Tuesday 26 March 2019

Britain was the foreign country that tried to rig the 2016 US Presidential election

On July 27, 2016, Donald Trump said at a news conference, 
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
I thought it a good joke. It was a good joke. His sense of humour is one of his great political strengths. Two absurd men, Fred Wertheimer and Norman Eisen, writing in USA Today in January of this year solemnly argued that these words were a violation of the law that prohibits seeking help from a foreign country to influence an election. 

It reminds me that, when Mr. Trump said that Hillary was the founder of ISIS, Snopes carefully fact checked his claim and determined that it was 100% false.

Russia, of course, tried to influence the 2016 American presidential election. There is no doubt about that.

Although, contrary to what you have assumed, there is no proof or even evidence that Russia leaked Hillary's emails. China or Iran might have done so. We know a random Romanian hacker called "Guccifer" leaked the emails sent to Mrs. Clinton by Sidney Blumenthal.

It was always obvious to any intelligent 11 year-old that there was absolutely no reason to
imagine that Donald Trump and Putin were in collusion. My bête noire, Anne Applebaum, said a long time ago that the worst thing about Mr Trump was that he liked Mr Putin without having any reason to be grateful to him, but because they thought alike.

They thought in terms of national interests, she meant, rather than being liberal internationalists, as she thinks everyone should be.

The inevitable exoneration of Mr. Trump from involvement with Russia in the 2016 campaign is sweet to me simply because it is always satisfying to see crass stupidity routed. It does not happen nearly often enough in politics. 

Many, if not all, foreign countries tried to influence the 2016 campaign. Germany did and Israel certainly did. 

But the country that used the dirtiest tricks to do so was of course my own. 

Christopher Steele's preposterous file on Donald Trump, made up of what Mr. Steele said himself was 'raw intelligence' (i.e. rubbish), was taken seriously because he is ex-MI6 and, as the Washington DC establishment knows, no-one is ever ex-MI6. It was an attempt by Great Britain to prevent Mr Trump being the Republican nominee, possibly at the request of Mr Obama and possibly not.

That is fine, perhaps. What is not fine is that the FBI were wiretapping the Trump campaign during the election. What is much less fine is that after he took office there was clearly an attempt by the FBI, CIA and Justice Department to overthrow Mr Trump.  A non-partisan or bipartisan coup attempt by elements in the deep state. That is what Mueller (a Republican) was all about. 

Having seen what they tried to do to Donald Trump I now assume that Watergate was another CIA coup attempt, but one that succeeded.

One of England's very best journalists, Justin Webb, writes insightfully in the Daily Mail about the Mueller report. He expects it means that Donald Trump will win next time. That is pretty certain barring (as one cannot) an economic recession.

He mentions Rolling Stone journalist Matt Taibbi's conclusion that 

the Mueller findings represent ‘a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media’. He likens the reporting of Russia’s alleged interference to the way the media bought into the Bush administration’s ‘weapons of mass destruction’ narrative before the Iraq invasion.
Saying that the allegations of collusion are nonsense leads the retired Guardian journalist Michael White to accuse Justin Webb in this article of being 'a Trump apologist'. 

The British press are as biassed about Trump as the Americans, you see. In fact the Democrats' foolish belief in the Russian story has blown their credibility, despite Mr Trump's many sins. 

Mr Webb goes on:

There is so much excitement about what might have been happening behind the scenes (but either wasn’t, or was but cannot be proved) that the ‘in plain sight’ stuff gets a free pass.

In that category, the chief matter of note is that there are extraordinary conflicts of interest for Trump in nations around the world –— business deals and business relationships that no previous president could have got away with.
The fact, for instance, that Saudi Arabia pays Donald Trump’s Washington hotel hundreds of thousands of dollars for official stays. Or that the biggest bank in China pays an estimated $2 million a year of what is effectively Chinese Government money for office space in Trump Tower in New York, at the very time the President is negotiating with the Chinese over trade.
No previous president would have dreamt of trying to get away with that.

Even when previous presidents played golf, they seem to have managed to get through a game without cheating. Not the Donald, allegedly.
The deep state coup in the USA has failed, for now at least, but the coup against Brexit is going according to the British deep state's plan. 

Each deep state is discrete, of course, by definition, but the British and American ones are linked.

1 comment:

  1. Britain interfering in U.S. politics is hardly new. British Intelligence ran a very determined large-scale propaganda campaign aimed at dragging the U.S. into the Second World War. It's certainly possible that British Intelligence interfered in the 1940 U.S. election.

    Having seen what they tried to do to Donald Trump I now assume that Watergate was another CIA coup attempt, but one that succeeded.

    It was certainly a coup. I don't think that even qualifies as a conspiracy theory. It was pretty openly a coup. Americans had had the temerity to vote the wrong way in 1972. They were not going to be allowed to get away with that.

    Liberals believe passionately in democracy. To liberals democracy means that everyone has the right to vote for the approved liberal candidates and parties. Democracy is too important to be left in the hands of the people. They might vote the wrong way.