Numbers Are In: Approx. 800 Independent Media Accounts and Pages Have Been Banned from Facebook

(RT News) Some 800 anti-establishment accounts and pages have been yanked from Facebook in a sweeping crackdown the social media giant framed as a fight against spammers. RT talked to those who were targeted in the cleansing.

Among the hundreds of pages and accounts Facebook and Twitter took down were those both on the political left and right, ranging from [so called] conspiracy theorists and police brutality watchers, to news outlets with non-mainstream angles, While their content could be at times described as controversial, the bulk of the banished pages boasted large followings and outreach.

RT spoke to some of the voices silenced by the Facebook move. Here is what they had to say.

Read Entire Article »

Facebook, Google declare all pro-liberty speech to be “political spam” or “Russian bots” as pretext to censor conservatives

(Natural News) If Right-leaning media and commentators thought that the big tech firms like Facebook, Google, Twitter, and YouTube were censoring them before, they haven’t seen anything yet. Like the rest of the insane Left, the libs who run the social media behemoths are becoming increasingly frustrated with conservatives and supporters of POTUS Donald Trump…

Research indicates that turmeric may help mitigate the growth of MRSA superbugs

(Natural News) One of the scariest health problems that the world is facing today is the explosion of antibiotic-resistant superbugs like methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA. These bacteria can cause infections, pneumonia, and other problems. When left unchecked – which is often the case because it’s notoriously difficult to treat – it can lead to…

Federal Reserve has declared economic war on America in order to destroy Trump

(Natural News) If you listen to ‘official’ Washington, to include the establishment media commentariat, it’s gauche and unacceptable to criticize the Federal Reserve, because it’s supposed to be “independent” from government and thus unassailable, despite the fact that, as our central bank, the Fed decides fiscal policy for the entire country. Never mind that the…

Paul Rosenfeld, the Foiled Election Day Bomber: 5 Quick Questions

On Tuesday, the FBI arrested Paul Rosenfeld, a New York man who confessed to plotting a suicide bombing on Election Day in Washington, D.C.’s National Mall in order to draw attention to “sortition,” which is an obscure, ancient-Greek political theory that advocated for the selection of political candidates by lottery.

Image result for paul rosenfeld
Paul Rosenfeld booking photo

Those unfamiliar with this news story can glean the official details from the U.S. Department of Justice’s press release or this news article from Mid Hudson News. The federal complaint can be viewed here.

However, there are several inconsistencies in the story that it seems nobody is addressing. So here are five quick questions to which we would appreciate answers.

1. Why did Rosenfeld quickly confess to possessing 8-pounds of black powder and to a suicide bombing plot?

On Tuesday, a traffic cop stopped Rosenfeld’s car. It seems Rosenfeld simply confessed to being in possession of black power (gun powder). He then said that he had ordered “large quantities of black power – an explosive substance – over the Internet, which he transported from a location in New Jersey to his home in Tappan. He said he used some eight pounds of the black powder to construct a large explosive device in his basement and that he installed certain components in the device to ensure that he would be killed in the blast.

“Rosenfeld told law enforcement that he had previously constructed a smaller device and had conducted test detonations. He also said he planned to detonate the larger device at the National Mall on November 6,” Mid Hudson News reports. Later that same day, the FBI searched Rosenfeld’s basement and found a 200-lb. bomb in a crate.

What a tidy and yet ridiculous story.

2. Why does a ‘lone wolf’ bomber need a burner phone?

Within 24 hours of the FBI’s arrest of Rosenfeld, the agency issued a press release stating that he acted alone in his plotting. Really? How could they determine this so quickly? Or is it because Rosenfeld said he was acting alone, and he had been so forthcoming with other information? Something here seems fishy, especially when one considers that the FBI also found Rosenfeld in possession of a burner phone (an untraceable phone). With whom was he communicating; or rather, who was communicating with him (as in giving him instructions)?

Reports claim that in August and September, he “sent letters and text messages to an individual in Pennsylvania” in which he revealed his bombing plot. That “individual” contacted authorities about the messages and the FBI’s terror unit opened an investigation.

NBC News, which got a lot of the details of the story wrong in its online report, is the only source that identifies this mystery “individual.” It’s story states:

Officials tell News 4 Rosenfeld had no criminal history but had told a reporter in Pennsylvania he planned to blow himself up on the National Mall around Election Day because he was angry about the country’s direction.

Rosenfeld told a reporter? Really? Is this a misprint? Why would he choose a reporter in Pennsylvania of all places? Why not New York or D.C.? Why did this reporter keep it a secret? And why would he reveal his plan this way? Was this a cry for help? Is he a patsy who was perhaps hoping to be foiled? Or is this just some smoke-and-mirrors magic show if caught?

3. How was Rosenfeld radicalized?

For someone who supposedly wants to draw attention to the political theory of sortition, there’s practically no information to be found online about Rosenfeld. There’s no Twitter account, no Facebook, no employer. There are no obvious political or religious affiliations — although being a New Yorker and with a name like Rosenfeld, one would assume he’s Jewish.

The Sortition Foundation’s website doesn’t list membership. It does, however, link to its Strategy document, and nowhere in this report does it list bombing as a strategy to raise public awareness.

In the dark forest of information called the worldwide web, we could only find three breadcrumbs of information on Rosenfeld.

#1 – A tweet indicating he may have been active in comments sections under an alias. No way to verify.

#2 – He’s apparently a member of his local yacht club, according to a membership roster.

#3 – It appears that in 2015 an online blog that advocates for sortition, called Equality by Lot, published a portion of an essay by Rosenfeld titled “The Extinction of Politics.“ A link to the Rosenfeld’s full 59-page screed is provided at the bottom of the excerpt. [NOTE: It can be recovered from trash via Google Docs.] His obscure post topic drew 135 algo-looking comments before news of his arrest broke. (135-Really?)

Rosefeld’s manifesto of sorts gives nods to Karl Marx and Russian-Jewish communist operative and Trotsky firebrand Emma Goldman, who was tied to but never convicted of plotting the assassination of U.S. President William McKinley. In his essay, Rosenfeld references violence nearly 30 times. He doesn’t mention the word sortition even once.

As a side note, Equality by Lot, according to its About page, appears to be run by Conall Boyle and Yoram Gat. Boyle may possibly be with the Bank of Ireland and/or (most likely) an U.K. author and university lecturer in economics and statistics. Gat might be the VP of Engineering at the firm Jerusalem Economy, LTD. in Israel. We cannot verify this information. We did not dig for it. It’s just the results of a simple Google query.

Gat wrote on his blog Saturday about Rosenfeld’s arrest: “Rosenfeld’s intents were entirely honorable and even heroic: he meant to sacrifice himself to promote a better world for his fellow-citizens.”

4. Um, how’s this not terrorism?

The definition of terrorism can vary from time to time and even from agency to agency within the same government. However, there is some universal agreement. Terrorism involves a violent attack to promote a political or ideological agenda. No exceptions are made for suicidal or “lone wolf” actors.

This is an Election Day plot to promote a political ideology using a destruction device at a federal monument of freedom and democracy in our nation’s capitol. The motive is politics, the desired outcome death. The means, a bomb. Am I missing something here? If he really just wanted kill himself and draw attention to an issue, I’m sure we could come up with dozens of suggestions that wouldn’t endanger the public and destroy a park.

An image of a typical day the National Mall in Washington, DC. Interestingly, media photos of the mall in news stories on the foiled Election Day bombing plot of Paul Rosenfeld showed it from aerial angles at a great distance, and thereby subtracted the human element. PHOTO: Timeout.com

So, even applying this most basic definition of terrorism, how is it that Rosefeld’s bomb plot is not being prosecuted as such? Sure, he confessed, but it’s not like he turned himself in to authorities. And how about the logistics of transporting and positioning the 200-pound bomb itself? Wouldn’t that take more than one person? And isn’t it literally overkill if your only aim is suicide? What a farce.

Though the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force reportedly devoted man hours to this case, Rosenfeld’s being charged on just two counts: (1) interstate transportation and receipt of an explosive and (2) unlawfully manufacturing a destructive device. Heck, half the redneck hunters and good ol’ boys in America could be charged with these crimes on any given weekend. Each charge carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. No terrorism-related charges. Unfathomable.

We tried to find a video online that showed the detonation of a 200-pound black powder bomb. We found detonations for everything from 2 grams to 2,000 pounds and not much in between. Nonetheless, here are two videos, but keep in mind this only provides a visual range, and there are different types of black powder with varying explosive properties. We’re not privy to the details of Rosenfeld’s black powder device. He had to order it online and pick it up from New Jersey; which, to me, doesn’t sound like the basic stuff you could pick up at a local ammo shop.

This is just a 1-pound black-powder bomb detonated 3 feet underground:

This a 2,000-pound bomb using basic, old-school black powder:

This last video shows the visible concussion wave of a 2,000-pound black powder bomb.

5. What if he were Muslim?

This story got minimal coverage. No in-depth reporting. No veering from the framework of FBI press release. Local news stations provided some coverage, but there was hardly a peep on the national networks. Why?

Would Fox News have played it up more if his name was Mohamed? Or would MSNBC give it some air time if the FBI had identified Rosenfeld as a “right-wing conspiracy theorist” or “nationalist” (aka “white supremacist”)? Probably.

Given that the Rosenfeld is probably of Jewish heritage and probably leans toward a more left-wing/Marxist ideology, we certainly shouldn’t expect the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) or Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to issue any statements on Rosenfeld’s bombing plot. These organizations’ self-appointed mission to identify only “right-wing” violent extremism in the U.S. How political of them.

On an interesting note, in 2017 the Congressional Research Service — a D.C. think tank with $110 million taxpayer-funded budget — issued to Congress a comprehensive report called “Domestic Terrorism: An Overview,” which touches on nearly every terrorist act in or toward the U.S. during the last 70 years, from eco terrorism to Al Qaeda. However, the organization omitted any all information and data concerning terrorist acts committed by Jewish persons or Jewish extremist groups.

These omissions are extremely glaring given that in the latter part of the 20th century, the FBI considered the Jewish Defense League (JDL) the No. 1 terrorist outfit in the country. And there is not one reference to the Jewish Israeli-American man who, from 2016 to 2017, made thousands of hoax bomb threats, including to a United States senator, as well as to airports, schools and Jewish centers across the U.S. His name has never been released by the Israeli courts. There’s also not one single reference to Jonah Goldberg, a Jewish hacker who posed as a jihadist online and had plotted to bomb a 2015 Kansas City 9/11 memorial event. (By the way, Goldberg was sentenced to just 10 years.)

Nope, certain folks have been working hard to keep such stories off of the public’s radar. If you don’t believe me, then test my assertion yourself. The next time you’re in line at your local Starbucks, simply ask the “normie” standing next to you if they’ve ever heard of the JDL, or if they know that the Jewish center bombing threats of 2016 were all a hoax, or if they know who Goldberg or Rosenfeld are. Then wait for their blank stare. If you want to let them save face, ask them this follow-up question to which they are sure to know the answer: How many Jews died in the Holocaust?

Winter Watch Takeaway

Of any “terror” event, we usually asks an important question: Is it possible this didn’t really happen at all? In other words, what if the event, or non-event in this case, was manufactured to traumatize the populace and grease the wheels of political agendas that would otherwise never achieve public support. Though I rarely indulge in this level of speculation, I nonetheless know that hoax and false-flag awareness is critical in these times of gross deceit.

Nothing to see here, move along? You decide.

Marck Wauck, Meaning in History 10-11-18… “The Russia Hoax As Contingency Plan”

This is a pretty “bombshell” type of article that this post is based on. The plan, that is talked about by Rhodes and Psaki, was presuming that Hillary won the election and Trump disputed the results (for those who are still unaware (or still denying it), Donald J. Trump won the election, and is currently responsible for the (very likely) large increase in adult diaper sales in Washington DC, and heavily Democrat locations in the US).

“…for reasons best known to themselves Ben Rhodes and Jen Psaki have decided to reveal to NYMag that the Russia Hoax was a key part of the Obama Administration’s–and presumably the Clinton campaign’s–contingency plan to, well, steal an election

“The Obama White House plan, according to… Rhodes and Jen Psaki, Obama’s communications director, called for congressional Republicans, former presidents, and former Cabinet-level officials… to try and forestall a political crisis by validating the election result. In the event that Trump tried to dispute a Clinton victory, they would affirm the result as well as the conclusions reached by the U.S. intelligence community that Russian interference in the election sought to favor Trump, and not Clinton.

The existence of the postelection plan has not been previously reported.

“A lot of internet blog commenters have been belly aching about Trump putting a hold on his declassification order in the runup to the midterm elections, but this seems just as good–real red meat for the GOP base. Why Rhodes and Psaki thought it was a good idea to feed the GOP base like this is anyone’s guess.

“Of course, the Obama and Clinton camps never foresaw–or so they claim–Trump winning the election. They feared a squeaker, a cliff hanger. Or, two years on, that’s their story.

“As we know so well, in the event, Trump spoiled it all by posting an electoral landslide. The plotters had failed, in Strzok’s words, to “stop it.” Or had they? After all, an election is one thing, but the inauguration of a new president doesn’t take place for something like two and a half months afterwards. Time enough to throw a whole smorgasbord of crackpot theories at Trump, and see whether any of it would stick! But the key to it all, right from the start, was the Russia Hoax…”

—————————————————–

The Russia Hoax As Contingency Plan

Remember, back in August, 2016, when Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were obsessively texting one another? One exchange went something like, well, exactly like this:

“[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Page texted Strzok.
“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok responded.

Fast forward a couple of years and here we are in October, 2018, just about two years after Trump’s electoral triumph, and for reasons best known to themselves Ben Rhodes and Jen Psaki have decided to reveal to NYMag that the Russia Hoax was a key part of the Obama Administration’s–and presumably the Clinton campaign’s–contingency plan to, well, steal an election: Obama Had a Secret Plan in Case Trump Rejected 2016 Election Results. We’re all adults–right?–so there’s no need to quibble over the meaning of words like “results.” Here’s what Rhodes and Psaki are saying:

The Obama White House plan, according to interviews with Rhodes and Jen Psaki, Obama’s communications director, called for congressional Republicans, former presidents, and former Cabinet-level officials including Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, to try and forestall a political crisis by validating the election result. In the event that Trump tried to dispute a Clinton victory, they would affirm the result as well as the conclusions reached by the U.S. intelligence community that Russian interference in the election sought to favor Trump, and not Clinton. Some Republicans were already aware of Russian interference from intelligence briefings given to leaders from both parties during the chaotic months before the election. “We wanted to handle the Russia information in a way that was as bipartisan as possible,” Rhodes said.

The existence of the postelection plan has not been previously reported. A July 2017 op-ed by Obama’s chief of staff, Denis McDonough, refers to Obama directing his staff to “prepare possible responses” to claims of Russian interference in the election.

Psaki said the plan was one of a larger set of “red-teaming” conversations to address how the White House should respond to postelection scenarios that did not have any historical precedent. “There was recognition that we had a Democratic president who was quite popular but also divisive for a portion of the population,” she said. “For them, just having him say the election was legitimate was not going to be enough. We didn’t spend a lot of time theorizing about the worst thing that could happen — this isn’t a science-fiction movie. It was more about the country being incredibly divided and Trump’s supporters being angry. Would there be protesting? I don’t want to say violence, because we didn’t talk about that as I recall.”

A lot of internet blog commenters have been belly aching about Trump putting a hold on his declassification order in the runup to the midterm elections, but this seems just as good–real red meat for the GOP base. Why Rhodes and Psaki thought it was a good idea to feed the GOP base like this is anyone’s guess. I realize NYMag doesn’t cater to that base, but Fox alertly picked this story up. But back to 2016 …

Of course, the Obama and Clinton camps never foresaw–or so they claim–Trump winning the election. They feared a squeaker, a cliff hanger. Or, two years on, that’s their story. So let’s try a thought experiment of sorts. By dispensing with some of the coded language or doublespeak we come up with this more succinct version of what Rhodes and Psaki are saying:

The Obama plan called for prominent NeverTrump Republicans to try and forestall a Trump victory or–God forbid!–a Trump inauguration by throwing the election to Clinton based on claims–and, no, I swear I’m not plagiarizing The Onion–that Russia had interfered on behalf of Trump. This Russia Hoax narrative had already been floated among some NeverTrump Republicans, and they liked this “bipartisan” approach–they would provide the cover needed for a coup. Planning had already gotten so far that Obama had directed his staff to develop an action plan for the event of a Hillary loss–the rejection of continued Progressive rule would be “historically unprecededented” (in their minds) and thus invalid.

As we know so well, in the event, Trump spoiled it all by posting an electoral landslide. The plotters had failed, in Strzok’s words, to “stop it.” Or had they? After all, an election is one thing, but the inauguration of a new president doesn’t take place for something like two and a half months afterwards. Time enough to throw a whole smorgasbord of crackpot theories at Trump, and see whether any of it would stick! But the key to it all, right from the start, was the Russia Hoax:

Less than 24 hours after Hillary’s concession speech, Podesta and Campaign Manager Robby Mook convened a staff meeting at Clinton’s Brooklyn headquarters to formalize this attack. The effort was described by authors Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes in a book that explains “what happened” more insightfully than Mrs. Clinton’s memoir.

“For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public,” they wrote. “Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.”

Russia hacking, yes, but soon enough the whole “dossier” was part of the mix. The Russia-hacked-my-emails story just made people’s heads hurt–much better to go front and center with undocumented sleaze. Traditional but still effective. Or not. The plan quickly began to lose traction, both in the halls of government and the legislative branch as well as with the public.

What’s interesting are the deep roots of the Russia Hoax. The basic idea can be documented as an action plan as far back as early Spring of 2016, with the efforts to frame hapless Trump foreign policy “advisers” as Russian agents. There are still many questions about those early events. Were Page and Papadopoulos unwittingly inserted into the Trump campaign by Democrat operatives? And how about Paul Manafort coming on board? A John Podesta protege to run the convention, to become campaign manager? Had Glenn Simpson–the world class Paul Manafort expert and now Hillary opposition researcher–died and gone to heaven? And that weird Trump Tower meeting–how did that really go down?

The Russia Hoax was already in place, for use when needed, capable of adaptation to fits the circumstances. From campaign talking points to soft coup contingency plan was but a short step. Or paradigm shift, as we like to say.

Mark Wauck, American Thinker 10-10-18… “Trump, Declassification, and Leverage”

Well, I was listening to CIR’s (Katie G’s) latest video/podcast, and she mention this article, that it explained a lot about all the Rosenstein, Mueller, DECLAS, etc., etc., etc., business. I agree. I usually don’t spend much time in these arenas, but I did enjoy this one. I feel this also illustrates the “brilliance” of the moves of the Alliance team that is handling these things in the multi-level “end game” (for the cabal) we are in right now. They are using the “potential for DECLAS” as leverage against the deep state (domestic and foreign).

The original article appeared on Mark Wauck’s blog, here. I intend to post one more of Mark’s right after this one.

Mark Wauck is a retired FBI agent who blogs on religion, philosophy, and FISA at Meaning in History.

“There’s a reason why President Trump has not unilaterally declassified the documents exposing perfidy against him: leverage. As the whole Russia hoax is beginning to come into some sort of global perspective – quite literally, as we’ll see – the extent of the advantage he now maintains by holding back declassification as a threat outweighs the benefits of transparency.

The overall theme is… leverage… the congressional investigation has progressed to the point that it’s clear beyond cavil [a trivial and annoying objection] that the entire Russia narrative is, in fact, a hoax and fraud – both on the American people in general and on our legal system. This is to say real criminal liability exists for the key players who developed the plot against Trump.

“…Sundance spells out very specifically where the greatest risk – and therefore the greatest leverage – lies: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein created the special counsel under fraudulent pretense. That origination material… is now a risk to the Deputy AG.

“Trump’s leverage ensures that Rosenstein will very much want to restrain Mueller… This may explain why we are now seeing key members of Mueller’s team leaving and returning to their old jobs. The importance of this is that Mueller has posed the greatest threat to the Trump administration, the greatest annoyance. That threat is now defanged

The benefits of this leverage via threat-of-declassification extend well beyond the Russia hoax to other practical political matters. I believe we saw that at play in the Kavanaugh nomination battle… The FBI leaped to Kavanaugh’s defense, and I attribute that to Trump’s leverage over the DOJ-FBI through Rosenstein.

“…the role of foreign “allies” in the plot against Trump. As on the domestic front, there were multiple players: Australia, Ukraine, Estonia, Israel. The key player was undoubtedly the U.K. Without massive intelligence involvement by the U.K., the entire Russia hoax would likely never have gotten off the ground.

Declassification would expose all these foreign players, but the heaviest hit by far would be against the U.K. and its Australian poodle. And so we learn that “key allies” “begged” Trump not to declassify that “origination material.”

Leverage, anyone?

—————————————————

Trump, Declassification, and Leverage

There’s a reason why President Trump has not unilaterally declassified the documents exposing perfidy against him: leverage.  As the whole Russia hoax is beginning to come into some sort of global perspective – quite literally, as we’ll see – the extent of the advantage he now maintains by holding back declassification as a threat outweighs the benefits of transparency.  Recent posts by observers who write from widely varying perspectives give us the ability to discern the current state of play.

Let’s start with the domestic front of the Russia hoax.  Sundance at Conservative Tree House has an excellent post up: “President Trump and DAG Rod Rosenstein – “No Collusion”, No Immediate Worries…”  The overall theme is one that’s dear to Sundance’s heart: leverage.  The state of play is this: the congressional investigation has progressed to the point that it’s clear beyond cavil that the entire Russia narrative is, in fact, a hoax and fraud – both on the American people in general and on our legal system.  This is to say real criminal liability exists for the key players who developed the plot against Trump.  John Solomon summarizes what Congress has discovered in succinct fashion:

There is now a concrete storyline backed by irrefutable evidence: The FBI allowed itself to take political opposition research created by one party to defeat another in an election, treated it like actionable intelligence, presented it to the court as substantiated, and then used it to justify spying on an adviser for the campaign of that party’s duly chosen nominee for president in the final days of a presidential election.

And when, nine months later, the FBI could not prove the allegation of collusion between Trump and Russia, unverified evidence was leaked to the media to try to sustain public support for a continued investigation.

But Sundance spells out very specifically where the greatest risk – and therefore the greatest leverage – lies:

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein created the special counsel under fraudulent pretense.  That origination material (Ohr 302’s, FISA pages, origination EC, and Page/Strzok messages) is now a risk to the Deputy AG.

There are many other players, in addition to Rosenstein, who are at serious risk.  But from the perspective of leverage, Rosenstein is the key because he created the special counsel part of the hoax and because – as a result of A.G. Sessions’s recusal – he remains in charge of the special counsel operation.  Rosenstein can exercise as much or as little control over Mueller as he wants.  Trump’s threat of declassification of the “origination material” gives Trump complete leverage over Rosenstein and therefore over Mueller.

Trump’s leverage ensures that Rosenstein will very much want to restrain Mueller.  If Rosenstein wants to restrain Mueller, Mueller will be restrained.  This may explain why we are now seeing key members of Mueller’s team leaving and returning to their old jobs.  The importance of this is that Mueller has posed the greatest threat to the Trump administration, the greatest annoyance.  That threat is now defanged for the immediate future.  If Mueller steps out of line, boom!  Declassification.  By putting declassification on hold, Trump maintains his leverage.  And Congress continues to investigate and slowly reveal the truth.

The benefits of this leverage via threat-of-declassification extend well beyond the Russia hoax to other practical political matters.  I believe we saw that at play in the Kavanaugh nomination battle.  Rod Rosenstein, as DAG, directly supervises the FBI director, Christopher Wray.  To say the FBI acted with alacrity and efficiency in exposing the machinations behind the accusations leveled at Kavanaugh would be an understatement.  But consider: Sundance himself was distinctly alarmist during the Kavanaugh hearings, alleging a plot of Deep State FBI-DOJ insiders to torpedo the nomination.  As we’ve seen, however, exactly the opposite occurred.  The FBI leaped to Kavanaugh’s defense, and I attribute that to Trump’s leverage over the DOJ-FBI through Rosenstein.

How will this play out for the midterm elections?  Will Trump at some point declassify that crucial “origination material”?  While Trump stressed that his hold on declassification doesn’t change his commitment for transparency sooner rather than later, I believe that the Kavanaugh nomination has given Trump and his newly committed GOP allies the issue they need for the midterms.  Polling has repeatedly shown that Supreme Court nominations are a hot-button issue for Republican voters, and it has the advantage of being readily comprehensible.  Trump used his leverage to get his nominee confirmed while energizing “normals” for the midterms.  After the election, declassification could play a significant role in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election.

Let’s turn to that global perspective now.

Justin Raimondo at Anti-War.com has a blog post up that complements Sundance’s “leverage” perspective quite nicely: “The Final Truth of Russia-gate: As the hoax unravels, the real story of ‘foreign collusion’ comes out.”  Raimondo focuses on the role of foreign “allies” in the plot against Trump.  As on the domestic front, there were multiple players: Australia, Ukraine, Estonia, Israel.  The key player was undoubtedly the U.K.  Without massive intelligence involvement by the U.K., the entire Russia hoax would likely never have gotten off the ground.  Here, Raimondo encapsulates that involvement sufficiently for our purposes (much more could be said):

This entire episode has Her Majesty’s Secret Service’s fingerprints all over it.  Steele’s key role is plain enough: here was a British spook who was not only hired by the Clinton campaign to dig up dirt on Trump but was unusually passionate about his work – almost as if he’d have done it for free.  And then there was the earliest approach to the Trump campaign, made by Cambridge professor and longtime spook Stefan Halper to Carter Page.  And then there’s the mysterious alleged “link” to Russian intelligence, Professor Joseph Mifsud, whose murky British-based thinktank managed to operate openly despite later claims it was a Russian covert operation.

It was Mifsud who orchestrated the Russia-gate hoax, first suggesting that the Russians had Hillary Clinton’s emails, and then disappearing into thin air as soon as the story he had planted percolated into plain view.  Some “Russian agent”!

Leverage, anyone?  Declassification would expose all these foreign players, but the heaviest hit by far would be against the U.K. and its Australian poodle.  And so we learn that “key allies” “begged” Trump not to declassify that “origination material.”  Raimondo notes:

Trump’s decision to walk back his announcement that the key Russia-gate intelligence would be declassified tells us almost as much as if he’d tweeted it out, unredacted.  For what it tells us is that public knowledge of the contents would constitute a major break in relations with at least one key ally.

Yes, Trump smoked them out and got them begging for mercy, as reported by the major media in all too transparent detail.  Trump ends up with all the leverage he needs over “Her Majesty’s Government” for as long as that leverage is useful.

Well played, Mr. President!

Mark Wauck is a retired FBI agent who blogs on religion, philosophy, and FISA at Meaning in History.