By Paul Craig Roberts | IPE | August 13, 2018

Robert Mueller is supposed to be investigating Russiagate, which has been shown to be a hoax concocted by former CIA director John Brennan, former FBI director James Comey, and current deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. As Russiagate is a hoax, Mueller has not been able to produce a shred of evidence of the alleged Trump/Putin plot to hack Hillary’s emails and influence the last presidential election.

With his investigation unable to produce any evidence of the alleged Russiagate, Mueller concluded that he had to direct attention away from the failed hoax by bringing some sort of case against someone, knowing that the incompetent and corrupt US media and insouciant public would assume that the case had something to do with Russiagate.

Mueller chose Paul Manafort as a target, hoping that faced with fighting false charges, Manafort would make a deal and make up some lies about Trump and Putin in exchange for the case against him being dropped. But Manafort stood his ground, forcing Mueller to go forward with a false case.

Manafort’s career is involved with Republican political campaigns. He is charged with such crimes as paying for NY Yankee baseball tickets with offshore funds not declared to tax authorities and with attempting to get bank loans on the basis of misrepresentation of his financial condition. In the prosecutors’ case, Manafort doesn’t have to have succeeded in getting a loan based on financial misrepresentation, only to be guilty of trying. Two of the people testifying against him have been paid off with dropped charges.

Mueller’s investigation is restricted to Russiagate. In other words, Mueller has no mandate to investigate or bring charges unrelated to Russiagate. In my opinion, Mueller gets away with this only because the deputy Attorney General is in on the Russiagate plot against Trump. Mueller and Rosenstein know that they can count on the presstitutes to continue to deceive the public by presenting the Manafort trial as part of Russiagate.

The trial judge has twice criticized the prosecutors, asking them on one occasion if they had any evidence of successful fraud. In other words, the judge can tell the difference between actual fraud and a failed attempt at fraud, a distinction the prosecutors don’t want the jury to consider.

However, prosecutors can frame a judge, just as they are trying to frame the presidents of the United States and Russia. Realizing that, the judge backed off.

What the Manafort trial should tell you is how utterly and totally corrupt the United States is. In my opinion there is nowhere an organization as corrupt as the US Dept of Justice (sic).

That Russiagate continues on its corrupt course should tell you how powerless President Trump is. Trump cannot even influence his own Department of Justice, which is doing its best to destroy him.


Contributed by Paul Craig Roberts of Institute for Political Economy


SHARE:

By Ron Paul | RPI | August 13, 2013

Are President Trump’s senior cabinet members working against him? It’s hard not to conclude that many of the more hawkish neocons that Trump has (mistakenly, in my view) appointed to top jobs are actively working to undermine the president’s stated agenda. Especially when it seems Trump is trying to seek dialogue with countries the neocons see as adversaries needing to be regime-changed.

Remember just as President Trump was organizing an historic summit meeting with Kim Jong-Un, his National Security Advisor, John Bolton, nearly blew the whole thing up by making repeated references to the “Libya model” and how it should be applied to North Korea. As if Kim would jump at the chance to be bombed, overthrown, and murdered at the hands of a US-backed mob!




It seems that Trump’s appointees are again working at cross-purposes to him. Last week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that he was invoking a 1991 US law against the use of chemical weapons to announce yet another round of sanctions on Russia over what he claims is Putin’s involvement in the poisoning of a former Russian spy and his daughter in the UK.

The alleged poisoning took place in March and only now did the State Department make its determination that Russia was behind it and thus subject to the 1991 sanction law. Was there new information that came to light that pointed to Russian involvement? According to a State Department briefing there was none. The State Department just decided to take the British government’s word for it.

Where do we get authority to prosecute Russia for an alleged crime committed in the UK, by the way?

President Trump’s own Administration is forcing him to accept the State Department determination and agree to sanctions that may well include, according to the 1991 law, a complete break of diplomatic relations with Russia. This would be a de facto declaration of war. Over unproven allegations.

Trump has authority to reject the imposition of new sanctions, but with his Democrat opponents continuing to charge that he is in league with the Russian president, how could he waive sanctions just before the November US Congressional elections? That would be a windfall for the Democrats seeking to take control of the House and Senate.

The only way Russia could avoid the second, most extreme round of these sanctions in November is to promise not to use chemical weapons again and open its doors to international inspections. What government would accept such a demand when no proof has been presented that they used chemical weapons in the first place?

Certainly it is possible that President Trump is fully aware of the maneuverings of Bolton and Pompeo and that he approves. Perhaps he likes to play “good cop, bad cop” with the rest of the world, at the same time making peace overtures while imposing sanctions and threatening war. But it certainly looks like some of his cabinet members are getting the best of him.

If President Trump is to be taken at his word, that he welcomes dialogue “without pre-conditions” with leaders of Russia, North Korea, Iran, and elsewhere, he would be wise to reconsider those in his employ who are undermining him every step of the way. Otherwise, it is hard to believe the president is sincere. Let’s hope he does choose dialogue over conflict and clips the wings of those under him attempting to push him in the other direction.


Contributed by Ron Paul of Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

Dr. Ron Paul is an American physician, author, and former politician who served as the U.S. Representative for Texas’s 14th congressional district, which includes Galveston, from 1997 to 2013 as well as the 22nd congressional district for special term between 1976 and 1977, when he lost reelection in 1978, and for 3 later terms, from 1979 to 1985. On three occasions, he sought the presidency of the United States: as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988 and as a candidate in the Republican primaries in 2008 and 2012. Paul is best known for his libertarian views and is a critic of American foreign, domestic, and monetary policies, including the military–industrial complex, the War on Drugs, and the Federal Reserve.


SHARE:

By J.D. Heyes | Natural News | July 30, 2018

Last week 11 brave Republican lawmakers stood up for what’s right and filed an impeachment resolution against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

As reported by The National Sentinel, the lawmakers – led by House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows of North Carolina and Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio – accused Rosenstein of intentionally withholding documents and information from Congress; failing to comply with congressional subpoenas; and abusing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court.

In addition, Rosenstein signed the third of three FISA applications used to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, even though Republicans note he was aware that the warrant applications relied heavily on the phony-baloney “Russia dossier” paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

“If that wasn’t bad enough, it was Rosenstein who then appointed special counsel Robert Mueller to investigate the wholly fabricated narrative of Russian collusion and obstruction of justice — further hampering POTUS Trump in his ability to run the country and conduct foreign policy,” The National Sentinel reported.

And yet, despite all of these allegations – which are based on documented evidence – Rosenstein’s supposed boss, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, publicly voiced support for his deputy the day the impeachment resolution was filed.

Why would he do that?

“My deputy, Rod Rosenstein, is highly capable. I have the highest confidence in him,” Sessions – a former long-serving U.S. senator – said, as reported by Reuters. “What I would like Congress to do is to focus on some of the legal challenges that are out there,” especially when it comes to dealing with illegal immigration.

Reuters noted further:

Rosenstein has become a frequent punching bag for Trump supporters for appointing Mueller to take over the Russia investigation from the FBI. The president has denied collusion with Moscow and characterizes the probe as a “witch hunt.” Russia has denied interfering in the election.

Does the Deep State have something on Sessions?

It’s hard to take such reporting seriously – there wasn’t any Russian collusion between Team Trump and Moscow and most people in the establishment media know, or should know that, given the dearth of evidence following a lengthy investigation into the allegations by Muller. (Related: Jeff Sessions is not serving up the justice that Trump and the American people deserve on Comey, Clinton, and others.)

But it’s equally difficult to hear Sessions say such things with a straight face, especially since not all that long ago as a serving lawmaker he was very likely frustrated by the Obama administration’s repeated refusals to turn over information to congressional committees in a timely manner. And does he remember that Obama’s first AG, Eric Holder, was held in contempt of Congress for refusing to cooperate on the “Fast and Furious” scandal; does he want to be remembered as running the same kind of Justice Department?

Rosenstein hasn’t just been withholding documents and thwarting Congress’ constitutional oversight role. Many of the documents he has ‘allowed’ to be transferred to various committees are so redacted as to nearly be useless. He claims the redactions are heavy because of “ongoing investigations” but a) these lawmakers are cleared to see sensitive information; b) they’re entitled to see it; and c) many long-time Washington watchers know that heavy redactions most often are done to protect certain people or agencies from embarrassment or criminal exposure.

There are also reports that Rosenstein, increasingly angry with the aggressiveness of Republican congressional investigators, threatened them with subpoenas for their personal records, emails, and phone calls during a tense meeting earlier this year. Some aides described the threat as a “personal attack.”

“For nine months, we’ve asked for documents, and that’s all we want,” Meadows told Fox News’ Laura Ingraham last week. “Not only have subpoenas been ignored, but information has been hidden, efforts have been stonewalled.”

Jordan added: “We’re tired of the Justice Department giving us the finger.”

So are we. And we’re tired of Jeff Sessions allowing it to happen. He needs to go.

Read more about conservative efforts to clean up Obama corruption at Conservative.news.


Contributed by J.D. Heyes of NaturalNews.com

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.


SHARE:

By Ron Paul | RPI | July 30, 2018

President Trump’s recent Tweets expressing displeasure with the Federal Reserve’s (minor) interest rate increases led to accusations that President Trump is undermining the Federal Reserve’s independence. But, the critics ignore the fact that Federal Reserve “independence” is one of the great myths of American politics.

When it comes to intimidating the Federal Reserve, President Trump pales in comparison to President Lyndon Johnson. After the Federal Reserve increased interest rates in 1965, President Johnson summoned then-Fed Chairman William McChesney Martin to Johnson’s Texas ranch where Johnson shoved him against the wall. Physically assaulting the Fed chairman is probably a greater threat to Federal Reserve independence than questioning the Fed’s policies on Twitter.

While Johnson is an extreme example, history is full of cases where presidents pressured the Federal Reserve to adopt policies compatible with the presidents’ agendas — and helpful to their reelection campaigns. Presidents have been pressuring the Fed since its creation. President Warren Harding called on the Fed to lower rates. Richard Nixon was caught on tape joking with then-Fed chair Arthur Burns about Fed independence. And Lloyd Bentsen, President Bill Clinton’s first Treasury secretary, bragged about a “gentleman’s agreement” with then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan.

President Trump’s call for low interest rates contradicts Trump’s earlier correct criticism of the Fed’s low interest rate policy as harming middle-class Americans. Low rates can harm the middle class, but they also benefit spend-and-borrow politicians and their favorite special interests by lowering the federal government’s borrowing costs. Significant rate increases could make it impossible for the government to service its existing debt, thus making it difficult for President Trump and Congress to continue increasing welfare and warfare spending.

President Trump will have a long-lasting impact on monetary policy. Two of the three sitting members of the Fed’s board were appointed by President Trump. Two more of Trump’s nominees are pending in the Senate. The nomination of economist Marvin Goodfriend may be in jeopardy because Goodfriend advocates “negative interest rates,” which is a Federal Reserve-imposed tax on savings. If Goodfriend is defeated, President Trump can just nominate another candidate. President Trump will also be able to nominate two other board members. Therefore, by the end of his first term, President Trump could appoint six of the Federal Reserve’s seven board members.

The specter of a Federal Reserve Board dominated by Trump appointees should cause some to rethink the wisdom of allowing a secretive central bank to exercise near-monopoly control over monetary policy. Fear of the havoc a Trumpian Fed could cause may even lead some to support the Audit the Fed legislation and the growing movement to allow Americans to “exit” the Federal Reserve System by using alternatives to fiat money, such as cryptocurrencies and gold.

Given the Federal Reserve’s power to help or hinder a president’s economic agenda and reelection prospects, it is no surprise that presidents try to influence Fed policy. But, instead of worrying about protecting the Fed from President Trump, we should all worry about protecting the American people from the Fed. The first step is passing the Audit the Fed bill, which Congress should do before adjourning to hit the campaign trail. This will let the people know the full truth about America’s monetary policy. Auditing, then ending, the Fed is key to permanently draining the welfare-warfare swamp.


Contributed by Ron Paul of Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

Dr. Ron Paul is an American physician, author, and former politician who served as the U.S. Representative for Texas’s 14th congressional district, which includes Galveston, from 1997 to 2013 as well as the 22nd congressional district for special term between 1976 and 1977, when he lost reelection in 1978, and for 3 later terms, from 1979 to 1985. On three occasions, he sought the presidency of the United States: as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988 and as a candidate in the Republican primaries in 2008 and 2012. Paul is best known for his libertarian views and is a critic of American foreign, domestic, and monetary policies, including the military–industrial complex, the War on Drugs, and the Federal Reserve.


SHARE:

By Mac Slavo | SHTFplan | July 23, 2018

Republican representative, Trey Gowdy from South Carolina said that in 18 months, he has not seen “one scintilla” of evidence that Donald Trump colluded with Russia.  He added that if that evidence existed, we could all be rest assured that it would have been leaked by now.

Since leaks from the White House are not few and far between since Donald Trump has taken office, Gowdy is likely onto something here. There are leaks about everything and regarding everything.

Leaks to the media have plagued Trump’s presidency since his first day in office, and a new report on leakers’ motives opens a window into the extent of the subterfuge. “To be honest, it probably falls into a couple of categories,” one White House official told Axios‘s, Jonathan Swan. “The first is personal vendettas. And two is to make sure there’s an accurate record of what’s really going on in the White House.”  Many of those with ties and puppet strings connecting them to the deep state are actually in Trump’s White House, according to The Washington Post.

A wave of leaks from government officials has hobbled the Trump administration, leading some to draw comparisons to countries like Egypt, Turkey, and Pakistan, where shadowy networks within government bureaucracies, often referred to as “deep states,” undermine and coerce elected governments. Though leaks can be a normal and healthy check on a president’s power, what’s happening now extends much further.

A former White House official who, according to Swan, “turned leaking into an art form,” said that “leaking is information warfare; it’s strategic and tactical — strategic to drive [the] narrative, tactical to settle scores.” –SHTFPlan

And Gowdy seems to see the writing on the wall.  Who was that said, “a lie told often enough times becomes the truth?” (It was infamous Marxist Vladimir Lenin, FYI).  That appears to be exactly what Democrats and their lapdogs in mainstream media continue to propagate. If they just repeat that Trump and Russia colluded enough times, the people will eventually buy that lie without any evidence.

“I have not seen one scintilla of evidence that this president colluded, conspired, confederated with Russia, and neither has anyone else, or you may rest assured Adam Schiff would have leaked it,” Gowdy said on Fox News Sunday as reported by The Daily Wire. 

Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, has been among the most vocal of Trump haters. As head of the House Intelligence Committee, Schiff is privy to a lot of information that others are not and leaks of information have streamed out of the committee. “That’s why they’ve moved off of collusion onto obstruction of justice, which is now their current preoccupation,” Gowdy added alluding to the fact that if there was evidence of collusion, the public would have seen it months ago

Gowdy, though, noted that after 18 months, there’s been no evidence of any crime committed. And now, the probe led by special counsel Robert Mueller appears to moving into the sex realm. Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, reportedly recorded a conversation with Trump about a former Playboy model who claims Trump once had an affair with her.

That latest revelation, of course, has already leaked. So it does make sense: If anyone had anything on Trump, it’d already be out there. –The Daily Wire


Contributed by Mac Slavo of SHTFplan.com


SHARE: