For many weeks we have witnessed the
extraordinary attack by the CIA and its assets in Congress and the media on
Donald Trump’s election. In an unprecedented effort to delegitimize Trump’s election
as the product of Russian interference in the election, the CIA, media,
senators and representatives have consistently made wild accusations for which
they have no evidence. The CIA’s message to Trump is clear: Get in line with
our agenda, or we are going to mess you over.
It is clear that the CIA is warring against
Trump. But the CIA’s media assets have turned the facts on their head and are
blaming Trump for having a negative view of the CIA.
Consider the January 4 Wall Street Journal
article by Damian Paletta and Julian E. Barnes, which begins: “President-elect
Donald Trump, a harsh critic of U.S. intelligence agencies . . .” The two
presstitutes set up their false news story by putting the shoe on the other
foot. It is Trump who is the harsh critic rather than the victim of the CIA’s
harsh accusations. Set up this way, the story continues:
“White House officials have been
increasingly frustrated by Mr. Trump’s confrontations with intelligence
officials. ‘It’s appalling,” the official said. “No president has ever taken on
the CIA and come out looking good.’”
Now that the story is Trump taking on the
CIA and not the CIA taking on Trump, the case can be built against Trump:
Analysts accustomed to more cohesion with
the White House are “jarred” by Trump’s skepticism of the CIA’s assessment that
Putin got him elected. Trump is supposed to respond to the allegation by
saying: I am not legitimate. Here take back the presidency.
WikiLeaks’ Assange has stated unequivocally
that there was no hack. The information came to WikiLeaks as a leak, which
suggests that it came from inside the Democratic National Committee. That Trump
sees it this way means, according to one unidentified official that “It’s
pretty horrifying to me that he’s siding with Assange over the intelligence
agencies.” You see, Trump is supposed to side with the CIA which is trying to
destroy him.
Has the CIA shot itself in both feet? How
can the agency control policy by manipulating the information fed to the
President when the President does not trust the agency?
Well, there is the media which can be used
to control explanations and to box in the President. In his just published
book, The CIA As Organized Crime, Douglas Valentine reports that by the early
1950s the success of the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird delivered into CIA hands
respected members of the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS, other communication
organizations plus stringers, coming to four to six hundred human media assets.
And it didn’t end there.
“The CIA established a strategic
intelligence network of magazines and publishing houses, as well as student and
cultural organizations, and used them as front organizations for covert
operations, including political and psychological warfare operations directed
against American citizens. In other nations, the program was aimed at what Cord
Meyer called the Compatible Left, which in America translates into liberals and
pseudo-intellectual status seekers who are easily influenced.
“All of that is ongoing, despite being
exposed in the late 1960s. Various technological advances, including the
internet, have spread the network around the world, and many people don’t even
realize they are part of it, and they’re promoting the CIA line. ‘Assad’s a
butcher,’ they say, or ‘Putin kills journalists,’ or ‘China is repressive.’
They have no idea what they’re talking about, but they spout all this
propaganda.”
And there is Udo Ulfkotte, who drawing on
his experience as an editor of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung wrote a book
in which he reports that the CIA has a hand on every significant journalist in
Europe.
Some who champion truth hope that the
shrinking influence of the CIA controlled print and TV media will impair the
Deep State’s ability to control explanations. However, the CIA, State
Department, and apparently the Pentagon as well, are already operating in
social media, and they use trolls in comment sections to discredit
truth-tellers.
The New York Times’ editors have revealed
themselves as complete tools of the CIA, endorsing every absurd claim about
Russian hacking despite the total absence of any proof or indeed of any
evidence of hacking, and denouncing Trump for not believing the unsupported
allegations of US intelligence agencies. In the face of John Brennan and James
Clapper’s efforts to delegitimize the presidency of Donald Trump, the NYTimes
asks: “What plausible reason could Donald Trump have for trying so hard to discredit America’s intelligence agencies and
their finding that Russia interfered in the presidential election?”
That question prompts a question of its
own: “What plausible reason could the NYTimes have for trying so hard to
discredit the presidency of Donald Trump on the basis of wild unsupported
allegations?”
The fake news is proliferating. Today
(January 6) Reuters reported: “The CIA has identified Russian officials who
fed material hacked from the Democratic National Committee and party leaders to
WikiLeaks at the direction of Russian President Vladimir Putin through third
parties, according to a new US intelligence report, (unnamed) senior US
officials said on Thursday.”
Perhaps what Reuters meant to say but did
not is this: “Officials who spoke on condition of anonymity claimed that the
CIA has identified the Russian officials who fed the hacked emails to
WikiLeaks, but the official did not tell Reuters who the Russian officials are
or how they identified them.”
In other words, the Reuters story is just
another CIA planted story—a favor from a media asset. As Udo Ulfkotte told us,
this is how it works.
Next Reuters tells us that the report is
Top Secret, which, of course, means that we will never see any evidence in
behalf of the CIA’s allegation. We are supposed to trust that the CIA has the
information but can’t tell us. The Reuters report doesn’t see anything unusual
in this. Another favor by an asset.
In Reuters’ favor-laden news report,
Reuters tell us that the hacked material reached WikiLeaks from Russia’s
military intelligence agency via “a circuitous route” so that Assange did not
know the origin of the material and thus could say that it was not given to him
by a state agency.
What could be going on here? Several things
come to mind. Perhaps there is an effort to force Assange to reveal his source
(which could be that DNC staffer who was mysteriously shot down in the street)
as this would be a surefire way of getting rid of WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks has
never revealed a source. Once it does, no further leaks will flow to WikiLeaks.
Another possibility is that by persistently
making wild unsupported accusations that Trump was elected by Putin, the CIA is
making it clear to Trump that they are playing for keeps. Trump is a strong
man, but don’t be surprised if he comes out of the briefing with the CIA
accepting their story as he might be brought to the realization that the
alternative to compliance with the CIA could be death.
Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the
US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, has been
reporting shocking cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades. A new edition
of his book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, co-authored
with Lawrence Stratton, a documented account of how americans lost the
protection of law, has been released by Random House. Visit his website.
