the inhabitants of accursed Qatar.

A gigantic displacement of forces and alliances has begun. If this movement is to continue, the region will organise itself around a new fissure. The question of the struggle against imperialism will wither and give way to the struggle against clericalism.

And this has led to a corrresponding “outburst” of editorials:

In two weeks, the Arab Press, which until now had viewed the Muslim Brotherhood in a favourable light, as a powerful secret organisation, and jihadism as a legitimate engagement, has suddenly made an about-turn. Everywhere, everyone is publishing denunciations of the pretension of the Muslim Brotherhood who want to regulate people’s lives, and the cruel folly of jihadism.

This flood of commentaries, the centuries of frustration that they express, coupled with their violence, makes any back-pedalling impossible – which does not, however, mean that the alliance Iran-Qatar-Turkey-Hamas will go all the way. This revolutionary tsunami is happening in the middle of the month of Ramadan. Meetings between friends and families, which should be consensual celebrations, sometimes turn into arguments about what until now had been perceived as the basic truths of Islam.

As Meyssan goes on to observe, even Iran’s Revolutionary Guard harbors simmering resentments against the ayatollahs governing the country.

We then get a bit of complete nonsense regarding Christian history, which Meyssan assumes – like so many – was completely “clergy-less” in its early years:

Like original Christianity, which had no ministers (these only arrived in the 3rd century), original Islam and current Sunnism have none. Only Chiism has been structured like Catholicism and Orthodoxy. As a result, political Islam today is incarnated by the Muslim Brotherhood and the government of Sheikh Rohani (the title of Shiekh indicates that President Rohani is a member of the Chiite clergy).

If so, Christianity would be almost unique among world religions, especially from that part of the world, in not having any clergy; after all, it was an offspring of Judaism, and Judaism certainly had a clergy, and the rabbinate could be taken to be a kind of ministry in lieu of the ancient Hebrew priesthood. In any case, the Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch would certainly stand as a pre-third century witness to the fact that early Christianity was not the  clergy-less paradise that so many think it was; it was, on the contrary, very hierarchical and very sacramental.  Additionally, Meyssan makes more of Pope Paul VI’s dropping the use of the papal tiara – symbol of papal claims and authority – than should be: for while the symbol was dropped, the claims were not. Indeed, when one reads the documents of the Second Vatican Council, amid all the modern-sounding verbiage, those sections dealing with the papacy itself read very much like the “old fashioned” language of Innocent III, of Pius IX and Vatican One: there was no diminution of claims whatsoever. In short: the tiara could return tomorrow, because what it symbolizes – the claims themselves – are still there.

But enough of that, for beyond this, Meyssan’s view is worth pondering, for it carries some implications, some of which, Meyssan contends, are already happening:

Meanwhile, the whole region is buzzing – in Libya, the Muslim Brotherhood have left Tripoli, leaving a militia to liberate Saif el-Islam Kadhafi, and General Haftar to expand his influence. In Egypt, the General-President al-Sissi has asked his opposite numbers in the Gulf to draw up a list of terrorists. In Palestine, the political directors of Hamas have fled to Iran. In Syria, the jihadists have stopped fighting against the Republic and are awaiting orders. In Iraq, the army has redoubled its efforts against the Muslim Brotherhood and the Order of the Naqshbandis. In Saudi Arabia, the Muslim World League has excluded from its administrative council the Brotherhood’s star preacher, Sheikh Qaradawi. And Turkey and Pakistan have begun the transfer of tens of thousands of soldiers towards Qatar -which can now only feed itself with the help of Iran.

A new dawn seems to be rising over the region.

But assuming he is correct in his diagnosis, there are also some implications for the west, not the least is the cleavage between Washington and London, and this is where it could get interesting, for one implication of his analysis is that the Trump Administration has broken with prior British and American policy in a major way, and in so breaking, has broken with those factions within the American deep state that have been cooperating and to a certain extent leading and orchestrating the prior policy, including the tacit and very covert financial support of the same radical groups. We call them “neo-cons” or “neo-libs”, and they have been running American foreign policy since at least the Clinton Administration, with roots in that of the G.H.W. Bush administration. On this view, Mr. Trump has set the fox loose in the henhouse, and if it portends major changes in the Middle East, and a renewed commitment to American allies there such as Saudi Arabia, it also portends a major shuffling in the “deep state”. Time will tell if this effort will bear fruit.

And that means a long term effort will have to be sustained, for the nature of the change Mr. Meyssan is suggesting will be long term in nature, with bumps and fits along the way. What to look for? I suggest that if Mr. Meyssan’s analysis is correct, then the response of such nations like Indonesia, a predominantly secular Muslim state, will be crucial to watch, for that nation is undergoing its own internal struggles against “political Islam”. How such nations respond to this, how the Saudis respond to this, will be crucial in order for Mr. Trump’s initiative to work.

See you on the flip side…
Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

The Churchill-Lord Halifax Moment Of History: May Government In…

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
June 11, 2017

Last week’s general election in the U.K. didn’t quite go the way Prime Minister Theresa May and her Tory party had hoped, with Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party picking up seats, leaving the Tories with a thin majority in Parliament, and having to retain power by climbing into bed with the Northern Irish DUP party, which, I am informed, is a “hard right” party because it’s against gay marriage. But hey, bringing in boatloads of barbarians who like to execute gay people from the region of the world dominated by the Religion of Peace Love and Tolerance is ok.  It’s things like this that are the source of my confusions. The results intrigue me, because during last Friday’s members’ vidchat, some of our U.K. members were trying to make sense of the results for me, and of course, I ended up being more confused than before. My first suggestion to my British friends: write your constitution down somewhere. That way, you can keep track of how much of it you’re ignoring. It works for us. As it is, it takes a barrister from the Inner Temple to figure it out, and even they have difficulty.

So back to the British elections and my confusion. One individual of my website informed me during the vidchat that many of the pro-Brexit voters turned to Labour in this general election, and away from the Tories. This makes a little sense to me (and only a little), because the whole Brexit thing was what brought down Mr. Cameron and installed Ms. May. But my impression was that the pro-Brexit voters pretty much spanned both large political parties in Great Britain, so I am even more confused as to why the Tories would have assumed that the Brexit-UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) voters would automatically in the Tory party pocket.

My attempts to get any sense from my U.K. members what the main issues (for them, or as they saw them) were, was pretty much a failure. So in lieu of having any solid idea on what just happened, and why, I went hunting through my email folder and found this article from the Globe and Mail shared by Mr. T.M., and I suppose it does just about as good a job as any in explaining things from the point of view of the British electorate:

May will work with ‘friends’ in Northern Irish DUP to achieve Brexit

There’s a few weird things in this article, that make me wonder even more what’s going on. One thing it points out is that Britons were mainly concerned with domestic issues, and the less-than-stellar performance of the May government in dealing with them. For example:

However, the election campaign quickly turned against Ms. May. The public didn’t focus on Brexit as much as she’d hoped and instead concentrated on domestic issues such as health care, education and taxation. Ms. May, 60, fumbled the announcement of a key social policy measure for older people, upsetting seniors and forcing her to make a hasty backtrack. She also ran into trouble over her plans to cut immigration, causing confusion with an unclear timetable. And she turned off some voters by refusing to debate Mr. Corbyn and by appearing robotic in a couple of televised town-hall-style sessions.

Terrorist attacks in Manchester and London also exposed her legacy of cutting 20,000 police officers during her six years as interior minister. Mr. Corbyn pounced on the police cuts and many rank and file officers complained about the lack of resources just as the country faced its biggest terrorist threat since the Irish Republican Army in the 1970s.

This of course reassured me, in that I was wondering if the terrorist attacks figured in the voting results at all. Some people I talked to said yes; others no. But there’s a quasi-constitutional issue looming, not the least of which is because Ms. May now has a much weaker government – indeed one might argue, an unstable one – with which to negotiate with the European (dis)Union of its Brexit policy. Mr. Corbyn, the Labour leader captures this problem succinctly:

But there were already growing calls for her to resign.

“She wanted a mandate. Well, the mandate she’s got is lost Conservative seats, lost votes, lost support and lost confidence. I would have thought that is enough for her to go,” Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn said.

Labour Finance Critic John McDonnell said the party was ready to try to form a minority government. “If we can form a minority government, I think we can have a stable government,” he said Friday. “We would be able to produce a Queen’s speech and budget based upon our manifesto, which I think could command majority support in Parliament, not through deals or coalitions but policy by policy.”

So why hasn’t she gone? Whatever one makes of British politics (and it’s always hazardous to guess), I just get the feeling that there is a lot more behind this one paragraph than the standard, traditional, “visit-of-the-winning-party-leadership-to-see-the-Queen”:

“I have just been to see Her Majesty the Queen, and I will now form a government – a government that can provide certainty and lead Britain forward at this critical time for our country,” Ms. May said after her Conservatives failed to cling to a majority.

I don’t know about you, but I just cannot help feel a slight tingle of deja vu here, and feel that we’re looking at another Royal Palace-Churchill-Lord Halifax moment of history. There across the channel is the German colossus, astride Western Europe, making demands and extending olive branches and hoping Halifax wins the Royal lottery and forms a government (after all, he’s the Palace favorite, and the Palace is, after all, occupied by a bunch of Germans, though over the last 150 years, almost all traces of the German accent have disappeared. The de-Nazification program (me) apparently has not been 100% successful, because some of them want to become viruses to wipe out whole swaths of the human population.). And then of course there’s the radical Liberal-today-Tory-tomorrow Churchill. Churchill, as we know, won the Royal favo(u)r and the then-existing version of “hard Brexit” won out, though there were times that the Churchill government’s grasp on power, behind the scenes, was not as secure as it was maintaining in public, as Britain was unceremoniously ejected from Greece, and a fellow by the name of Rommel began to cause more than a few headaches in Africa. Churchill was banking on America, not a German-led Europe, and again, the deja vu is too weird not to notice, for after the Brexit vote, the U.K. was thinking about “What to do with the Commonwealth,” and the answer was straight out of Cecil Rhodes and Chatham House: “Let’s invite America to become an associate member.”

Of course Ms. May now has her work cut out for her, and frankly, it will be interesting to see if her government survives, and how long it survives. Her “war cabinet” is already grumbling, just as Mr. Churchill’s began to grumble after the first – or is this the second? (or the third if you count 1814-1815) This is all getting so confusing – Fall of France (see Emmanuel Macron). And Corbyn? Should a Corbyn minority government ever form, I suspect its days, too, will be very numbered, and for many of the same reasons.

The parallels are not, of course, exact. May is no Churchill, nor is Mr. Corbyn, and neither are a very good imitation of Lord Halifax. Both are too bland and dull to be Churchill, and are too sharp and radical to be a Halifax. But the situation is, overall, bizarrely similar: a united German-led Europe, threats of invasion from barbarians with little grounding in western culture and institutions, governments of appeasement, and so on.

In any case, the results are a muddle.

Leaving the British to do what they do best in a tight place: muddle through.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

James Comey Stars In Another Bad Movie

TruthFact

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
June 10, 2017

Where was the devastating revelation about Trump’s crimes during James Comey’s Congressional testimony yesterday?

“Who produced this stinker? Find out and fire him. I thought I was the head of a movie studio. Apparently, I’m marketing sleeping pills. I conked out after watching five minutes of Comey…”

If James Comey’s testimony before Congress yesterday were a Hollywood movie, and if the press weren’t obliged to make a very big deal out of it, the studio that produced it would have shut it down and eaten the box office losses. The movie theaters would have been empty, except for a few stragglers getting out of the rain.

We did learn that Comey leaked his “memo” of a conversation with Trump (about the Michael Flynn investigation) to the press. So the FBI director is a leaker. And we only have Comey’s word that his “memo” notes were correct and accurate.

Then Comey stated that Attorney General Loretta Lynch told him to call his investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server a “matter,” not an investigation. So the former Attorney General was a partisan Hillary supporter.

Comey asserted that Trump “pressured” him to cease investigating Michael Flynn. Trump didn’t order Comey to stop that probe. And Trump could have, because the president, in the chain of command, is over and above the Justice Department and the FBI. Oops. That’s right.

Attorney Alan Dershowitz : “Comey confirmed that under our Constitution, the president has the authority to direct the FBI to stop investigating any individual. I paraphrase, because the transcript is not yet available: the president can, in theory, decide who to investigate, who to stop investigating, who to prosecute and who not to prosecute. The president is the head of the unified executive branch of government, and the Justice Department and the FBI work under him and he may order them to do what he wishes.”

“As a matter of law, Comey is 100 percent correct. As I have long argued, and as Comey confirmed in his written statement, our history shows that many presidents—from Adams to Jefferson, to Lincoln, to Roosevelt, to Kennedy, to Bush 1, and to Obama—have directed the Justice Department with regard to ongoing investigations. The history is clear, the precedents are clear, the constitutional structure is clear, and common sense is clear.”

Was Comey investigating Trump’s “Russia connections?” Business Insider: “President Donald Trump’s private attorney, Marc Kasowitz, on Wednesday said his client felt ‘completely and totally vindicated’ by James Comey’s prepared opening statement to the Senate Intelligence Committee.”

“Comey’s remarks, released Wednesday in advance of Thursday’s Senate hearing, confirmed previous statements by Trump that Comey had told him three times that he was not personally being investigated amid the FBI’s wide-ranging inquiry into Russian meddling in the election and the Trump campaign’s possible ties to Russia.”

So…where were Comey’s revelations yesterday? Nowhere. Where were his explosive charges about Trump’s crimes? Nowhere.

Comey should really take a long vacation. He should disappear from public life for quite some time. He’s embarrassing himself.

Recall the last bad movie Comey starred in. The Hillary email server scandal. The FBI probe was off, it was on, it was off. Early in this fiasco, Comey delivered a televised press conference. FBI directors don’t hold press conferences, but Comey did. He simultaneously played the role of FBI head, grand jury, Attorney General, and Constitutional jurist. He only held one of those jobs, but that didn’t stop him. He laid out, end to end, Hillary Clinton’s violations of federal law governing the handling of classified materials. He failed to note that “hostile intent” is no part of that law. He failed to note that negligence is the only standard for prosecution. He said that since Hillary (who was surely negligent) didn’t intend to cause harm to the nation, he wasn’t recommending prosecution. Now THAT should have been the subject of a Congressional hearing. But it wasn’t.

Before that, Comey starred in a little known movie called HSBC.

In 2013, before his appointment as FBI director, Comey was brought in by the scandal-ridden HSBC Bank, to oversee efforts to clean up its act—in particular, money laundering for drug cartels.

Comey was positioned as the face of honesty and competence for HSBC.

How well did he do, before he exited his position? How much crime and how many criminals did he leave behind?

Three years later, after Comey had departed, The NY Times wrote: “HSBC Bank Executives Face Charges in $3.5 Billion Currency [Fraud] Case … Traders Use Front-Running to Profit From Client Orders…”

I guess Comey didn’t clean up the HSBC mess. There were a few things he didn’t notice while he was there. A few thing he left behind. A few billion things.

I guess that uniquely qualified him for appointment as FBI director.

So here is my memo. It’s directed to Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, and assorted Hollywood studios: “Before you sign Tom Hanks, Alec Baldwin, Stephen Colbert, Michael Moore, or Caitlyn Jenner to star as James Comey in a heroic biopic, ‘Don’t Cry for Me, America,’ check your brains. It’s a loser.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Is There A Quiet War Going On Between USA & Germany? [Part 1]

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
June 8, 2017

I’ve had this suspicion for some time that some sort of quiet war, punctuated – or perhaps better put, underscored – at times by apparent “new depths of cooperation” between Germany and the USA. And, for “Germany” here one might also say, to some extent, continental Europe.

Now, before I go any further, I need to remind people of some fundamental truths: (1) since 1871, and for the foreseeable future, Germany has been and will continue to be the economic and industrial locomotive of Europe, and that can be (and has been) translated at times into military power (q.v. World War One, and World War Two); (2) German war aims in both World Wars was the creation of a European federation under German dominance (that one seems to have worked out), and, coincidentally, the USA had a similar war aim in World War Two, and became a backer for the creation of the Common Market that led to today’s European Union; (3) Germans are not Nazis and not interested in conquering the world; (4) the current American political class, beginning ca. 1988 and continuing to now, is equally as irrational, kooky, and insane as the German political class, which remains irrational, kooky, and insane(q.v., Angela Merkel).

With that out of the way, we can return to my suspicion of some sort of quiet war being waged between the USA and Germany. It began as a suspicion in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City Bombing, with the appearance of Andreas Strassmeir in the circle of acquaintances of convicted alleged bomber Timothy McVeigh. (I saw “convicted alleged” because if you believe in the ANFO bomb theory, then you probably also believe in the magic bullet and unicorns). Strassmeir had been “security chief” to an American white supremacist militia group, who was under FBI suspicion for a role in the bombing, who disappeared, and later turned up in Berlin, where he gave a brief statement to the press at the home of his father, Gunther Strassmeir, who just happened to be then-Chancellor Kohl’s minister-without-portfolio for German reunification. Strassmeir, in other words, was “connected.” Oh, by the way, he was also a graduate of the Hannover military academy and a captain in the German army.  Some believe he was in this country in some role as a member of German intelligence, perhaps on loan to the FBI. In support of that allegation, it is believed that Strassmeir was assisted in leaving the USA – during the height of a nation-wide manhunt for him – by the elite German commando and counter-terrorism team, the GSG-9.

Then of course, there are the well known – and very strange – shorts and puts on the US stock markets in the days immediately prior to 9/11, many of them made through – you guessed it – Deutsche Bank-affiliated corporation Alex Brown. Deutsche Bank itself suffered strange cyber infiltration just seconds before the Twin Towers were struck. And, as I’ve pointed out in my book Hidden Finance, Rogue Networks, and Secret Sorcery, there is a strange and little known connection of Mohammad Atta, alleged “chief hijacker” of 9/11, to various German connections, his stay in Hamburg, and even a connection between the Bin Ladens, and Deutsche Bank, by a notorious and allegedly pro-Nazi Swiss banker.

Since 9/11, there have been strange actions on the part of the US government, not the least of which was President – then candidate – Obama’s speech in Berlin to wild ovations. This was followed, during his administration, by fines and lawsuits against Deutsche Bank, fines and allegations for environmental violations on the part of German automakers, and, most recently, charges against and fines Deutsche Bank for money laundering. Of course, none of this is connected in the reporting of the stories as being connected to Oklahoma City or to 9/11, but I suspect they are. (See this Reuters article shared by Mr. S.D.  Fed fines Deutsche Bank for anti-money laundering failures.)

Now, I don’t know about you, but this seems to me to be a little “selective”, for I have difficulty believing that Deutsche Bank is the only major banking multinational engaged in money laundering. I suspect many big American banking giants are equally complicit, and the same would hold true for major banks in France, the UK, Italy, Japan, and so on. But no, for some reason, Deutsche Bank seems to be at the top of the list.

But now, it seems to have escalated to a war of words between the German Chancellorin, Angela Merkel, and US President Donald Trump. And Merkel is making her, and Germany’s, and Europe’s, position very clear (this article shared by Ms. B.Z.):

Merkel warns US, Britain no longer reliable partners

(For a more “anti-German” and prejudicial analysis, see Germany’s Merkel Says Europe Can’t Rely Upon Great Britain and American Anymore  This article was noticed and shared by Mr.H.B.)

The language here is extraordinarily strong, and, indeed (take note) a first for post-war German chancellors:

Europe “must take its fate into its own hands” faced with a western alliance divided by Brexit and Donald Trump’s presidency, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Sunday.

“The times in which we could completely depend on others are on the way out. I’ve experienced that in the last few days,” Merkel told a crowd at an election rally in Munich, southern Germany.

“We Europeans truly have to take our fate into our own hands,” she added.

Let us back up and recall something I’ve been maintaining for about seven years: the USA has been quietly playing a dangerous geopolitical game in Eastern Europe and the Ukraine, by basing American troops progressively more eastward, in Romania, Poland, and the Baltic states, positioning them between Germany and Russia. Thus, while most analysts have been viewing these moves as “anti-Russian”, I view them as equally “anti-German” in that these movements and deployments were and are meant in my opinion to keep Berlin and Moscow apart, and to make economic coordination between the two European powers – the two most powerful European powers – more difficult if not impossible. It also not only puts pressure on Russia in the Ukraine, it equally denies a more “muscular” German influence in the Ukraine by breaking the direct land link through Eastern Europe.

Merkel’s response to this was to bring her vice chancellor(as Marine Le Pen liked to call him), Francois Hollande with her to try to negotiate an end to the Ukrainian mess directly with Mr. Putin. Equally, after those moves, we also recall then Foreign Minister Steinmeir’s address in Berlin to German businessmen that Germany’s foreign policy was going to have to become much more independent and military, and I suspected then, and continue to suspect now, that the backdrop for his remarks were precisely these American moves in eastern Europe.

The bottom line: Bundeskanzlerin Merkel is not simply “reacting” to Mr. Trump. The geopolitical and economic reality is that Germany was turning east long before the recent G-7 meeting or Mr. Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris accords.

To put this as plainly as possible: the Merkel government was handed a crisis of opportunity, and Frau Merkel is playing it for all it is worth, setting very long term policy goals into place because of it.

Just what all this may mean will have to wait for tomorrow…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Suppose Trump Had Hillary’s Incredible Russian Connection?

TruthFact

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
May 31, 2017

If Trump had Hillary’s Russian connection…

Trump would be curled up in a ball in a bunker a few hundred feet under the White House. And that’s on his best day.

The newspapers and television news would be citing nothing less than treason as the cause for his impeachment. They would claim he was, in fact, helping Putin win World War 3 against the US. A nuclear war.

Forget “Putin influenced the election on behalf of Trump.” Instead, mainstream attack dogs would be claiming Trump was a conscious agent who had been turned, years ago, against his home country. The dogs would be making up stories about how this happened.

“It was on a business trip that the world changed for a desperate real estate mogul named Donald Trump. Mr. Trump was on his way to Moscow, ostensibly to meet with several Russian oligarchs about a casino project he was hoping to launch. Instead, he huddled with a representative and close friend of Vladimir Putin at the Baltschug Kempinski Hotel, and that friend offered Mr. Trump a different kind of deal, one that would change his life forever and alter the future of America…”

This is what we would be seeing and hearing if Donald Trump had been involved in the 2013 Clinton business deal with Russia that everyone knows about—but no one is willing to prosecute or even cover (anymore) in the mainstream press.

I have written about the Clinton deal before, but it’s worth reviewing again, given the kind of heat Trump is dealing with for Phone Conversations. Conversations several of his people have had with Russians; even business deals that could have been consummated during those discussions.

So…here it is again. Imagine Hillary and Bill Clinton were not the wheelers and dealers. Imagine Trump was. Try to conceive what would be happening to him now vs. what is happening to Bill and Hillary: i.e., nothing.

I’ll go one step further. Wherever Bill or Hillary’s name, or the name of their Foundation, appears in the NY Times story I’m about to quote, I’ll substitute a Trump name (in CAPS), so you get the full effect:

Consider this plot line. Follow the bouncing ball.

Putin wants 20% of uranium on US soil. That 20% is owned by a Canadian mining company.

The Canadian executives want to sell it to Putin.

But because uranium is a US “national security” product, various US federal agencies have to OK the deal. One of those agencies is the US State Department.

The State Department is headed up by MELANIA TRUMP. Her Department says yes to the uranium deal.

The kicker? Those Canadian mining executives, who wanted the sale to Putin to go through, donated millions to the TRUMP FAMILY FOUNDATION.

Memory is short. On April 23, 2015, the NY Times ran a story under the headline: Cash Flowed to TRUMP Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal.

The bare bones of the story: a Canadian company called Uranium One controlled a great deal of uranium production in the US. It was sold to Russia (meaning Putin and his minions). So Putin now controls 20% of US uranium production.

From the Times: “…the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.”

From the Times: “The [Pravda] article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company [Uranium One] with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.”

“At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of DONALD TRUMP and his family. Members of that [mining] group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.”

“Frank Giustra…a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by DONALD TRUMP…”

“Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal [to sell Uranium One to Putin] had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. TRUMP’S wife, MELANIA TRUMP.”

“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the TRUMP Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the TRUMPS, despite an agreement Mrs. TRUMP had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.”

“And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. TRUMP received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

Got the picture?

Circumstantial case, you say?

Well, imagine the case applied to Donald Trump and his wife.

Where would we be now?

What hell would be unleashed from the press corps?

What venom would be spewed from the Arctic Circle to Tierra del Fuego?

Page one: THE GREATEST TRAITOR IN AMERICAN HISTORY IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

And that headline would run on a mild slow news day.

But Hillary and Bill Clinton, the actual players in the Russia/Putin/uranium deal…

Roam free.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.