Ahed, 16, was detained in a night raid in the occupied West Bank village of Nabi Saleh a month ago, after video circulated showing her and a cousin slapping and shoving two heavily armed Israeli soldiers following an incident in which a soldier had shot in the head and seriously injured their 15-year-old cousin.
I was sitting in the nearly empty restaurant of the Westin Hotel in Alexandria, Virginia, getting ready for a showdown with the federal government that I had been trying to avoid for more than seven years. The Obama administration was demanding that I reveal the confidential sources I had relied on for a chapter about a botched CIA operation in my 2006 book, “State of War.” I had also written about the CIA operation for the New York Times, but the paper’s editors had suppressed the story at the government’s request. It wasn’t the only time they had done so.
THE INTERCEPT — Bundled against the freezing wind, my lawyers and I were about to reach the courthouse door when two news photographers launched into a perp-walk shoot. As a reporter, I had witnessed this classic scene dozens of times, watching in bemusement from the sidelines while frenetic photographers and TV crews did their business. I never thought I would be the perp, facing those whirring cameras.
As I walked past the photographers into the courthouse that morning in January 2015, I saw a group of reporters, some of whom I knew personally. They were here to cover my case, and now they were waiting and watching me. I felt isolated and alone.
My lawyers and I took over a cramped conference room just outside the courtroom of U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, where we waited for her to begin the pretrial hearing that would determine my fate. My lawyers had been working with me on this case for so many years that they now felt more like friends. We often engaged in gallows humor about what it was going to be like for me once I went to jail. But they had used all their skills to make sure that didn’t happen and had even managed to keep me out of a courtroom and away from any questioning by federal prosecutors.
TNN doubts very many serving prison time would have benefited from intensive lobbying by so many high ranking political figures, as Sholom Rubashkin did. We have also received clues about Trump’s and the sistema’s idea of justice. Yesterday Trump commuted the prison sentence of Rubashkin, 57. He had served eight years of a twenty-seven year sentence.
According to the Times of Israel Rubashkin, as manager of the family owned Agriprocessors meat plant ($300 million annual revenue) in Postville, Iowa, was convicted in 2009 of financial fraud for submitting fake invoices to the plant’s bank that made the company’s finances appear healthier than they were so that it could borrow more. The bankruptcy revealed a $26 million fraud and scheme.
In addition, in one of the nation’s largest illegal worker busts, federal authorities raided the plant and detained 389 illegal immigrants in 2008. ICE determined that at the time of their raid, two-thirds of the plant’s workers were undocumented. It turned out the company itself was cranking out false social security cards.
There were also 9,311 counts of child labor violations in the indictments, as well as horrific safety violations.
Plant supervisors in this hell-on-earth were involved in rape and sexual abuse of workers. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) also documented and filmed what they called the worst animal abuses and extreme cruelity they had ever seen.
The Rubashkin criminal exploits and methods were documented in the CNBC series “American Greed – The Slaughterhouse”. The video has now been scrubbed from CNBC’s site. It has been mirrored elsewhere, but this may not be online long.
Mr. Rubashkin is a member of the Jewish Chabad Lubavitch Hasidic sect. The next video is of one of Rubaskin’s sons and demonstrates attitudes toward non-Jews aka goyim. It too offers clues as to the manner in which Rubashkin ran the largest kosher slaughterhouse in the US. TNN earlier provided additional color on Chabad, among whose members are Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.
In 2010 a son-in-law of Rubashkin was given a slap on the wrist after being charged with four counts related to sexual molestation of two boys. The Jewish Forward reported that in a plea bargain Rabbi Yaakov Weiss pleaded guilty to child endangerment, and admitted his guilt to other counts in the indictment under oath in court. He pleaded guilty to “advising” (witness tampering) one of the boys, in a phone call, to lie to his mother and to police about what had occurred. Weiss “touched his penis to the boy’s buttocks,” states the indictment. It charges that Weiss did the same with the other boy.
One month before the charges, Rabbi Weiss delivered an invocation about “ethics and morals” to the New York State Assembly. He was sentenced to sixty days in jail but served 38 days and was released early.
One might think the Hasidic community might want to lay low and avoid the spotlight as Rubashkin came home. Instead, last night he was greeted as some sort of conquering hero, as thousands poured into the streets in a mass celebration.
Alt Right “spokesman” and Trump cheerleader Mike Cernovich joined in on the celebrations with this twitter. Revealingly, he too treats Rubashkin as a cause célèbre.
"Im hasidic but not Chabad. During the trial I contributed to his legal defense fund (even though I was a student back then and very tight on money). This is something that is very close-to-heart even for non-chabad jews. I'm proud of my President for standing up for justice!"
Hiller copped to charges of first-degree grand larceny in April as part of a plea deal. In October Queens Supreme Court Justice Joseph Zayas sentenced Hiller to one to three years in state prison. With good behavior, TNN doesn’t anticipate Hiller will be there long.
Before diving into this post, readers are encouraged to first familiarize themselves with the mainstream narrative on the The Dreyfus Affair of late 19th century France via the following History Channel documentary. Some takeaways are also sourced from a 41-page work by “Josh G” published at Miles Mathis’ website. For those seeking more detail on anomalies, it’s a good rendition.
The Dreyfus Affair received non-stop, blanket news coverage, mostly by the tabloids, and the story absorbed France and the world for years. Then, as now, most French newspapers were owned and operated by wealthy bankers and industrialists, who were predominantly Jewish. In the ensuing brouhaha, French society was polarized into two camps: The Dreyfusards and the Anti-Dreyfusards (aka “anti-Semites”).
Jewish author Albert Lindemann in “The Jew Accused” writes:
“The political situation in France [at that time] might be usefully presented in terms of two large, opposing clusters: one that was republican, secular, left-wing, modernist, and on balance friendly to modern Jews; another that was monarchist, Catholic, right-wing, anti-modernist, and thus not friendly to modern Jews. (p.90)”
As you go through this astonishing sequence, keep in mind that the secular modernists were the ones in power, as the 3rd Republic was established in 1870. There were 10 Jewish generals in the French Army at this point, which is an over-representation given than only 0.2% of France’s general population were Jewish. We suggest that the Republicans, and not the right-wing, held the Deep State operational levers to pull this “Affair” off. Thus the notion that a clique of alleged anti-semites in the intelligence apparatus had the means and controls to set Dreyfus up is improbable on its face.
The history of the affair has been regurgitated countless times. Dozens of books and hundreds of academic articles have been written on the topic, usually presented in a consecrated, intricate and multi-layered tapestry. Today, the tale is unquestioned and largely unrevised.
The gist of the story (or script) goes like this: Capt. Alfred Dreyfus (1859-1935), an assimilated Jew and loyal Frenchman, was picked out and falsely accused of espionage by unscrupulous “anti-Semite” French officers and subsequently imprisoned on Devil’s Island, French Guinea. Further, when “evidence” later emerged that the real culprit was one Ferdinand Esterhazy, these officers continued with a cover up. They also charged with forgery “the hero,” George Picquart, who “solved the crime.” Eventually, Dreyfus was pardoned and rehabilitated. The rest is history — or rather hidden history.
Without a doubt, then and now, The Dreyfus Affair is a wild tale full of twists and surprises. One peculiarity is how the story broke. Allegedly, French intelligence had an agent functioning as a maid working in the German Embassy. We are also asked to believe that the Germans would willy nilly toss sensitive, secret documents into wastepaper baskets for said maid to pick through and send to her spymasters.
Among the scraps of paper were torn pieces of a report called “The Bordereau” addressed to German intelligence Col. Von Schwartzkoppen. The good colonel also conveniently tossed away a letter to his lover, an Italian military attache named Maj. Allesandro Panizzardi. This just so happened to freely reference “the scoundrel of a D.” The letter ended with “Don’t exhaust yourself with too much buggery.”
Emerging at last in 2013 were contents of the “secret dossier” used in the behind-closed-doors military trial of Dreyfus. In it was another incredulous exchange between the lover boys. Alessandro supposedly informed his lover that “if Dreyfus is brought in for questioning,” they must both claim that they “never had any dealings with that Jew. … Clearly, no one can ever know what happened with him.”
At left is “The Bordereau.” As an experiment, take a piece of paper and rip it into six parts. What are the odds that the end product would look like this, with a straight, clean rip exactly down the center?
The ripped document then passed into the hands of the wicked anti-Semite henchman Maj. (later Lt. Col.) Hubert-Joseph Henry (1846-1898). Henry then determined that the spy must be an artillery officer whose name started with the letter “D.” After handwriting analysis, it led to Dreyfus and he was arrested.
Take note that when the case flipped against the “plotters,” Henry was supposedly jailed and found the next day in his cell with throat slashed. Henry was with SR counter-intelligence, a unit we discuss later in this article. In the hours before his “death,” he wrote to his superior, General Gonse (Deputy Chief of Staff- French Army), “I absolutely must speak to you. You know in whose interest I acted.” Next, we are asked to believe, while halfway through a bottle of rum and midway through another letter to his wife, Henry wrote, “I am like a madman” and proceeded to slit his own throat with a shaving razor. Was Henry an actor, or was he the patsy set up for this agit-prop?
The ‘Bordereau’ Story is Contrived, But by Whom?
The operation of military counterintelligence [alias the “Statistics Section” (SR)] should be noted. In 1894, it was headed by Lt. Col. Jean Sandherr (1846-1897), a graduate of Saint-Cyr and an Alsatian from Mulhouse. It just so happened that Mulhouse is the hometown of Albert Dreyfus and his wealthy family. Sandherr did not live to see the end of the Dreyfus Affair, as he was conveniently “struck by a general paralysis” (at 51), he had to leave active service in December, 1896, succumbing to his sickness before the scandal came to light.
The SR was supported by the “Secret Affairs” of the Quai d’Orsay at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Virtually all observers characterize these operatives as deep state, often utilizing dirty tricks and misdirection. SR usually had four officers. One of the notable features of the SR was that it was outside the military chain of command, reporting to and taking orders from the Minister of War. Thus, the SR was under direct civilian control, making it a kind of a political mole burrowed inside the French army. Did they operate on behalf of “anti-Semites” as the conventional narrative claims or for others, say the interests of the hyper-wealthy Zionist Rothschilds, who were a major presence in Paris in this era.
Jews were already over-represented among the military officer corp in France and especially in intelligence, at around 3% from the 1860s to the eve of WWI. With Jews constituting 0.2% of the total population in those years, that means it was an over-representation of 15 fold. Far from a suppressed minority, they had plenty of presence and clout in government and otherwise.
Who was Albert Dreyfus?
There are certain hidden facts in the case. One was that Capt. Dreyfus was no longer an artillery officer as claimed. Indeed, Dreyfus revealed in his 1901 memoir “Five Years of My Life” that he was working in military intelligence (Deuxième Bureau) the entire time he was in the general staff. The bureau had a tight-knit, select staff of 20 to 30 officers. He entered St. Cyr War College in 1891 and started with the general staff on Jan. 1, 1893. St. Cyr (covered by Miles Mathis elsewhere) has major red-flag deep-state history, and not just involving Frenchmen. In October 1893, Dreyfus was transferred to the infantry. Yet, to this day, the false narrative claims he was just another artillery officer at the time of the affair.
Dreyfus’ account of his imprisonment on Devil’s Island is farcical. He whined incessantly about the extreme heat. In his published prison diary for Nov. 4, 1895, he wrote, “Terrific heat, over 45° Centigrade (113° Farenheit).” Did they give him a thermometer on Île du Diable? In today’s day and age, we have a little thing called the Internet, so “facts” like this can be checked. According to Weather Underground, French Guiana’s highest-ever recorded temperature was on Nov. 3, 2015. It was 37.9° Celsius (100°F). In fact, the weather, especially on the sea coast, is balmy and breezy, with maximums in the 80s.
Incredibly — and The New Nationalist (TNN) would say conveniently — a special law was passed on Feb. 9, 1895, restoring the Îles du Salut in French Guiana as a place of fortified deportation. “Devil’s Island” actually refers to several islands and locations. The tiny isle where Dreyfus was alleged to have been held never housed more than 12 political prisoners at one time, and Alfred Dreyfus was the first. Apart from his guards, he was the only inhabitant of the island, and he stayed in a stone hut that was 4 meters by 4 metres.
TNN’s takeaway: Was anybody really on that rock? Oddly, in 1896, the drama continued with a story of Dreyfus escaping and being spotted. To cover for this, Alfred’s brother Mathius inexplicably claimed to have planted the “escape” subterfuge.
As Lindemann wrote, “Anyone who reads Dreyfus’s memoirs or his letters to his wife can hardly avoid the sense of reading a bad novel, filled with mawkish and self-congratulatory passages.” Much of it is filler in which he’s just writing in his diary to complain about waiting for the mail to come. If Samuel Beckett had written a play about Dreyfus’s years in prison, he probably would’ve called it “Waiting for Mail.” This hokey-looking soap-opera photo (with an early version of a set screen) was alleged to be Dreyfus (apparently dressed for a cooler day) on Devil’s Island and was put out for public consumption in 1899.
At right is a photo of Alfred Dreyfus posing with his brother Mathius shortly after his reunion in France. The media described him as a wrecked, frail man health wise, as a result of his Devil Island ordeal. You decide.
This suggests the whole story was a concocted victimization stance to build a fake canard against those questioning the Jewish agenda. Dreyfus was never a spy or a traitor, but he was a subterfuge misdirection agent. The villian Esterházy may have been a double agent. The publication of notes by Schwartzkoppen in 1930 suggests that they were receiving material from Esterhazy. Esterhazy himself later confessed in a British newspaper that he had indeed authored “The Bordereau” and passed it along to the Germans as disinformation. Who knows, as this is secondary to the larger picture of what The Dreyfus Affair was about.
Who was Ferdinand Esterhazy?
Esterházy (1847- 1923) benefited from special treatment by the upper echelons of the army. He was the son of a general, an intelligence operative, descendant of royalty and a Rothschild classmate who was protected his entire life and well rewarded for doing his shabbos goy part in The Dreyfus Affair. Esterhazy also worked in the “Statistics Section” (SR). Source: The Return of the Rothschilds. When he was “busted” the villain was able to easily escape to England where he lived the rest of his life in comfort and undisturbed.
According to Wikipedia, “Through the medium of Zadoc Kahn, chief rabbi of France, Esterhazy obtained “assistance” (aka money) from the Rothschilds in June, 1894, right before Dreyfus’ arrest. At the same time he was on good terms with the editors of the anti-Semitic newspaper La Libre Parole, which he supplied with information.” So was he just an opportunist playing both sides against each other? Esterhazy, by the way, didn’t need Zadoc Kahn: he was on good terms with the Rothschilds, having attended high school with Edmond (From The Return of the Rothschilds, pp. 116-17).
With Esterhazy, the Shakespearean scoundrel as William James called him, there is no end of interesting material. For instance…if in the years before The Dreyfus Affair you were a Jewish officer in the army who had been insulted by a professional anti-Semite, say Edouard Drumont, in the press, the thing to do was to challenge your insulter to a duel. Ah, but that was difficult. You had to find someone to assist and to serve as your second in a duel—not so easy, preferably a non-Jew to vouch for your honor. Well, it turned out that there was such a man who set up a concession; he could be hired out to serve as a second for Jewish officers whose honor had been doubted in the press, questioned in the press, attacked in the press. That man who was none other than Ferdinand Esterhazy, the future villain of the Affair. Esterhazy stood for a Jewish officer Andre Crémieu-Foain in a faked, soap opera duel with the notorious “anti-semite” Drumont.
Incredibly when suspicion fell on Esterhazy, he insisted on and was granted a trial and was quickly acquitted. We didn’t realize military court martials are handed out by request. A suspect demanding a trial sounds like hogwash, that’s not how “justice” works.
Who was George Picquart?
George Picquart was cast as the hero of the Affair. After trying to clear Dreyfus he was accused of forging the note that had convinced him of Esterhazy’s guilt. Even though he was head of counter-intelligence he was later arrested for forgery and convicted in yet another secret trial. Post Dreyfus he experienced a meteoric career advancement. In 1906, General Picquart entered Georges Clemenceau’s first cabinet as Minister of War. He held that position for the entire duration of the Clemenceau Cabinet, from 25 October 1906 to 24 July 1909. Picquart then returned to military service as an Army Corps commander. Curiously Picquart was yet another Alsatian.
Who was Edouard-Adolphe Drumont?
Edouard-Adolphe Drumont (1844-1917) is sometimes called the “Pope of Antisemitism.” He was instrumental as the character who the SR tipped off about the investigation of Dreyfus and subsequently “broke the story” in his rag.
“French anti-Semitic author and former deputy from Algeria; born at Paris on May 3, 1844. Drumont’s ancestry is not Jewish, as has been sometimes asserted.”
So apparently it was necessary to try and claim this, given that some in that era suspected Drumont of being Jewish controlled opposition. Whodathunk? Some might think he looks Jewish? You decide.
Drumont is famous — or rather infamous — for writing one of the most anti-Jewish books of all time: “La France Juive,” or “The Jewish France.” The book sold 150,000 copies in its first year. He started working on it under the encouragement of a Jesuit priest, Father Stanislas Du Lac, who he met in 1879. Du Lac bankrolled Drumont’s newspaper, which was launched on April 20, 1892. His genealogy page states that Du Lac “converted” him to Catholicism. Converted from what? It’s left unsaid. DuLac hailed from a village 20 km from Dreyfus’ hometown of Mulhouse in — you guessed it — Alsace.
But before he published his rabidly anti-Semitic book, Drumont worked at a newspaper run by the Pereire brothers, who were wealthy Jewish financiers. In 1875, he gave the eulogy for Jacob Pereire, who he compared (favorably) to Napoleon. In 1880, he gave a eulogy praising Jacob’s brother, Isaac. According to the Encyclopedia entry (and elsewhere), we are to believe that he quit his job at the newspaper in 1886 after (suddenly) realizing newspapers were unduly controlled by Jews. Even though the book was published in 1886, Drumont is said to have started working on it in 1880. So he was on the Perieres payroll in the six intervening years.
Drumont studied at Lycée Condorcet. According to the Lycee Condorcet’s Wikipedia page, notable alumni include Ferdinand Walsin-Esterhazy, as well as a couple Rothschilds. Drumont was born in 1844 and Edmond de Rothschild in 1845.
As mentioned above, Drumont and his associates were involved in highly publicized, staged-deception drama duels with Jewish military officers, where Esterhazy play acted as the second to those officers. This was part of the buildup strategy of tension, a ploy used to this day.
On the Lycée Condorcet’s webpage, it states (translated from French):
“Since the mid-19th century a large number of Protestant and Jewish students were accepted. The school has played a prominent role in the emergence of ‘Franco-Judaism,’ in the creation of the Dreyfus network, and in the history of the League of Human Rights.”
That league, by the way, is said to have been founded in reaction to The Dreyfus Affair. What a cohencidence.
Drumont’s most surprising admirer was Theodore Herzl, who was in Paris in the early 1890s as foreign correspondent for the Neue Freie Presse of Vienna.
Herzl wrote in his diary, “I owe Drumont much for my present freedom of conception, because he is an artist. ”
The admiration was mutual. When Herzl’s “Judenstaat” (“Jewish State,” his description of a future national-state for Jews) appeared in 1896, it received what Herzl himself described as a “highly flattering” review in a paper edited by Drumont.
Also among Drumont’s friends was Emile Zola.
What was Emile Zola’s Role?
As you go through the History Channel documentary (above), you will realize that Emile Zola, who was a famous writer, was the actor who at the precisely right time levied the anti-Semite accusations against the military plotters. “J’accuse” implicated leading French politicians in a deliberate fabrication of documents to frame Dreyfus and cover up their actions. His coup de grace letter was spread to virtually all western media throughout the world.
Zola also was able to play the victimization card as he was tried for libel. Wikipedia tells us that he “was convicted on 23 February and removed from the Legion of Honor.” Rather than go to jail, Zola fled to England. But first he was still walking around Paris for five months. How was Zola able to escape? Why wasn’t he put in jail? Did they put inspector Clouseau on the case? He only returned to France “after Dreyfus was pardoned,” which was on Sept. 19, 1899. Of note: It was Dreyfus who was pardoned, not Zola.
What was the Purpose of the Manufactured Dreyfus Affair?
The Dreyfus Affair kick started the Zionist movement. Before Dreyfus, Theodor Herzl claimed he supported Jewish assimilation into gentile society. But The Dreyfus Affair shook Herzl’s view of the world, and he became completely enveloped in a tiny movement that called for the restoration of a Jewish State within the biblical homeland of Israel. Herzl quickly took charge in leading the movement. He organized the First Zionist Congress in Basel held on Aug. 29, 1897.
From Herzl’s Wikipedia entry:
“Herzl came to believe through the trial that the officer was wrongly convicted. It may have been witnessing the trial of Colonel Dreyfus that converted him to the Zionist cause.”
But we know that can’t be true, because the trial was held in secret, in a closed courtroom. In any event, the evidence for his innocence would only be discovered (or revealed) many years later. Dreyfus was pardoned in 1899. Herzl launched Zionism in 1897. The trial — sham though it was — might never have even taken place. The entire degradation ceremony could have simply been made up
What better way to get the ball rolling than to frame a Jewish officer for treason and whip the crowd into a frenzy with all sorts of anti-Semitic propaganda put out by Drumont’s controlled opposition paper, among others.
Another goal of the Dreyfus agitprop, and perhaps its chief goal, was utilizing the victim-hood stance to delegitimize (or “blackwash”) any and all criticism of the behavior of certain Jews as “antisemitism.”
It also allowed wealthy Jews a more direct pathway into political power and set of justifications for undermining the existing sources of power (the church, the aristocracy).
In politics, another winner was the triumph of the Third Republic. It was during the affair that the term “intellectual” was coined.
‘When we tolerate what we know to be wrong–when we close our eyes and ears to the corrupt because we are too busy, or too frightened–when we fail to speak up and speak out–we strike a blow against freedom and decency and justice.’ – Robert Francis Kennedy
By John Remington Graham | 26 October 2017
PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS — I have been asked many times why I have intervened in the federal prosecution of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the young man who was convicted and sentenced to death in the Boston Marathon bombing case where two brothers, on April 15, 2013, allegedly detonated pressure cooker bombs on Boylston Street in front of the Forum Restaurant that killed or maimed many people.
As I wrap up my career of fifty years as a member of the bar, including service as a public defender in state and federal courts, co-founder of an accredited law school, and chief public prosecutor in Minnesota state courts, I am apprehensive that my country might be entering into an era of judicial murder.
Judicial murder is the practice of designing a trial to get a guilty verdict, regardless of the facts, and a death sentence carried out. It has happened in many countries in all ages. It has been recognized as a threat of public justice by the United States Supreme Court in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45 at 72-72 (1932). Judicial murder is followed by corruption and destruction of society.The judicial murder of Socrates was followed by loss of the classical civilization of ancient Greece. The judicial murder of Jesus of Nazareth, whether son of God or venerable philosopher, was followed by the destruction of Jerusalem and the second temple. The judicial murder of Joan of Arc was followed by loss of most English lands in France. The judicial murder of Charles the First was followed by loss of the free constitution of England. The judicial murder of Louis XVI was followed by 150 years of defeat, ruin, suffering, and chaos in France. Judicial murder in the Third Reich was followed by humiliating defeat of Germany. Judicial murder in the Soviet Union was followed by collapse of the Soviet empire. If the justice system cannot be trusted, evil consequences follow.
My active intervention in the case began when I assisted the Russian aunt, herself a lawyer, of Dzhokhar file pro se papers in the federal district court in Boston, asking that she be recognized as a friend of the court so she could present evidence conclusively showing, by FBI-gathered evidence, incorporated by reference into the indictment, that Dzhokhar could not have detonated the bomb he was supposed to have detonated. I proceeded in this way as instructed by the bar liaison officer of the federal district court and the clerk’s office. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts wrote up this legal adventure in his column of August 17, 2015, in a way which draws from the judicial record, and portrays the scenario clearly enough. The link is Those unfamiliar with this case need to read that article. […]
TRUE PUNDIT — A growing faction of FBI agents doubt Jesus Campos’ gunshot story that reportedly unfolded during the Oct. 1st Mandalay Bay massacre in Las Vegas.
Before we begin here, it is important to note we have dispatched a reporter to question Campos at his Las Vegas home several times. Our reporter could not get past the armed guard hired to deflect all media in and around his residence. Efforts to question Campos have netted little results and he apparently has gone into hiding again. The last time Campos vanished, he fled to Mexico literally hours after the shooting.
FBI agents are experiencing similar frustration in Las Vegas, where they allege MGM is bullying FBI brass to bend and mold the shooting investigation to their corporate will and needs. At almost every turn FBI results and Intel have to be cleared with MGM, FBI insiders said. Hence, the ever-changing timeline of the shooting by alleged killer Stephen Paddock.
And the now refusal to hold additional press briefings on the results of the shooting probe. Those have been shut down by MGM legal personnel, sources said. The media and the public are not entitled to have lingering and troubling questions addressed by public ‘safety’ officials who apparently now take their orders from a corporate gaming and entertainment conglomerate. […]
When you consider Robert Mueller’s background as a cover-up agent, it’s quite astonishing that any serious person would think that real truth will emerge with him as “special counsel” overseeing the investigations into the dismissal of James Comey and Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. The only real question is who will he frame or throw under the bus, and how many billable hours will be awarded to cronies.
As a reminder, Mueller was director of the FBI from 2001 to 2013, making him the longest-serving head of the bureau since J. Edgar Hoover. He officially became the FBI director on Sept. 4 of 2001, just one week before the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center.
Speaking of Mueller in new role as special counsel, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) said, “Former director Mueller is exactly the right kind of individual for this job. I now have significantly greater confidence that the investigation will follow the facts wherever they lead.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) stated, “Bob was a fine U.S. attorney, a great FBI director, and there’s no better person who could be asked to perform this function.”
The New Nationalist submits that this is a mechanism to engage in a game of MAD (mutual assured destruction) with the Russians. Russian intelligence has a pretty good handle on where the skeletons and 24/7 lies are buried in the Crime Syndicate-ridden American system both since and before 9/11. What keeps MAD in place is that Russian skeletons are also known, as there is Crime Syndicate influence in that country as well. Therefore, this election-meddling backstory is run as interference and glue to keep Russia in check and within the MAD chess game. It’s also used as cover for the Crime Syndicate apparatus.
When Red Queen Trump is removed from office, TNN holds that Mueller’s role in that operation will be secondary at most. He functions more as a “whowoudaknod” bungler, cover up and misdirection agent than a king-maker or king-remover.
Curiously (and revealingly) before becoming FBI director, Mueller specialized in corruption, white collar crime, financial fraud, terrorism as well as narcotics conspiracies and international money laundering. In other words he was on the front row of law enforcement interaction with the Crime Syndicate.
One would think Mueller would have considerable institutional knowledge about who the real bad guys are. His major busts, however, seem to be those of convenience for Imperium Americana, such as Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega, who got out of line and too greedy in the drug trafficking biz. He was instrumental in the PanAm Flight 103 (Lockerbie bombing) case, which framed Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi. His FBI was involved in nearly every false flag and staged deception during his tenue.
Mueller was also the senior Justice Department official who ran the criminal division from 1990-1993, when the BCCI scandal was being investigated. Conceived in Karachi and financed in Abu Dhabi, the conspiracy reached into the world’s Western capitals and perhaps the U.N. under the protection of high-paid lobbyists and spooks. The BCCI scandal involved the laundering of drug money, the illicit financing of terrorism and of arms to Iraq, the easy purchase of respectability and the corruption of the world banking system. Mueller mostly slept through it all.
Earlier in his career as U.S. attorney, he abetted the star chamber cover ups in Waco, Ruby Ridge and the Oklahoma City bombing by changing rules of evidence so that the FBI did not have to share as much with defense counsel in those cases.
Coleen Rowley was a former FBI special agent and division counsel turned whistle blower in 2002. Though Mueller is widely described as being of impeccable character by the usual suspects, Rowley said: “The truth is that Robert Mueller (and James Comey as deputy attorney general) presided over a 9/11 cover up.” [See New York Times op-ed on day of Comey’s confirmation hearing.] She observed, “When you had the lead up to the Iraq War … Mueller and, of course, the CIA and all the other directors, saluted smartly and went along with what Bush wanted, which was to gin up the intelligence to make a pretext for the Iraq War.”
Rowley also noted that Mueller and his sidekick Comey presided over “the ‘post 9-11 round-up’ of innocent Muslim immigrants, the anthrax investigation fiasco. He helped implement a form of martial law. This was made possible via secret OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] memos written by John Yoo — predicated upon Yoo’s theories of absolute ‘war presidency’ powers that the Bush administration was making Attorney General John Ashcroft sign off on.”
Mueller and Comey are masters of the “just a coincidence” and incompetence school of explaining events. Yes, it was because of errors and incompetence. Nothing to see here, move along. Then, as with all Syndicate hacks who fall down on the job, these bad actors are promoted.