At a recent press conference with Trump's lawyer, Rudi Giuliani, lawyer Sidney Powell claimed large-scale Trump-to-Biden vote flipping in the Presidential election by voting machines using software developed by Communists in Venezuela.
Sidney Powell is no longer Trump's lawyer and the reason is not hard to see. If the US Presidential election was fixed by vote rigging voting machines running software developed by Communists in Venezuela, then there was either a failure by the CIA to detect an attempted overthrow of the United States Government by agents of a foreign government, or complicity. Either way, failure or treason, the President would have no no option but to seek the abolition of the CIA.
But Trump knows what happened to the last US President who talked of breaking the CIA into a thousand pieces: he died by a bullet to the head shortly thereafter. So in what looks like a concession to the CIA, Trump let Sidney Powell go. Trump's only hope of victory now is by the less hazardous and seemingly less certain route of the Supreme Court and the House of Representatives.
Sidney Powell: The only reason the glitches happened in the system is because he was so, had so far many more votes than they had calculated in advance. Their algorithms wouldn’t perform the functions they had originally performed that were set to perform. They couldn’t make up the vote count. He gotten so many hundreds of thousands more than they planned. So that’s when they had to stop the counting and come up with a way to back-fill votes or destroy votes for Trump while they fabricated votes for Biden.
Paul L. Williams: Operation Gladio, The Unholy Alliance
On the hot summer morning of Aug. 2, 1980 a massive explosion ripped apart the main waiting room of the Bologna railway station. Eighty-five people were killed and hundreds more injured. Though at first blamed on Italy’s legendary urban guerrillas, The Red Brigades, it soon emerged that the attack had, in fact, originated from within the ‘deep state’ of the Italian government itself.
The full nature of this secret parallel state would only come to light a decade later when the Italian premier, Giulio Andreotti, under questioning from a special commission of inquiry, revealed the existence of arms caches stashed all around the country and which were at the disposal of an organization which later came to be identified as ‘Gladio’.
The members of this group turned out to include not only hundreds of far-right figures in the intelligence, military, government, media, Church and corporate sectors, but a motley assortment of unreconstructed WW2 fascists, psychopaths and criminal underworld types to boot. And despite Andreotti’s attempts to airbrush the group as ‘patriots’ it appeared evident to much of the rest of the Italian polity that these seemed rather more like pretty bad folk indeed. Little did they know. Follow-up research by the likes of Daniele Ganser, Claudio Celani, Jurgen Roth and Henrik Kruger traced connections to similar groups spread throughout Europe of which all were found to be deep state terrorist organizations, and all of which were found, ultimately, to be subservient unto the highest levels of the CIA and NATO command structures.
The moniker ‘Gladio’ (after the two-edged sword used in classical Rome) was eventually broadened to include a bewildering host of related deep state terrorist structures including: ‘P2’ In Italy, ‘P26’ in Switzerland, ‘Sveaborg’ in Sweden, ‘Counter-Guerrilla’ in Turkey and ‘Sheepskin’ in Greece. This (hardly definitive) European list was then found to have connections not only to virtually every US sponsored secret state terrorist organization the world over (including the likes of Operation Condor in Latin America), but also to many of the global drug cartels that provided the secretive wealth needed to fund and otherwise lubricate the whole rotting, corrupt shebang.
If all this sounds sinister enough, it pales in light of the detailed structure of the dazzlingly diabolical Gladio edifice. ...
NewsGuard and Microsoft Team Up To Destroy Independent Media Ahead Of 2020 Elections: Linked To Several Think Tanks, Government Officials
PatriotRising, January 31, 2019: The service NewsGuard, an establishment attempt to silence alternative media and independent media sites, has teamed up with Microsoft to help its effort to destroy free press. Meanwhile, the mysterious firm connected to intelligence agencies and former government officials on their advisory board has also just been linked to Saudi Arabia through Publicis Groupe, an investor in NewsGuard.
NewsGuard is now automatically included in Microsoft’s Edge browser on iOS, Android and Microsoft phones. Microsoft’s press release regarding the partnership states that NewsGuard “will empower voters by providing them with high-quality information about the integrity and transparency of online news sites.” Just one problem, who is providing transparency about the news rating agency?
When a user decides to search the Web, the extension tells the user whether or not a story is credible or not credible with 5 indicators and an information box judging the website.
Green icon — Sites that follow “basic standards of accuracy and accountability” based on nine criteria,which include full disclosure of possible conflicts of interest, financing, and “notable ideological or political positions held by those with significant financial interests in the site.”
Red icon — Sites that do not fulfill NewsGuard’s criteria for credibility and transparency.
Orange icon — Satire and humor sites that mimic real news.
Blue icon — Sites that primarily host user-generated content.
Gray icon —Unrated sites.
There is just one problem: the plugin is only blacklisting certain sites and does not actually have fact checkers looking into the story in question. So, in fact, the service is censoring alternative and independent media. But, let’s be honest, that’s exactly what its founders, creators, funders, and advisors want.
About that transparency … the list of advisors for NewsGuard includes Tom Ridge, the former secretary of Homeland Security, Richard Stengel, former editor of Time magazine and Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy (Obama administration), (Ret.) General Michael Hayden, former Director of the CIA, former Director of the National Security Agency and former Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence (George W. Bush administration), Don Baer, chairman of Burson, Cohn & Wolfe and former White House Communications Director (Clinton administration), Elise Jordan, political analyst, NBC, and former speechwriter for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Oh and then there are the journalists (traitors of free speech) like John Battelle, co-founding editor of Wired and founding chief executive of Industry Standard and Jessica Lessin, founder, and editor-in-chief of The Information.
If you aren’t worried about a company with a former CIA director (who lied under oath to Congress misleading officials, according to the Senate report on the CIA’s interrogation program) and a former secretary of Homeland Security official as its advisors, you may need a reality check. Please go see Dr. Ben Swann for a checkup stat!
Then there is Richard Stengel, a member of the Atlantic Council (neo-liberal think tank) and former Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy under President Barack Obama who deserves a short blurb for his own involvement. Why? Because Stengel admitted his role in life at a previous discussion hosted last May by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). At the event Stengel described his past position at the State Department as a “chief propagandist” and further stated that he is “not against propaganda” and it was needed. H/T Disobedient Media.
“Every country does it and they have to do it to their own population and I don’t necessarily think it’s that awful,” Stengel said.
Well for sure it wasn't Lee Harvey Oswald as concluded by the report of the Commission headed by Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren.
Oswald, so the Warren Commission Report concluded, shot Kennedy from a sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository Building, which was directly behind the President's car at the moment Kennedy was killed. This, however, is refuted by the famous Zapruder video, which shows that the fatal head-shot drove the President's head violently backwards with a sound described by Texas Governor John Conolly, who was riding in the car with the President, as "like the sound of a pumkin dropped to the pavement from the roof of a five-story building."
Many will place no trust in the video record, video evidence being so obviously susceptible to tampering. However, there is conclusive evidence confirming what the Zapruder film shows; namely, the testimony of the doctors and surgeons who attended on the president at the Parklands Hospital where he died.
Here is the testimony of Dr. McClelland, the first doctor to observe the large exit wound at the back of the President's head from which a lump of brain tissue, part of the cerebellum, had fallen onto the stretcher on which the President had been laid.
And here is the sketch that Dr. McClelland made at the time showing the various wounds to the president`s head and neck:
Signed drawing entitled ''President Kennedy's Wounds," rendered by Dr. Robert McClelland, one of the physicians
who attended to John F. Kennedy at Parkland Hospital after the President was shot. Source: The New York Post.
And lest you think Dr. McClelland some kind of nut, here`s confirmation from another of the attending physicians, Dr. Charles Crenshaw, who explains why he, and others attending on the President remained silent for so long about the contradiction between what the public was told about the cause of the Kennedy`s death and what they knew from direct observation to be the truth:
As for Gerry Ford, appointed by President Lyndon Baines Johnson to the Warren Commission, here is his role as reported by the New York Times 33 years after the assassination:
Thirty-three years ago, Gerald R. Ford changed ever so slightly -- the Warren Commission's main sentence on the place where a bullet entered President John F. Kennedy's body when he was killed in Dallas.
Mr. Ford's change strengthened the commission's conclusion that a single bullet passed through Kennedy and wounded Gov. John B. Connally, -- a crucial element in the commission's finding that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole gunman.
But if Kennedy was shot from the front, then one can hardly doubt that the Warren Commission Report was a cover up. And if the Warren Commission Report was a cover up, then it almost certainly covered up a conspiracy to murder involving the government.
Who in the Government? Well almost certainly that branch of government specializing in the assassination of heads of state; namely, the CIA.
But it is one thing to say that the CIA killed Kennedy and another thing altogether to say that the CIA had gone rogue. Yes there were people in the CIA who hated Kennedy for failing to send in the USAF in support of the CIA-orchestrated Bay-of-Pigs invasion of Cuba, when the invading force was bogged down on the beaches and being destroyed by the Cuban army and airforce.
But it is inconceivable that the CIA would have acted without at least a nod from LBJ, the man who, as a result of the assassination, would be in a position to either destroy the CIA or provide the agency with a roof.
Furthermore, the CIA, a bureaucracy after all, and thus subject to all the Machiavellian calculation of any major bureaucracy, would have wanted more than Johnson's backing: they would have wanted bipartisan political support.
So who on the Republican side gave them a green light?
Allen Dulles, the CIA Director that Jack Kennedy fired in the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs invasion, was no Democrat, but he was undoubtedly well connected on the Republican side of the aisle, his brother, John Foster Dulles, having served for six years as US Secretary of State under Republican president General Dwight D. Eisenhower. Who then in the Republican political world would have been in a position, through Allen Dulles, to give the assassination a go?
Nixon, the Republican defeated by Kennedy in 1960, was the then top Republican guy. So was it he, who gave the CIA the Republican backing for a contract on JFK?
As to that, there is nothing well known in the public domain to indicate the truth.
However, there is a chain of events connecting Nixon with the assassination, albeit remotely. Prior to the assassination, it is known that Lee Harvey Oswald travelled to Mexico City where he applied to both the Cuban and the Soviet embassy for a visitor's visa and where he communicated with Valeriy Kostikov, a Soviet diplomat suspected of attachment to the KGB’s Department 13, responsible for assassinations and sabotage.
How do we know that? Because both the Cuban and Soviet diplomatic compounds in Mexico City were:
thoroughly monitored by the CIA, which possessed tape recordings and transcripts of Oswald’s telephone calls, as well as photographs of Oswald as he went in and out. Source
But whether or not Howard Hunt was in Dallas the day of the assassination, there seems no question that he made a deathbed confession to involvement in the assassination (serving he said as a "bench warmer"). And there is no question that Hunt was hired by Nixon, with another Dealey Plaza tramp lookalike, Frank Sturgis, to among other things, burglarize the Democratic Party's National Committee Headquarters at the Watergate Hotel complex in Washington DC.
Why did Nixon authorize such a reckless undertaking? The stakes must surely have been high, and to find out whether the Democrats had information compromising to Nixon relating to the Kennedy assassination seems a plausible explanation.
The nature of such incriminating information is not obvious. Although Gerald Ford, Nixon's Vice President, and LBJ's appointee to the Warren Commission, is among the few who might have known.
So was Gerry Ford, a man described by LBJ as "too dumb to find his arse with both hands," in fact, smart enough to gain the Presidency by blackmailing Nixon to resign? Why not?
A post by Rob Slane of the Blogmire Blog offers some significant details concerning the alleged Russian poisoning of the pardoned Russian traitor and British agent, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter, Yulia, as they sat on a park bench in the quiet English cathedral city of Salisbury on the afternoon of March 4, this year.
Based on video evidence from the scene of the crime, Lane proposes a plausible theory of how, and by whom, the Skripal's were poisoned, a key question intensively obfuscated by the British media.
Lane also explains why the poison could not have been the deadly nerve agent, Novichok, as claimed by UK Prime Minister Theresa May, a claim endlessly repeated by the British media.
Instead, Lane suggests that the poison could have been, as we have also suggested, the widely available and much less deadly nerve agent BZ, which was initially reported to have been found in blood samples from the Skripal's, a fact that was later attributed to it having been added to the blood samples by the analytical laboratory for the purpose, so it was bizarrely claimed, of calibration.
In connection with the question of the identity of the poison, Lane constructs the following relevant time-line of events:
15:35 – Sergei Skripal and Yulia leave Zizzis. They make their way to The Maltings, presumably along Market Walk (although strangely there is no CCTV footage of this), a walk of about two minutes or so. 15:37 – When they got to The Maltings, they appear not to have gone straight to the bench, but to the Avon Playground (approximately 50 yards from the bench), where they spent some time feeding ducks. They presumably then went over to the bench, a few minutes after this.
15:47 – The mysterious pair, one of whom is carrying a red bag, are seen on CCTV walking through Market Walk in the direction of The Maltings. 16:03 – One of the first witnesses to the scene, Freya Church, who was working in the nearby Snap Fitness, leaves work at 16:00 or thereabouts, and sees the Skripals on the bench at approximately 16:03. According to her account, they were already “out of it”, which suggests that they had been poisoned some minutes previously. She noted that there was a red bag on the floor next to Yulia’s feet. 16:15 – Emergency services are called and the pair are taken to Salisbury District Hospital, Yulia by helicopter and Sergei by ambulance. Upon admittance, the hospital believed that the pair had overdosed on Fentanyl, and treated this as an opioid poisoning for at least 24 hours after the incident.
Later that evening – Police remove the red bag, and it has never been heard of or mentioned in connection with the story since.
A question that Lane does not address is the video that was released showing Julia Skripal in an interview with Reuters following her release from hospital. This video is worthy of close examination.
There are at least two remarkable things to note. First, Yulia Skripal appears not only much slimmer, than before her poisoning ordeal, but distinctly younger too, which is an odd consequence of long drawn out struggle for life.
Second, Yulia, wears a dress with a high collar, but open at the front as if intended to focus attention on her deep tracheotomy scar. That seems strange. Would not most women with the misfortune to bear such a disfiguring scar have chosen a garment with a collar that concealed the scar? And if that is conceded, then it seems reasonable to assume that Yulia displayed her scar for a purpose, namely, to leave no doubt in the public mind that she had indeed been close to death and in need of surgical intervention as a result of her alleged Russian poisoning.
But if the video is a piece of theatre to reinforce the British Government narrative on the Skripal poisoning, it would seem wise to consider the possibility that the entire interview is fake. It would surely not be difficult, given the latest methods of film creation and modification, to take an old video of a slightly younger and slimmer Yulia in an unidentifiable location and dub it with a different script. How many British or American viewers would be any the wiser? Surely few indeed: she is after all, speaking Russian, not English. And to such a false presentation, the addition of a tracheotomy scar would surely not have been difficult.
Will we have a chance to learn more from Yulia in the coming months? Unlikely. The story about the Skripals has already caused the British Government enough embarrassment. More than a month ago the CIA offered to "protect" the Skripals by providing them with new identities in America. Presumably, therefore, the Skripals will by now have been taken care of, whether of their own volition or not.
What this story seems to show is that not only is the news fake, but that it is now faked at the direct instigation of the state.
British Prime Minister, Theresa May, claims that the Russian spy turned British double agent, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter, Yulia, were the victims of an attempted nerve-agent assassination conducted on British soil on the direct orders of President Putin.
However, the evidence presented by the British state to substantiate its extraordinary allegation is, as we discussed, here, (and here, and here) essentially non-existent. Rather it appears from the circumstances that the incident was staged by the British state to stoke Russophobia. That would explain the timing, in advance of this week's almost certainly fake chemical weapons attack on civilians in Syria by, so Western media assert without evidence or question, Russia's ally, the Government of Syria.
Consistent with that inference is that the two incidents have been acclaimed with joy by warmongers in both London and Washington, DC as justification for NATO intervention in support of ISIS head-choppers in Syria against the Russian-backed Syrian Government.
Who then constitutes the greatest threat to the well-being of the Skripals? Is it the British state that apparently mounted either a fake or a failed nerve agent attack on them, an attack it then vociferously blamed on the Russians? Or is it the Russians who pardoned Sergei Skripal and released him from gaol years ago?
As long as one or both of the Skripals lives, whether under their own name or another, they represent a risk to the government of British Prime Minister, Theresa May, since they might reveal what actually happened in Salisbury when they were, according to the unsubstantiated claim of the British Government, exposed to the deadliest known nerve agent on the direct orders of President Putin.
For the Skripals, the opportunity can hardly be appealing. Not only must they sever all ties with family and friends in Russia and elsewhere, but the offer entails obvious personal risk.
Having induced them to depart the scene in name, why would the British state or their friends in America, not have them depart the scene in body and spirit also. Their identities already erased, supposedly for their own good, who would know, or even think to ask, whether they had also been silenced permanently by the hand of a British or American state assassin?
To the Russians, however, the Skripals are more valuable alive than dead as witnesses to a British operation designed to stoke Western Russophobia as a prelude to war. That they are of potential value to the Russians, is of course, the reason why the appear to be at great risk as long as they remain in the hands of the British state.
Now US "intelligence officials" are informing trusty mainstream media (i.e., globalist propaganda) outlets such as mostly-billionaire-Thomson-owned Reuters that:
U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that as the 2016 presidential campaign progressed, Russian government officials devoted increasing attention to assisting Trump's effort to win the election.
Specifically, Reuters claims, based on statements from unnamed "U.S. officials briefed on the matter," and as reported in the Washington [Com]Post, on Friday that:
February 13, 2016: The following is a transcript of exchanges between Donald Trump, JEB Bush and Marko Rubio during last night's Republican presidential candidates' debate in Greenville, S. Carolina. It may explain why Trump says he always carries a gun.
Founders of the New World Order, or the Banality of Evil
for a New American Century (PNAC) , which declared the necessity of a "new Pearl Harbor." G.W. Bush (center) ignored CIA warningof Bin Laden's determination to strike the US and used the 9/11 attacks, which he described as the Pearl Harbor of the 21st Century, to justify the wars for American global empire that PNAC called for. Image source.
Trump:
The war in Iraq was a big fat mistake. It took JEB Bush .... five days before his people told him what to say, and he ultimately said "It was a mistake."
The war in Iraq, we spent two trillion dollars, lost thousands of lives, we don't even have it, Iran is taking over Iraq with the second largest oil reserves in the World. Obviously it was a mistake. George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes, but that one is a beauty. We should never have been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle-East.
Moderator:
So yo still think he [George W. Bush] should be impeached?
Trump:
You do whatever you want. You call it whatever you want. I want to tell you, they lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction, but there were none and they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction. John Ellis Bush (JEB):
... I could care less about the insults that Donald Trump gives to me ... but I'm sick and tired of him going after my family. My dad is the greatest man alive, in my mind. While Donald Trump was building a reality TV show, my brother was building a security apparatus to keep us safe, and I'm proud of what he did. And he's had the gall to go after ...
Trump:
The World Trade Center came down during his brother's reign.
Bush:
He's had the gall to go after my mother.
Trump:
That's not keeping us safe.
Bush:
I won the lottery when I was born 63 years ago, looked up and saw my Mom. My Mom is the strongest woman I know.
Trump:
She should be running.
Rubio:
I thank God, all the time, that it was George W. Bush who was in the White House on 9/11 ... He kept us safe. No matter what you say about weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was in violation of UN resolutions, in open violation, and the World wouldn't do anything about it. And George W. Bush ... kept us safe, and I am forever grateful ...
Trump:
How did he keep us safe, when the World Trade Center ... [interruption by crowd]. The World, excuse me, I lost hundreds of friends, the World Trade Center came down during the reign of George Bush.
He kept us safe?
That's not safe. That is not safe. Rubio:
The World Trade Center came down because Bill Clinton didn't kill Osama bin Laden when he had the chance to kill him. Trump:
... George Bush had the chance also, and he didn't listen to the advice of his CIA.
In an exclusive statement to Breitbart News, Pat Buchanan declared that Trump’s rise represents a rejection of 25 years of Bush Republicanism— an ideology which Buchanan says has destroyed America’s once-great manufacturing core, flooded the country with low-skilled workers, and drained the treasury with ill-advised foreign adventures in the Middle East.
