Politics EXPOSING THE DEEP STATE

Discussion in 'Blazers OT Forum' started by MARIS61, Jan 24, 2018.

  1. MARIS61

    MARIS61 Real American

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    28,007
    Likes Received:
    5,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Yankee
    Location:
    Beautiful Central Oregon
    Some House Dems be headin' to the pokey soon.

    Barr says DOJ has ‘multiple criminal leak’ probes underway

    By Adam Shaw | Fox News

    Attorney General Barr acknowledges the DOJ has 'multiple criminal leak investigations underway'
    Republican Senator Chuck Grassley asks Attorney General William Barr about leaks to the media during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

    Attorney General William Barr on Wednesday told lawmakers that the Department of Justice has “multiple criminal leak investigations” underway in response to unauthorized media contact by department officials during the Special Counsel’s Russia investigation.

    Barr, who was testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, was asked by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, about what he called a “culture of unauthorized media contact” during both the Hillary Clinton email probe and the Russia investigations.

    “Leaks undermine the ability of investigators to investigate, further leaks to the papers while Congress’ questions to the department go unanswered is unacceptable,” Grassley said. “What are you doing to investigate unauthorized media contacts by the department and FBI officials during the Russian investigation?”

    “We have multiple criminal leak investigations under way,” Barr responded, but did not elaborate.


    [​IMG]Video
    BARR TESTIFIES 'SPYING DID OCCUR' ON TRUMP CAMPAIGN, AMID REPORTED REVIEW OF INFORMANT'S ROLE

    Barr has said previously that he is open to investigating the department’s behavior during the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and has taken steps towards doing that.

    He announced last month that he was reviewing the origins of the probe at the FBI and the Justice Department, and controversially said that “spying” occurred in 2016.

    "I think spying did occur. The question is whether it was adequately predicated. … I think it’s my obligation. Congress is usually very concerned with intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies staying in their proper lane," he testified before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee, while noting that "spying on a political campaign is a big deal."

    Adam Shaw is a reporter covering U.S. and European politics for Fox News.. He can be reached here.
     
  2. MARIS61

    MARIS61 Real American

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    28,007
    Likes Received:
    5,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Yankee
    Location:
    Beautiful Central Oregon
    Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Syria, traitors to America, Corrupt politicians...
     
  3. Lanny

    Lanny Original Season Ticket Holder "Mr. Big Shot"

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    26,638
    Likes Received:
    16,945
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Elec. & Computer Engineer OSU Computer Science PSU
    Location:
    Lake Oswego, OR
    Barr is a lackey. Fox News is entertainment by their own definition.
     
  4. MARIS61

    MARIS61 Real American

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    28,007
    Likes Received:
    5,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Yankee
    Location:
    Beautiful Central Oregon
    Now that the Russian Hoax has been exposed, it's time to investigate, prosecute, and imprison what will include but not be limited to about half of Obama's cabinet, several dozen more FBI employees, and around 1/3 of the top echelon of our intelligence community. And that's just for the cover-up attempted by the hoax. The hoax itself involves similar criminals from British, Australian and Italian spy agencies. David Cameron and Obama appear to be in full knowledge and likely active participants. These connections were evident a year ago, but now the Mueller report unavoidably confirms them.

    Recent revelations point to Mueller lying to the court at PapaD's trial about supposed testimony from a supposed Russian agent who conveniently disappeared right after supposedly signing the statement that got PapaD convicted for lying. The supposed Russian has been found hiding in Italy, and identified as Josef Misfud, a US CIA operative posing as a Maltese Professor, and will likely be arrested and extradited to testify before a grand jury soon.

    AG Barr has opened over a dozen investigations and it's expected to bring down scores of Deep State traitors, leakers, perjurers, and embezzlers. And that's just the start. The Clintons, The Bidens, The Kerrys, The Obamas, all are being looked at for pay-for-play crimes. The leakers in Congress like Schiff and Waters...

    It is likely we will need a separate thread for each agency that has people indicted, but for now I'll just put all the preliminary allegations and indictments here so Lanny can't miss them.

    DEEP STATE SPY LOCATED: Fake ‘Russian’ Joseph Mifsud Who Set Up Trump Campaign Volunteer Papadopoulos Located in Rome!
    [​IMG] by Jim Hoft April 20, 2019 289 Comments

    • As we noted in February, candidate Trump’s unpaid volunteer George Papadopoulos was indicted by the Mueller team for lying. We still don’t know what he lied about, but we are finding out about the FBI’s involvement in setting him up.

      Papadopoulos was in an interview with former Secret Agent and author Dan Bongino when he shared this –
      Bongino: I want to get right to it. I have a list of questions for you..I guess the easiest question to ask is why did you meet with Mifsud?

      Papadopoulos: Professor Mifsud is a Maltese professor. Just so everybody understands – he’s not a Russian.

      I was working at this organization in London – the London Center for International Law Practice (LCILP) – that unbeknownst to me at the time was apparently some sort of front group for ex-western diplomats and ex-western intelligence types of personalities.

      As well, the legal counsel for the FBI in the UK, Arvinder Sambei, just happens to also be a director at this organization I used to work for. I tell this organization ‘Look, I’m joining the Trump Campaign, I’m leaving. I’m going back to the U.S. I’m leaving London.

      But they all of a sudden tell me, ‘before you leave, you really need to come to Rome with us. We want to introduce you to some people there.’ So, I say, ‘that’s fine. I’ll go to Rome. It’s a three-day holiday before I get back to Washington.

      They introduce me to Josef Mifsud at this university in Rome called Link Campus. This isn’t any normal university in Rome. At the time I had no idea what this place was. But apparently, it’s a training ground for western intelligence operatives in Rome. The CIA has held symposiums there. David Ignatius from the Washington Post has actually written extensively about this place. They have connections to the FBI and other groups.

      I also saw many Italian diplomats there. The ex-foreign minister of Italy was the director of this university, so things started to pop in my mind that this isn’t just a random event – a random meeting.

      They tell me it’s very important for you to meet Josef Mifsud. I had no idea who this person was. He came up to me, presented himself as this mid-fifties, former diplomat, who knew the world.

      The mainstream media and the FBI, DOJ and Mueller team all wanted to connect President Trump to Russia so they set up Papadopoulos and then claimed that he met with Russians. The only problem is that the Russian was not a Russian – he’s a Maltese professor, Joseph Mifsud The entire connections in London were a set up.

      Mueller’s Team also had connections to Joseph Mifsud –

      According to one investigative site on the web, one of the members of Mueller’s team was connected to Mifsud –

      [​IMG]

      Zainab Ahmad, a member of Mueller’s legal team, is the former Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of New York. As pointed out by Blackburn, Ahmad attended a Global Center on Cooperative Security [GCCS] event in 2017. In recent days, Blackburn wrote via Twitter: “Zainab Ahmad is a major player in the Russiagate scandal at the DOJ. Does she work for SC Mueller? She was at a GCCS event in May 2017. Arvinder Sambei, a co-director of the [London Centre of International Law Practice], worked with Joseph Mifsud, [George Papadopoulos] and [Simona Mangiante]. She’s a GCCS consultant.”

      The FBI set up Papadopoulos with Mifsud who went missing after being interviewed by the Mueller team. Now he has been located –

    • It will be good to finally ask Mifsud who from Obama’s FBI or other agency hired him to set up Papadopoulos. It’s time to investigate the investigators.
     
  5. CupWizier

    CupWizier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2009
    Messages:
    11,265
    Likes Received:
    7,664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired
    Do you ever come up with an original thought? All you do is waste space with cut and paste articles that I bet nobody even bothers to read. I know I have never read one.
     
  6. bodyman5000 and 1

    bodyman5000 and 1 Lions, Tigers, Me, Bears

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2013
    Messages:
    19,584
    Likes Received:
    13,219
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    That's hilarious. I read all the crap you guy's post but you just dismiss anything you don't like out of hand.

    I remember people here used to say they read articles from both sides of the corporate media and found the truth somewhere in the middle.

    Too much work these days huh?
     
    MarAzul, Orion Bailey and MARIS61 like this.
  7. bodyman5000 and 1

    bodyman5000 and 1 Lions, Tigers, Me, Bears

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2013
    Messages:
    19,584
    Likes Received:
    13,219
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Las Vegas
  8. barfo

    barfo triggered obsessive commie pinko Staff Member Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    32,643
    Likes Received:
    22,674
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Blazer OT board
    Huh?

    Aside from your weird assumption that only you noticed Sly's joke, what difference do the post times make?

    barfo
     
    riverman likes this.
  9. MARIS61

    MARIS61 Real American

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    28,007
    Likes Received:
    5,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Yankee
    Location:
    Beautiful Central Oregon
     
  10. MARIS61

    MARIS61 Real American

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    28,007
    Likes Received:
    5,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Yankee
    Location:
    Beautiful Central Oregon
    Ukraine embassy says DNC operative reached out for information on Trump campaign in 2016

    By Gregg Re | Fox News

    How did the special counsel miss Ukraine's plot to help Clinton?

    Why wasn't it found while investigating Paul Manafort's Ukrainian ties? Committee to Defend the President chairman Ted Harvey reacts.

    Ukraine's embassy wrote that a Democratic National Committee (DNC) insider reached out in 2016 seeking dirt on President Trump's campaign, according to a bombshell new report Thursday that further fueled Republican allegations that Democrats were the ones improperly colluding with foreign agents during the campaign.

    Ambassador Valeriy Chaly said DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa pushed for Ukraine's then-President Petro Poroshenko to mention Paul Manafort's ties to Ukraine publicly during a visit to the U.S., and sought detailed financial information on his dealings in the country, The Hill reported. At the time, Manafort was Trump's campaign chairman.

    "The Embassy got to know Ms. Chalupa because of her engagement with Ukrainian and other diasporas in Washington D.C., and not in her DNC capacity. We’ve learned about her DNC involvement later," Chaly said in a statement released by the Ukrainian embassy. "We were surprised to see Alexandra’s interest in Mr. Paul Manafort’s case. It was her own cause. The Embassy representatives unambiguously refused to get involved in any way, as we were convinced that this is a strictly U.S. domestic matter."

    Chaly continued: "All ideas floated by Alexandra were related to approaching a Member of Congress with a purpose to initiate hearings on Paul Manafort or letting an investigative journalist ask President Poroshenko a question about Mr. Manafort during his public talk in Washington, D.C."

    A 'VERY FLIRTY' INFORMANT, THREE MEETINGS IN LONDON, AND RATHER ODD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TRUMP TEAM AND RUSSIA -- WAS SHE AN FBI OR CIA SPY?

    The Ukrainian embassy confirmed the comments to Fox News but disputed the suggestion that Chalupa sought "dirt" on Trump, saying that she was merely concerned about the role on Manafort due to his previous work in the country -- and said she did not ask for any materials from the embassy. A spokesperson said that the embassy's encounter with Chalupa was "null" and produced no further action.

    Neither the DNC nor Chalupa, who works as a Washington, D.C.-based political consultant, immediately responded to Fox News' requests for comment. In 2017, Chalupa told CNN: "During the 2016 US election, I was a part time consultant for the DNC running an ethnic engagement program. I was not an opposition researcher for the DNC, and the DNC never asked me to go to the Ukrainian Embassy to collect information."

    [​IMG]
    Paul Manafort in 2017. Ambassador Valeriy Chaly said DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa pushed for Ukraine's then-President Petro Poroshenko to mention Manafort's ties to Ukraine publicly during a visit to the U.S., and sought detailed financial information on his dealings in the country. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)

    However, Chalupa acknowledged that she met with "representatives of the Ukrainian Embassy," but said the topic of conversation was an "Immigrant Heritage Month women's networking event." She also told CNN that when Manafort was named Trump's campaign chairman, she flagged for the DNC that Manafort had worked with the Russian-backed Viktor Yanukovych, Ukrainian's president at the time.

    Federal Election Commission (FEC) records confirm that Chalupa's firm provided various services to the DNC in 2016, and that the DNC paid Chalupa more than $412,000 from 2004 to 2016. Chalupa had other clients besides the DNC during that period.

    President Trump told Fox News' "Hannity" in a wide-ranging interview last week that Attorney General Bill Barr was handling the "incredible" and "big" new revelations that Ukrainian actors apparently leaked damaging information about Manafort to help Hillary Clinton's campaign.

    Last month, Ukraine Prosecutor General Yurii Lutsenko opened a probe into the so-called "black ledger" files that led to Manafort's abrupt departure from the Trump campaign. The investigation commenced after an unearthed audio recording showed that a senior Ukrainian anticorruption official apparently admitted to leaking Manafort's financial information in 2016 -- including his ties to pro-Russian actors in Ukraine -- to benefit Clinton.

    Ukrainian law enforcement officials said earlier this month they had a slew of evidence of collusion and wrongdoing by Democrats and were trying to share the information with U.S. officials in the Justice Department.

    A Ukrainian court recently ruled that the Manafort document leak amounted to illegal interference in the U.S. election by parliamentarian Serhiy Leshchenko and Ukraine's National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU).


    [​IMG]
    Mark Steyn: Hillary's inability to lose gracefully spawned the Russia investigation
    Hillary Clinton unloads on Trump and Attorney General Barr; reaction from SteynOnline.com's Mark Steyn.

    Asked by Sean Hannity whether Americans needed to see the results of Ukraine's ongoing investigation into whether officials in that country worked with the Clinton team, Trump replied, "I think we do."

    "I would imagine [Barr] would want to see this. ... I would certainly defer to the attorney general, and we'll see what he says about it," Trump said. "He calls 'em straight."

    Trump continued: "It sounds like big stuff, very interesting with Ukraine. I just spoke with the new president a while ago, and congratulated him. ... But that sounds like big, big stuff, and I'm not surprised."

    With those remarks, Trump echoed his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, who said earlier: "Keep your eye on Ukraine."

    A 2017 investigation by Politico found that Ukrainian officials not only publicly sought to undermine Trump by questioning his fitness for office, but also worked behind the scenes to secure a Clinton victory.

    Among other initiatives, Politico found, the Ukrainian government worked with Chalupa to conduct opposition research against Trump, including going after Manafort for Russian ties, helping lead to his resignation.

    Chalupa, on Facebook, called the story "nonsense" at the time.

    Fox News' Adam Shaw contributed to this report.
     
  11. barfo

    barfo triggered obsessive commie pinko Staff Member Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    32,643
    Likes Received:
    22,674
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Blazer OT board
    Cute, but doesn't really answer my question.

    barfo
     
  12. MARIS61

    MARIS61 Real American

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    28,007
    Likes Received:
    5,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Yankee
    Location:
    Beautiful Central Oregon
    [​IMG]
     
  13. MARIS61

    MARIS61 Real American

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    28,007
    Likes Received:
    5,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Yankee
    Location:
    Beautiful Central Oregon
  14. MARIS61

    MARIS61 Real American

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    28,007
    Likes Received:
    5,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Yankee
    Location:
    Beautiful Central Oregon
    "Every president has been manipulated by national security officials": David Talbot exposes America's "deep state"
    From World War II though JFK, "The Devil's Chessboard" explores how Allen Dulles used the CIA as a tool of elites

    Liam O'Donoghue
    October 15, 2015 11:27PM (UTC)

    This year’s best spy thriller isn’t fiction – it’s history. David Talbot’s previous book, the bestseller “Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years” explored Robert F. Kennedy’s search for the truth following his brother’s murder. His new work, “The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government,” zooms out from JFK’s murder to investigate the rise of the shadowy network that Talbot holds ultimately responsible for the president’s assassination.

    This isn’t merely a whodunit story, though. Talbot’s ultimate goal is exploring how the rise of the “deep state” has impacted the trajectory of America, and given our nation’s vast influence, the rest of the planet. “To thoroughly and honestly analyze [former CIA director] Allen Dulles’s legacy is to analyze the current state of national security in America and how it undermines democracy,” Talbot told Salon. “To really grapple with what is in my book is not just to grapple with history. It is to grapple with our current problems.”

    Just as America’s current national security apparatus has used terrorism as a justification for spying on American citizens, torture, and the annihilation of innocent civilians as collateral damage, Talbot places these justifications in a Cold War context, by showing how spymaster Allen Dulles shrugged off countless atrocities using the threat of communism. For readers unfamiliar with Dulles’ history, the first few chapters are like being splashed in the face with a bucket of ice water. Talbot’s assertion that Dulles is a psychopath is hard to dismiss after the intelligence agent is shown covering up the Holocaust prior to America’s intervention into World War II by keeping crucial information exposing the horrors of concentration camps from reaching President Roosevelt. Allen Dulles and his fellow Cold Warriors saw Russia, a U.S. ally during World War II – not Nazi Germany – as the real enemy.

    Jumping from geopolitical strategy to the psychological realm, Talbot details how it was not only enemies who had reason to fear Dulles, but his own friends and family, as well. The book veers into a dark, terrifying investigation of the MKUltra Project, a hideous “mind control program” developed by the CIA during Dulles’ reign as director, that dosed unsuspecting people with LSD, pushed the limits of sleep deprivation and engaged in other deeply unethical experiments. The program has been exposed, bit by bit, over decades, thanks to lawsuits and previous investigative reporting, but Talbot sheds light on how Dulles subjected his own son and attempted to “enroll” his wife in these hideous “therapies.”

    By the time “The Devil’s Chessboard” eventually climaxes with the events that unfolded in Dallas in 1963, Talbot’s argument that Dulles had both the power and temperament to execute such a plot is more than believable. “Dulles’ favorite word about someone was whether they were useful or not,” Talbot said. “And that’s the way he thought of everyone – to what extent could he use them.”

    You begin the book by detailing the Dulles brothers’ sympathy, collaboration and eventual rescue of many high-ranking Nazis during and after World War II. Once you see how comfortable and even eager they were to align themselves with people who epitomize the worst evils of the 20th century, it becomes easier to accept some of the most shocking accusations that come later in the book. Why were the brothers so willing to offer support, even to the point of committing treason, for the Nazis?

    I think the story of the Dulles brothers is the story of the amorality of American power, and by extension, all power. On some level, Allan Dulles was a psychopath. He didn’t feel the feelings of other people, and certainly wasn’t able to put himself in shoes of the Jewish people, who were on the brink of the Holocaust in Europe, and even during the Holocaust. He was a man who felt history and politics should be controlled by the elite few. He and his brother were raised in this milieu. Their family was full of statesmen and people who had been at the helm of the country for generations.

    They felt that the greater goal of America during the war was reestablishing Germany as a bulwark against growing Soviet power. They felt all along that the Soviet Union represented the greater threat. They were, in fact, very socially comfortable with many members of the Nazi elite, including bankers, security and intelligence people. To them, the whole question about war crimes and the horrors the Nazis had committed during the war were secondary to the more important geo-political questions [such as] who will rebuild Germany after the war and how to make sure the Soviet Union does not overrun Europe.

    The thing that I found startling when I was researching the book was the extent to which Dulles, as the top U.S. spy in continental Europe throughout most of the war, was again and again given inside reports on the Holocaust… of what happening inside this inferno and the massive roundup of Jews, and what was happening to them once they were rounded up. He was given these reports at great risk of these people who snuck into Switzerland – with documents and eyewitness accounts – and again and again he failed to relay these inside reports to Washington as it was developing. So, imagine the kind of compartmentalization – there is some kind of psychopathology to it – where it doesn’t even enter into your equation all this massive suffering of the Jewish people.

    Dulles was an incredibly cold and remote figure, even with his family. For him, it was all about the game of power. That’s why I called the book: “The Devil’s Chessboard.” He and his brother were obsessive chess players, and they treated people as if they were pawns in their game, and not as human beings.

    So it’s clear that even during the height of World War II, while the U.S. and Russia were fighting as allies against the Axis Powers, the Dulles brothers saw Russia as the real enemy. One of the most notorious manifestations of this agenda that you discuss in the book is how an attempt to rescue and negotiate with Nazis against Roosevelt’s wishes during Operation Sunrise helped trigger the Cold War by proving to Russia that the U.S. couldn’t be trusted. Was the Cold War inevitable?

    Look, Joseph Stalin was no choirboy. He was a monster. And he was gripped with his own dark paranoia as well. Certainly what he did to his people was barbaric – as barbaric as what Hitler did to his people. So, I am not defending Stalin at all. But the fact is: FDR had worked out a very interesting partnership with him, and without that partnership, Hitler couldn’t have been defeated.

    The Soviet Union and Soviet people took the brunt of Hitler’s violence and turned it back against him. Really, the Soviet Union was primarily responsible – although American history books don’t reflect this – for the defeat of Nazi forces. FDR knew that he had to keep that coalition together. There were a number of people in the Roosevelt administration – including Roosevelt himself – who felt that, for the good of world peace, that partnership with Russia had to be continued after the war.

    So, I feel that if FDR had lived, there is a good chance that the Cold War could’ve been avoided because of the unique relationship of trust between Stalin and Roosevelt. Even while Roosevelt was alive and was sick in the final weeks of war, he was still struggling to maintain that delicate partnership. But, at the same time, you have Dulles in Switzerland, doing everything he can to undermine that partnership by going behind FDR’s back, in violation of FDR’s policy of unconditional surrender. He had a policy that no one was supposed to negotiate deals with the Nazi leaders, that the Nazis were to be fully crushed.

    In defiance of that, Allen Dulles throughout most of his time in Switzerland, was meeting with various high-level Nazi representatives, and trying to cut a separate deal with them. [Dulles’s deals] would’ve left much of the Nazi regime highly intact. And in fact, he does cut this deal in Sunrise with Karl Wolff, who is head of Nazi security in Italy and a vile figure (who by all measures should’ve been tried in Nuremberg with the original defendants, and probably would’ve been convicted and hung). Wolff was the right-hand man to [SS Chief] Himmler and the liaison between Hitler and Himmler. This is a guy who had lots of blood on his hands.

    But, Dulles protected him and made this deal with him that really didn’t result in anything significant from the strategic point of view. It might’ve ended the war in Italy a few days earlier, but it didn’t save many lives – except the lives of war criminals whom Dulles was dealing with. And, as you say, the even worse effect of this was to instill the idea in Stalin’s mind that the United States was stabbing him in the back by cutting this separate deal in Italy. Everything that President Roosevelt had done to try and maintain this partnership with Stalin throughout the war was effectively dismantled by Dulles in a matter of weeks through the Operation Sunrise dealings.

    What do you think Dulles ultimately saw the as the benefits of Operation Sunrise? Was heightening this confrontation between the U.S. and Russia, and antagonizing Stalin his goal?

    Operation Sunrise was prompted by several things or had several motivations. One: he was trying to stop the Red Army, who were advancing across Europe. So he was trying to cut a peace deal as quickly as possible with the Nazi forces that would prevent the Soviet army from entering Italy (there was a strong communist party in Italy too – a strong Left).

    For him, it was “the clash of civilizations” [similar to how] many conservatives feel today about Islam. Communism and the Soviet Union represented, to people like the Dulles brothers – who were these iconic mouthpieces or lawyers or diplomats for Western capitalism – the ultimate enemy. So, Russia had to be stopped and crushed at all costs. They saw the Cold War as inevitable. Just as many of the Nazis they were dealing with saw the Cold War as part two of their own epic crusade against Bolshevism. In that respect, the Nazi war criminals and the Dulles brothers really did have a common enemy and a common goal.

    In some ways, because of people like the Dulles brothers, and other like-minded people in the U.S. government and military, we didn’t defeat the Third Reich so much as repurpose them for the Cold War. Many of the people in [Chancellor Konrad] Adenauer’s government in West Germany after the war included a number of high-ranking Nazis.

    In the CIA’s employment of former Nazis, American agents worked very closely with these people who part of a regime that was characterized by fascism, violence against its own people, domestic surveillance and other similarly undemocratic attributes. How much of an influence did Nazis have on the nascent CIA and, in a greater sense, the American government?

    I think the Nazis had a very pernicious influence on Washington’s thinking during the Cold War. [German intelligence chief] Reinhard Gehlen, for instance, was feeding Dulles and the CIA all sorts of false information about military strength of the Soviet Union, and their aggressive intentions. The Soviet Union, of course, had suffered epically during World War II and was in no mood to plunge into World War III.

    But in the mind of people like Gehlen, these fascists who had been at war with the Soviet Union for years, they thought the Soviet Union was about to launch World War III. They injected a paranoid spore into Washington’s mind, and they fed people like CIA officials with lots of bogus intelligence. So, in some ways, our paranoia about the Soviet Union... you see that through the figure of the ex-Nazi scientist “Dr. Strangelove” in the Kubrick film, you that sort of mentality. That was all too true…the feeling that in some ways World War III or this nuclear Holocaust that many people thought was coming was the final stage of this Wagnerian, fascist, apocalyptic view of history.

    There are other characters in “Dr. Strangelove” inspired by real people too. General Ripper was influenced by [U.S. Air Force general] Curtis LeMay, who you talk about in the book as wanting to use nuclear weapons or atomic bombs as a solution to every foreign policy.

    That’s right. In fact, I was talking with Dan Ellsberg about the film, and he said that he and other defense analysts, who were working at the Pentagon at the time, called it a documentary, not a film, because it was so accurate and true to life. So, the “mind meld” between former Nazis like Gehlen and Dulles was incredibly poisonous and had tragic consequences throughout the Cold War.

    Although your book is historical nonfiction, it reads like a spy thriller. So even though we’re talking about events that happened decades ago, I don’t want to spoil readers by giving away your whole case for why Allen Dulles was ultimately the mastermind behind JFK’s murder and the subsequent coverup. So I’ll just ask you to explain however much of the case you’re comfortable with.

    I tried, in a very thoroughly documented way, to show how not only Dulles, but the men who were in his network of powerful Wall Street bankers and lawyers and powerful figures in Washington in the national security world developed a feeling that they were the true center of power in America, and not whoever happened to be occupying the White House.

    --which wasn’t necessarily untrue.

    Right, I mean, that was the beginning of what many scholars now call the deep state. [The deep state] is essentially an alternative network of power that runs the country no matter who is in the White House. I think the book is in some ways a narrative that brings that idea to life. It wasn’t just Kennedy; As I said, it was starting with Roosevelt, then Truman, then Eisenhower -- theses presidents that Dulles and the people around Dulles were serving, they were also subverting. They were basically following their own line, the line they had worked out privately amongst themselves in groups like the Council on Foreign Relations, and other elite organizations, or just over dinners or at the private clubs they belonged to (The Metropolitan Club or the Navy Club or the Alibi Club).

    So, by the time that this young Jack Kennedy comes along in the final third of [my] book, you start to see that Dulles doesn’t have much respect for the president. He particularly didn’t have much respect for a young, untested president like John F. Kennedy. He had first met Kennedy when he was a very young and physically frail senator. He had just been operated on for back surgery and could barely stand up. He met him at the Kennedy family home back in Palm beach. He thought of himself as Kennedy’s mentor and tutor, and he thought JFK would be a very pliable, young president and open to direction and advice from men like Dulles.

    But they had this very acrimonious split over CIA-led invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, where Kennedy felt he had been lied to and sandbagged, and forced into supporting this invasion. I think that the plan all along was the CIA had wanted the invasion to fail, but Dulles hoped and was completely convinced that Kennedy would be forced to send in the full might of the U.S. military to save the invasion and to crush Castro. When Kennedy didn’t do that and refused to escalate it into an international crisis, it provoked this split within the Kennedy government that led to Dulles being forced out of power, much to his shock. He had never been treated that way by a president).

    But, he doesn’t just go back home to [retire] after that. As my book shows, he goes back to Georgetown and begins to set up an anti-Kennedy government in exile. He operates as if he’s still running the CIA. And when I read that when I was doing my research… that set off all sorts of lights for me because here you have a guy who is not going gently into the good night of retirement. He feels in some ways Kennedy is an aberrant president and doesn’t deserve to be in power, and that he isn’t really protecting the interest of the state as vigilantly as he should. So, he begins to meet with all his former top aides at his home. These are not just top officials within the CIA, but field agents. He is dining with them in the clubs in Washington. And they are basically creating their own policy.

    Again, I show how they acted to subvert Kennedy’s policies, which Kennedy... as his administration went on was trying to find a way out of the Cold War, out of this nuclear knot that had been tied. He and his counterpart Nikita Kruschev were trying to find a way to loosen this knot, but the national security hardliners, who were in control of the CIA, even after Dulles was fired, thought that was weak, naïve, and a dangerous policy. They tried to resist it in every way they could.

    I think these tensions between the Kennedy White House and these hardliners grew and grew over the next few years, and exploded in Dallas. I do indicate that Dulles was centrally involved in the assassination planning and that the assassination team that he had created to kill foreign leaders like Fidel Castro and others… that several members of these teams were actually spotted in Dallas in the weeks leading up to the assassination. Allan Dulles himself, who had been retired for two years, during the weekend of Kennedy’s assassination, goes to a remote CIA facility, which is an alternative command post in northern Virginian called “The Farm,” where he monitors activity in Dallas.

    Of course, he also becomes a prominent figure on the Warren Commission [the official commission to investigate JFK’s assassination]. He lobbied to have himself appointed by President Johnson on the Warren Commission. He was so active in directing that so-called investigation that some close observers thought it should’ve been called the Dulles Commission.

    So, there are no smoking guns – because we are talking about the CIA – and they were careful about having no smoking guns. I am writing about a very secretive world and there aren’t any obvious pieces of evidence, but there are many pieces of evidence that I do accumulate that think, overall, make a convincing case that Allen Dulles did play a crucial role in these events.

    The Kennedy assassination, and related events, such as the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the Warren Commission, are some of the most thoroughly investigated and analyzed chapters of recent American history. How do you go about digging up evidence that hasn’t already been found and stories that haven’t been told? What is the difference between an investigative reporter and a historian?

    A lot of these doors are shut when you are dealing with the intelligence world – obviously, they don’t want this history to come out. Recently, the CIA released with great fanfare hundreds of presidential CIA briefings that were given to President Kennedy and Johnson, but they were heavily redacted and controlled. When they do a document release, it is very heavily choreographed. Some things still come out in these document releases. After Oliver Stone’s film, JFK, there was so much public pressure on the government to release classified material related to Kennedy assassination and presidency there was a law passed called the JFK Records Collection Act and thousands and thousands of pages were released. The CIA is still withholding 15,000 key documents related to the Kennedy assassination including [documents related to] people in the Dulles assassination group. It is vital that we get those 15,000 documents that the CIA is still withholding in defiance of that law.

    There are a lot of clues in those [released] documents and I have used a lot of them. For instance, in the Nazi period that I write about, there was a bill passed by Congress called The Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act that had a wealth of information about the extent to which the U.S. intelligence was collaborating with leading Nazis, and I drew on that wealth of material. Many historians are doing that now as well. That is important, and I do not want to downplay that – how important it is that we have a right to our own history. As Orwell wrote, “Those who control the past, control the future.”

    Even when you meet a stonewall there, you can go around it sometimes by finding living sources. So, for the book, I interviewed a number of people who were the children of major CIA officials including Allen Dulles’s daughter, Joan, who was nearing 90 when I talked to her. She is an amazing person, and in some way, the exact opposite of her father, who was this cold and remote figure. She is a retired Jungian therapist, living in Santa Fe. She drives an old Prius with an Obama sticker. She represents everything that would make her father scream in his grave. She, late in her life, is trying to come to terms about what her family legacy is all about, and this dark side of history. As a Jungian, she realizes that the darkness hold many valuable truths if you can shine a light on them. She and I, together, though many interviews, tried to make sense about her father, her parent’s marriage, and about what kind of man he was.

    I interviewed a young – at the time – army intelligence officer in Rome at a critical period, post-WWII. It was the period when Dulles and associates like James Jesus Angleton were setting up Nazi ratlines to let these war criminal escape. As they were doing this, this young, conscientious intelligence army officer – William Gowen – was trying as hard as he could to round these war criminals up and bring them to justice. It was “spy versus spy” in Rome in these post-war days. So, those were amazing stories that he was able to relate to me.

    You track down these people, and if they are no longer living, you talk to their family members. Then, there are also the written records: the journals and the diaries that some of these people kept. For example, Dulles’s own wife and his mistress, Mary Bancroft [kept records] – those were fascinating too, and are available in the library.

    You try to build this composite portrait from many different pieces of evidence you accumulate. Then, what you’re trying to do is tell the best story, in a way. I have a saying that the best story wins.

    I have been, through my exhaustive work on this, which started back with my first book “Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years,” examining this swath of history for 10 years. At the end of the day, you want to put together a story that is meaningful, has the ring of truth to it, and help people see American history in a way that they’ve never done before. I am not interested in recycling the same old fairy tales that you see on PBS, or that you see in best-selling history books, Spielberg or Tom Hanks movies. Those are the stories that are meant to put Americans to sleep and not wake them up. I’m interested in waking people up, and I think this book is going to do that. I think it is going to shock people; I think it will be controversial; I think it will be attacked. But, this is what I want. I want to start a debate.

    One of the most common responses to any JFK conspiracy is the idea that if the CIA was really involved, the media would have broken the story by now. You do a great job of baking a rebuttal into your story, by showing cold, hard evidence that many of the people running the pre-Internet corporate media, both TV networks and the most influential newspapers and magazines of the day, were either friends with Dulles, scared of Dulles or submissive to the power he wielded. You even give examples of letters from Dulles to executives offering suggestions of how they should be covering stories and their sycophantic responses. How was Dulles so effective in controlling the narrative around JFK’s death and so many other events?

    I think the elite world in America was a very small and circumscribed one. We’re talking about a network that the sociologist C. Wright Mills [exposed] because he was one of the first who was trying to understand how power really worked in America. But that world he was writing about was a fairly small group of men, including Wall Street bankers and lawyers and people who held prominent positions in Washington and national security. They all tended to know each other. They all belonged to the same clubs and organizations. They all traded jobs and positions and hired each other. Their children went to the same universities and prep schools. They socialized together.

    That was a tight world and Dulles was on personal basis with many, if not most, of the heads of the top media corporations. He was close to the people who owned and ran The New York Times, the Washington Post, Newsweek, and Henry Luce’s Time empire. He was particularly close to both Henry Luce and his wife; in fact, he was probably having an affair with Claire Luce. So, he could call up and say, “Well, we don’t like what this correspondent is writing about down in Guatemala. We think you should remove him.” And they did.

    There was a sense that we were all in this together. It wasn’t just one friend doing a favor for another. The Cold War ideology was so strong, and the sense that this is a national emergency, so this was your patriotic duty to help out the CIA and its battle with world communism. And so, many reporters willingly did the bidding of the CIA, providing them with information when they were posted overseas or writing stories that CIA wanted them to write.

    This was not unusual. Later, it was exposed – much of this by Carl Bernstein in a famous investigative piece that he wrote in the Rolling Stone in the 1970s. It shocked a lot of people. He named names of hundreds people who were on the CIA payrolls in the media or were CIA assets. But, at the time, it wasn’t shocking. Most people would’ve felt that there was a natural alliance between the national security agencies and the media because we were in this international struggle together.

    Maybe, it’s not so shocking to people today because essentially you find the same merger of consciousness around the war on terror. There’s so much that goes unreported or that is overworked. When you think of everything that has been done in the name of American people or the war on terror, there has been some good investigative reporting, but by and large, the war on terror gets fundamental support from corporate media. It was the same if not more so during the Cold War. People thought if there was something going on in the Kennedy assassination, they would’ve dug it out. That is just wishful thinking because there was no kind of enterprise reporting on the Warren Commission, on the assassination, on the investigation into the assassination. Any effort in that regard was termed wild, crazy, and outside the parameters of what was legitimate journalism

    And in some ways, it still is.

    Absolutely. Even now, this book, my reputation, and the early reviews it’s getting should make this book, at least, the kind of book that gets prominent treatment in the media, even if it criticized. There have been a couple of shows already – I won’t say their names – who said that they don’t want to have me on because the book says that the JFK assassination was an inside job. So, there is still a fear of this, a fear of looking at it with an open mind.

    America media, if anything, has become even more cowardly in some ways of criticizing the national security state. The national security state is much more powerful today than it was even under Dulles. A lot of the things we are grappling with today such as extraordinary rendition, torture, mass surveillance of private citizens, extra-legal assassinations, those all were developed under Dulles. To thoroughly and honestly analyze Dulles’s legacy, in some ways, is to analyze the current state of national security in America and how it undermines democracy. In some way, to really grapple with what is in my book is not just to grapple with history. It is to grapple with our current problems, and that is really frightening.

    One of the major questions that this book raises is: how powerful is the president? Eisenhower famously warned of the rise of the military-industrial complex during his farewell speech and it would certainly appear as though his most dire predictions came true. Obama is the perfect example of how even a candidate with strong progressive credentials can be corrupted so quickly and thoroughly once in office...

    In democracy, you would want to think that your president, elected by the people, who is the commander and chief, is in charge. One of the great revelations for me has been how every president, one way or another, has been played by or manipulated by or fooled by their national security officials. And that goes back to Eisenhower.

    Even before Eisenhower, there was the famous memo from John Foster Dulles to his corporate clients of [the law firm] Sullivan and Cromwell. Regarding the implementation of Roosevelt's New Deal, he wrote, “Do not comply. Resist the law with everything in your might and everything will be alright.”

    Yes, that was when John Foster Dulles was running a powerful law firm on Wall Street, so he wasn’t in government at that point. But, even when presidents like Eisenhower issued these defiant statements about the military-industrial complex, and the power that the security agencies have… that was a convenient time for him to say that. First of all, he was leaving office. The fact is that Eisenhower allowed that military-industrial-intelligence complex to grow to frightening proportions, and he never directly confronted the power of Dulles and the generals. Or he didn’t do so in an effective way. And he left this, a growing monster, to a young president: John F. Kennedy. When Kennedy did try to deal with – I think he was the last president to confront the frightening power of the security agencies – we know what happened as a result. I think he was killed for that reason.

    People can read the book and make their own decisions, but the fact is that ever since Kennedy, no president has seriously challenged the growing power of the national security state. Even Kennedy, who was standing up to them again and again, was often unable to be effective.

    At one point, right on the heels of the Bay of Pigs Invasion, suddenly [French] President de Gaulle, an ally, is under siege from his own generals, who were rebelling in Algeria because he was trying to bring the bloody colonial war in Algeria to a close. The French generals, who are in open revolt, are about to descend on Paris. De Gaulle has to go on national television and issue a call to the people of France to aid him to push back this attempted coup. He tells the press and his information ministers that the CIA is behind the coup – and that JFK is not behind it, but JFK is not in control of his own government. So, the CIA tried to overthrow a western ally without the support of the president.

    De Gaulle later said that he believed that some of the same U.S. security forces who had targeted him were responsible for Kennedy’s death, and that’s one of those stories that never make it to the American press.

    Yes, after de Gaulle came back from Kennedy’s funeral, he told his information ministers that the same U.S. security forces that had targeted him or tried to overthrow his government were responsible for killing President Kennedy, and that Oswald was a convenient fall guy, patsy, scapegoat, and that American people didn’t want to know the truth and will never find out the truth. Unfortunately, that all came out to be [true]. That statement that de Gaulle gave to his information minister was published in the minister’s memoir years later. When that came out in France, it was never translated; it was never published in the US; and no one really publicized it at all in this country. That’s why history is so selective; history is an ongoing argument. You do need to bring an investigative journalist sensibility to history often to get to the truth.

    Do you think we are as close as we’ll ever get to understanding what happened with JFK’s assassination, at least in our lifetime? Or do you think there is something that could dispel any doubt about the CIA’s involvement or some of the missing pieces that there isn’t a smoking gun for?

    If there was ever a smoking gun, it was probably burned by the CIA long ago. But that said, I do think these 1,100 documents that the CIA is withholding – and they’re withholding them for a reason because they don’t want people to see them – have to do with some of the key CIA officers involved in Allen Dulles’s assassination apparatus, the apparatus which he used against foreign leaders. For any of those violent, particularly lethal men to be connected to Dallas – I have an eye-witness that pinpoints one of these men, William Harvey, on a plane to Dallas, shortly before the assassination. He was spotted by his own deputy. And his deputy told his children years later that was convinced that William Harvey was involved in the assassination of Kennedy. This was the guy who was responsible for the assassination operation aimed at Fidel Castro. He was working with the mafia to kill Castro. He was a notorious figure in the CIA. So, for him to be flying to Dallas, shortly before the assassination, at least raises some serious questions.

    Among the documents that the CIA continues to withhold in defiance of the JFK Records Collection Act, are documents related to William Harvey, his whereabouts, and his travel records. So, that’s the kind of information that we need to force the CIA to release in compliance with the law. And the only way they’ll do that is if there is enough outcry from the public and political pressure. There was that kind of pressure after Oliver Stone’s film, back in the 1991. Of course, Oliver Stone got all sorts of holy hell from the media, for being a nut and a conspiracy freak. To this day, Oliver is traumatized by the kind of treatment he got then.

    Speaking of Hollywood, one of thing we talked about [previously] was how when you were researching your book and learning about Dulles, you couldn’t help but think of comparisons to Lannisters from “Game of Thrones.” Do you think there is any chance that “The Devil’s Chessboard” could be adapted into a movie or TV series?

    I don’t think there is a realistic chance that the main studios/players/network in Hollywood will produce a movie based on this book, and I’ll tell you why. I had the same experience with my earlier book, which looked at Bobby Kennedy’s search for truth into the assassination of his brother. It was optioned by Lionsgate and it came close to being set up as a TV miniseries or movie in several different places, but at the last minute, people got cold feet and shied away from it.

    So far, I’ve had the exact same experience with “The Devil’s Chessboard.” Two major agencies have been representing the book in Hollywood. There was huge initial interest from all major players including Brad Pitt and George Clooney, and many others. The books circulated like hot cakes this summer as soon as it came out in galleys and I think as they read it and realized what was in it, despite what a dramatic narrative it is and despite how “House of Cards” showed that there is a huge public appetite for the dark side of power, this is too dark and scary for them.

    George Clooney, in particular, was the first person to read it. It was rushed over to him by his agent the first weekend it came out… and he freaked out. These people have already seen Oliver Stone get “Oliver Stoned.”
    I think no one in Hollywood will go near this. George Clooney, Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg, the people who do American history, are more about mythologizing American history. They’re not about, as Joan Dulles told me, getting to and understanding the dark side. They’re dealing in fairy tales.

    https://www.salon.com/2015/10/15/ev...avid_talbot_investigates_americas_deep_state/
     
  15. MARIS61

    MARIS61 Real American

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    28,007
    Likes Received:
    5,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Yankee
    Location:
    Beautiful Central Oregon
    I thought you were never coming back here? :dunno:

    Oh, well. Troll away. :cheers:
     
    MarAzul and Orion Bailey like this.
  16. bodyman5000 and 1

    bodyman5000 and 1 Lions, Tigers, Me, Bears

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2013
    Messages:
    19,584
    Likes Received:
    13,219
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Because I remember seeing that thread when it was created and read it right away.

    The point is that I actually read all the content people post here if I choose to open a thread.

    If I had a dollar for every time one of the lefties said "Fox News Lol" I'd buy another Focus SVT.

    That actually reminds me of how many people laugh at these little cars until they drive one. Ignorance IS bliss.
     
  17. bodyman5000 and 1

    bodyman5000 and 1 Lions, Tigers, Me, Bears

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2013
    Messages:
    19,584
    Likes Received:
    13,219
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Yeah. Blame @Orion Bailey
     
    Orion Bailey likes this.
  18. barfo

    barfo triggered obsessive commie pinko Staff Member Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    32,643
    Likes Received:
    22,674
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Blazer OT board
    Well, kudos to you for your reading discipline. Still not clear to me why you think others didn't read that thread.

    That would be nice for you, maybe you could start a gofundme page or something.

    Don't worry, it's not your car they are laughing at. It's your penis.

    barfo
     
    CupWizier likes this.
  19. Orion Bailey

    Orion Bailey Forum Troll

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2015
    Messages:
    26,285
    Likes Received:
    21,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh shit! Dont EVEN bring me into this. HAHAHA

    Back to "...As The World Turns... around a pot with a kettle..."


    Funny stuff though
     
    bodyman5000 and 1 likes this.
  20. Orion Bailey

    Orion Bailey Forum Troll

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2015
    Messages:
    26,285
    Likes Received:
    21,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wait, what? Body does porn? Pretty sure thats the only way mostr of us would know the laughability of his penis...

    Unless you sailed on down to vegas and spied into his bedroom with a monoscope?
     

Share This Page