Richard Stanley


President Trump's spiritual adviser Paula White said in the opening prayer before his campaign kickoff rally in Orlando, Fla., on Tuesday that "demonic networks" have aligned themselves against the president.
"Let every demonic network that has aligned itself against the purpose, against the calling of President Trump, let it be broken, let it be torn down in the name of Jesus," she said to a crowd of Trump's supporters before his rally began on Tuesday.
"I declare that President Trump will overcome every strategy from Hell and every strategy from the enemy," she added, according to video of her remarks.
"I secure his calling, I secure his purpose, I secure his family and we secure victory in the name which is above every name...the name of Jesus Christ," she said ending her prayer. ...

Richard Stanley

This Morning Joe segment, How Trump WH uses him as distraction to get things done, is aligned somewhat with my view that Trump and his Kaos is being managed by his handlers in the White House:

The discussion is premised on a new book, The Best People: Trump's Cabinet and the Siege on Washington, by Alexander Nazaryan.

An engrossing look at the Trump cabinet: the scandals, the incompetence, the assault on the federal government, the bungled attempts to impose order on an administration lost in a chaos of its own making.
Donald Trump promised a return to national greatness, but each day of his presidency seems to bring a new crisis, a deepening sense of national unease. Why, and how, has he failed his supporters? And how has he, on occasion, bested his detractors?
The Best People takes complete measure of the Trump administration, to grasp with clarity the president and his intentions, and how those intentions are being carried out-or subverted-by the people he has hired.
Alexander Nazaryan argues that the "assault on the administrative state" promised by Steve Bannon in early 2017 never came. What the American people got instead was Wilbur Ross hauling his tennis pro to confirmation hearing preparations; Scott Pruitt running away from rattlesnakes; Reince Priebus enduring insults from junior White House staffers.
And yet, bungling as Trump's cabinet members have been, they have managed to either damage or arrest many of the gears that make government run. They have given away public lands to oil companies and allowed corporate lobbyists to make decisions about what is best for the American people, and have done it all while flying on private jets and dining at the finest restaurants, at taxpayers' expense.
Meticulously reported and enthrallingly told, The Best People takes readers inside the federal government under Trump's control, a government assailed by the very people charged to lead it, a government awash in confusion and corruption.

Of course, what if what has been delivered is what Steve Bannon and the greater Georgetown cabal in the White House do really want?

In the same vein, this clip discusses Trump's two-faced behavior on racism, and also mentions his prior support for nationalizing banks, of which the central theme in his long [sic] political persona is that of playing divide and conquer. This from a man who, contrary to his public image, is a massive business failure, constantly needing to be bailed out by others like his father, Deutsche Bank, or NBC.

Richard Stanley


The above clip begins with Maddow's typical long-winded introduction, discussing the lack of response by Hope Hicks to questions, using a claim of "absolute immunity", an unresolved legal issue (by such as the Supreme Court). tested However, at 10 minutes into the clip Maddow brings up that (somehow) Hicks became responsive to questions about Russian sex tapes involving Trump. What happened to "absolute immunity"?

Maddow goes on to discuss that Trump's top associates were aware of Russian sex tapes long before the Steele Dossier (and the pee-pee tape allegation) became public, including that Michael Cohen was called to address the issue.

Allegations are now rampant that Trump aborted launched retaliation strikes on Iran because Putin publicly expressed his displeasure. What's the truth?

Jerry Russell

Staff member
Allegations are now rampant that Trump aborted launched retaliation strikes on Iran because Putin publicly expressed his displeasure. What's the truth?
The truth is, we're witnessing a massive propaganda campaign to persuade the American people to support the war on Iran. This war is actually already under way. The sanctions are designed to strangle the enemy like a medieval siege of a castle. Of course the Anglo-Zionist empire would like to win the war without firing a shot if possible, but Bolton and Pompeo are determined to win by whatever means necessary, and however long it takes.

Trump, for the moment, appears to be putting the brakes on the Neocon war agenda. Perhaps Trump really is trying to prevent disproportionate military strikes and disproportionate fatalities on the Iranian side. Or perhaps this is good-cop, bad-cop theater. Either way, the propaganda narrative is diabolically effective.

The Democrats and hard-core Trump haters are being sold again on the view that Trump is a treasonous Russian agent, and that we need to get rid of him to get on with the serious business of foreign policy. This sidesteps the issue of whether war with Iran is actually a good idea. Some Democrats are as hungry for war as any Neocon, and others are as peaceful as doves. But all can agree that Putin should not be making the decisions.

Trump's base is largely anti-war. White lower-class kids will be killed in droves in any ground war in Iran. And, many of the Trump supporters are veterans of Mideast wars themselves, suffering from PTSD. They voted for Trump because they believed the campaign rhetoric that Trump wanted to put an end to the old wars, and avoid new ones.

Thus, the unfolding scenario that paints Trump as a model of restraint, is playing directly to his base.

The idea that Trump actually ordered the attack, and then called it back at the last possible moment when he suddenly realized that some Iranians could get killed!!!, is the most ridiculous part of the narrative. Trump doesn't care about killing Iranians. As Moon of Alabama points out, "For several years Iran's neighbor Iraq was under a similar harsh sanction regime. 500,000 Iraqi children died and the then U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said that it was worth it (vid)." But even if Trump did care, surely he would've known when he first gave the order, that fatalities would result from any military attack.

Elijah Magnier offers this explanation:

According to well-informed sources, Iran rejected a proposal by US intelligence – made via a third party – that Trump be allowed to bomb one, two or three clear objectives, to be chosen by Iran, so that both countries could appear to come out as winners and Trump could save face. Iran categorically rejected the offer and sent its reply: even an attack against an empty sandy beach in Iran would trigger a missile launch against US objectives in the Gulf.
If this is true, then it would suggest that Trump (or whoever is designing this propaganda narrative) would have preferred to paint a picture of greater resolve. It also suggests that the Americans must have believed, with a high degree of confidence, that the Iranians would comply with the US proposal.

Perhaps there was also some sort of carrot or bribe attached to the proposal. Or perhaps the US negotiators hoped they could count on the influence of some fifth column of compromised assets within the Iranian government. Or perhaps the Iranians are simply not as intimidated by US military might, as the US negotiators expected.

At any rate, it makes sense that the US attack was pulled back at the last moment, and Trump was humiliated (at least in the eyes of the contingent of American war mongers), because the expected Iranian consent to the operation failed to materialize.

Tucker Carlson also had the opportunity to appear as a hero in the eyes of Trump's anti-war base. As Caitlin Johnstone reports:

Last night Fox’s Tucker Carlson praised Trump’s decision not to go forward with a planned attack against Iran which the president claims would have killed approximately 150 people in response to a downed drone, which if true would have been a profoundly barbaric response to a broken toy plane and would have led to retaliations from Iran, followed by a chain of military actions which could have escalated God knows how far.
Carlson, who has been credited with persuading Trump against further military escalations with Iran, lit into the neoconservative elements of Trump’s cabinet with unprecedented viciousness. He called National Security Advisor John Bolton a “bureaucratic tapeworm” who never suffers any consequences for his relentless warmongering and accusing him and his collaborators of deliberately engineering a provocation to lead to direct military confrontation. Carlson urged Trump to expunge the influencers who are pushing for a war with Iran, and cautioned that it would cost him re-election.
“Bombing Iran would have ended [Trump’s] political career in a minute,” Carlson said. “There’d be no chance of re-election after that.”

As Johnstone notes, the buzz on Twitter is overwhelmingly opposed to war against Iran, and certainly opposed to launching such a war in response to downing of an unmanned drone. But I'm too cynical to be anywhere near as encouraged as Johnstone is, when it comes to the "underlying goodness" of Americans.

I don't know when, or under what circumstances, the Anglo-Zionist empire will decide that it's time to "bomb, bomb, bomb... bomb bomb Iran". But the stage is clearly set. Any time the decision makers are ready, a false flag attack on some US military asset can be arranged. Some number of American soldiers will need to be killed. When (or if) this time comes, Tucker Carlson will be outraged, and call for retribution. This time Iran has gone too far, he will say. And of course Trump will forcefully agree.

Regarding the alleged offer to allow the Iranians to choose the targets of the US attack, Elijah Magnier says that: "Iran was reassured by this offer that the US has no intention of going to war and is trying to find a way out of its quandary; Trump is looking for a way out." If this is the case, then the incident might also have served to lull the Iranians into a (false) sense of security. The fifth column of US supporters within Iran was strengthened by this incident. The Iranians might be more restrained in their activities, and award the US with more time. That could be another possible benefit of the gambit.

Magnier says that "Iran will definitely not stop in its plans to halt all oil tanker navigation if its own oil cannot be exported" and Moon of Alabama predicts that "Iran will steadily increase its pressure on Trump by going against bigger and more important targets. There will be more tanker and other incidents with less time between them."

And if this pressure results in a sharp upward move in oil prices? Tucker Carlson is not going to be happy about this.

Richard Stanley

Thus, the unfolding scenario that paints Trump as a model of restraint, is playing directly to his base.

The idea that Trump actually ordered the attack, and then called it back at the last possible moment when he suddenly realized that some Iranians could get killed!!!, is the most ridiculous part of the narrative. Trump doesn't care about killing Iranians. As Moon of Alabama points out, "For several years Iran's neighbor Iraq was under a similar harsh sanction regime. 500,000 Iraqi children died and the then U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said that it was worth it (vid)." But even if Trump did care, surely he would've known when he first gave the order, that fatalities would result from any military attack.
Yes, your correct he is trying to appear restrained to his base, whom he pandered to in his campaign by saying he wants to avoid such wars. The tell that the whole thing is a lie is his claim that he asked how many casualties there would be and they came back with we'll have to get back to you on that. With such strikes they always have an updated casualty estimate on hand.

There are many in the MSM who are parroting that Trump is finally acting like an adult by doing so.

Also, in this time frame, the administration released (on a Saturday) the economic portion of the Kushner peace place, with $50 billion dangle to the Palestinians. Because the political aspect has been held back they immediately rejected it, and so Trump can appear to look good to his base once again.

Richard Stanley

Yesterday, I decided to take Hulu's recommendation to watch the 2006 movie The Good Shepherd, a fictional account of the creation of the OSS and the CIA, with a backdrop of the infamous Skull and Bones Society of Yale. As such, the following excerpted article about a name popping up on more radars is Bill Burck. As a former Assistant US Attorney he is closely connected to Felix Sater, Don McGahn, Brett Kavanaugh, and the Skull and Bonesman, George W. (Gog) Bush. Given Burck's Yale matriculation and subsequent professional connection, he seems to have the perfect profile to be a Bonesman himself.

A prominent conservative lawyer keeps showing up in dramas central to the Trump administration and its battles with Congress—and it turns out he has intimate knowledge of Felix Sater’s intelligence work for the U.S. government while he was working with Trump.
The Moscow-born Sater is the financial criminal and violent felon who worked closely with Trump for years while simultaneously serving as a long-term informant for the FBI and other national security agencies.
In 2015 and into mid-2016, Sater pushed for the development of a Trump Tower in Moscow with his old friend Michael Cohen, Trump’s longtime fixer, while trying to enlist support from the Russian government for Trump’s campaign.
Burck, a former assistant U.S. attorney, shows up in two just-unsealed court documents in Felix Sater’s criminal docket from 15 years ago. Burck had not been linked to Sater before now.
The lawyer, William A. Burck, popped up in two just-unsealed court documents in Sater’s criminal docket. Burck had not been linked to Sater before now.
Burck has also been at the center of two highly charged dramas in Washington this past year: the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court and the Mueller investigation. Yet his roles have gone largely unnoticed by other news organizations.
One of Burck’s clients is Don McGahn, the former White House counsel who has been subpoenaed by the House and whose testimony Trump is now trying to block by claiming executive privilege.
In the Mueller investigation, Burck’s other clients also include Reince Priebus, Trump’s first chief of staff, and former advisor Steve Bannon, as well as McGahn, all of whom the House Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed. ...

The Wikipedia page on the movie downplays the connection of Skull and Bones to the CIA and the overall depiction of the historical atmosphere of the day. However, granted the aggressive nature of Communism, I think it does present some realities in the nature of how such as Skull and Bones and others play a role in forming a shadow government that subverts our democratic and egalitarian rhetoric. The Wikipedia link complained about the depiction of a WASP mafia, and this was made overtly visible, when Joe Pesci's character was told that all non-WASPs are just "guests" in America. Of course, there are different gradations of WASPs as well, in reality. But the critics are correct in that such as the CIA had its share of high level Catholics as well, such as Dulles. From our researches here, we know that this particular dialectic is false, yet that doesn't say that such as Skull and Bones should be ignored.

If Bill Burck is a Bonesman, just look at the nature of his links, as discussed in the article. I've posted on this thread about the nature of Felix Sater's supposed intelligence connections, from Russia to al Qaeda and more. Given what he's supposedly done, why isn't he in witness protection?

More importantly, when viewed through the narrative lens of such as The Good Shepherd, no matter how historically flawed, one begins to see more clearly how such a web of players can drive the reality.
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Is the following mere trolling of political opponents? Is it messaging to his various Brown Shirts that he will be expecting their help at the right time?


Think the question is hyperbole? Then what is currently happening in Oregon, where an anti-republic, Republican (American Taliban) state legislator said that police will be shot for help in rounding up he and his colleagues who have fled the state to avoid a constitutional quorum? Whatever the underlying politics of the (environmental) issue is - is besides the point, and even whether these 'lawmakers' are avoiding a quorum (Democrats have done this as well). The issue is whether these 'lawmakers' believe they can call for armed rebellion - because they don't like not getting their way. They have no problem telling Democrats and others that "elections matter" - when the golden shoe is on the Right foot.

One of the events used a threat against state police by Sen. Brian Boquist, R-Dallas, as a rallying cry.
"Send bachelors and come heavily armed. I’m not going to be a political prisoner in the state of Oregon. It’s just that simple," Boquist said Wednesday during an interview with Portland television station KGW. The remark came after Brown and Senate Democrats said they would send state police after Republicans if they walked out.
Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem, said the state police superintendent told him militia groups were inflamed by that comment. Courtney said he was told that many identified as potentially appearing at the state Capitol Saturday were involved in the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Eastern Oregon in 2016.
He was also told that individuals from outside Oregon might join.
In a joint statement released Friday night, Courtney and House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, condemned Boquist's comments against Oregon State Police officers.
"His comments have created fear among employees in our workplace," they said. "We will always defend free speech and welcome frank policy discussions, but threats like these are unacceptable.”
Boquist earlier on Wednesday had threatened Courtney personally while on the floor of the Senate, saying: “If you don’t think these boots are for walking, you’re flat wrong, Mr. President. And if you send the state police to get me, hell is coming to visit you personally.” ...

And so the above 'freedom' rebellion is merely re-scripted from the past, fully consistent with the themes I've been developing at Postflaviana. Here is what I wrote recently in attempting to reconcile Ralph Ellis's work with others' interpretations of Christina origins -- revolving around the Roman versus (nationalist) Jewish conflict in 'Biblical' times:

And where Ellis is generally correct that a globalist versus nationalist dialectic is respectively formed between Rome and the disguised Holy Family, here as with today's dynamic, I assert this is all controlled opposition. Like the 20th century Fascists (including the fake 'pagan' Nazis) close ties to the Catholic Church, Steve Bannon is a good Catholic boy. Where Ellis points out that the disguised Holy Family were hedonistically libertine via such as their incestuous royal Egyptian marriage(s) practice, the elites of imperial and Christian Rome were ever two-faced in these regards. Donald Trump is repeating the libertine typology in his pandering to America's nationalist zealots, even hinting at his 'odd' relationship with his favorite daughter, and that he "can get away with murder". All the while his White House is filled with Georgetown apparatchiks.

As Ellis will go to discuss this aspect becomes the same social dialectic (of libertarian, ethnocentric nationalists versus authoritarian, cosmopolitan globalists) that we are witnessing today, as I have been discussing on other threads. It is actually two separate dialects confusingly conflated together, which I will try to disentangle later. In any case, I was quite excited in my re-reading of CtC that Ellis had identified this phenomenon, that our Postflavian thesis should predict. I will interpret the nature of the dialect(s) a bit different and cynically than Ellis however.​

In the most recent years I have serendipitously learned of the seemingly paradoxical sponsorship of the modern libertarian political and economic movement by the 'remnants' of various Euro-royal houses, such as the Bourbons and Hapsburgs. This via their Mont Pelerin Society, and this operates in conjunction with the so-called Austrian School of Economics, that of laissez faire economists von Mises and Hayek. The Hapsburgs were the emperors of the Second Reich, the so-called Holy Roman Empire. The seeming paradox can only be resolved once one understands the aspects of such as "controlled opposition" and transitional hidden agendas. Without 'seeing' the underlying sponsorships we are misled to believe that such as libertarianism, especially the most extreme Randian form as being of an organic nature. The exact same thing goes for totalitarian Communism, and while we should be seeking to find middle ground in all such, we are today informed by the 'patriots' that anything short of Randian extremism is godless Communism. Who is benefiting from such artificial polarization?
Ironically, this economic dialectic leaves space for such as yesterdays' 20th century and today's Fascists to claim the 'rhetorical' economic middle ground (aligned somewhat with the late 19th century Papal Bull Rerum Novarum) while performing the redux of simultaneously blaming the Jews for both the real excesses of Capitalism and Marxism. But who really wants to get into bed with such hateful and paranoid kooks?
And so just as I see today's machinations, where Right and Left are controlled oppositions at the highest levels, the same occurred in Biblical times, both OT and NT, and hence form our Postflavian notion of the False Dialectic of Western Civilization. The playbook stays the same, because it works on the same underlying human psychology. The Jewish War provided the chaotic social backdrop to shoehorn a new religion into place over the course of several centuries, that replaced several others and so-called mystery cults.
Today, we are repeating the same script, even having recreated Israel as a flashpoint and Persia (Iran) as the West's foil du jour. Today, as President Nero (or Caligula?) flaunts every American norm or law he can find, oil tankers are attacked in the Gulf of Oman (an extension of the Persian Gulf). Or so we are to believe.

Jerry Russell

Staff member
OMG, this is Oregon's cap-and-trade, carbon emissions greenhouse gas global warming bill. It's our own version of the Green New Deal.

Many of our local Unitarian Church members have been putting in overtime trying to get this passed. I myself have been reluctant to get involved in the controversy.

And, the Trump tweet is no longer pinned. It's not just a still, it's an animation that needs to be seen to be believed. It's gotten 18.3 million views. Don't miss the music, turn your speakers up.


Richard Stanley

While Trump has been busy playing up his advisorial team of doves and hawks, the following video by Kim Iverson explains the oil politics of the US relationship to Iran, going back to the 1953 US backed coup against Mossadegh. The CIA operative in charge of the operation was Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of Teddy. Teddy, of course, was in on the beginnings of the American transition to a (THE) globalizing power via the Spanish-American War.

Trump can rhetorically posture all he wants to his base, but he is playing old game.

Here is Iverson deconstructing Lyndsey Graham's recent explanation of how Israel will be used to drag us into war with Iran:

"The USA, and especially Trump, DO NOT WAR (because we are so 'piece' loving), but "You know, we must support our ally, Israel"."

OMG!!! Israel is the USA's Sheepdog?
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Another reason that launching a war, soon, works to Trump's benefit is that he losing donors and such as suburban women, despite otherwise solidifying his base. He has apparently lost his biggest donors, the Mercer family. The following excerpted article discusses how their support for Trump has been a disaster on several levels.

“Jared doesn’t like what’s going on. He basically believes the RNC should be doing a lot better,” a former West Wing official familiar with the conversations told me. According to this official and another source, Kushner wants to recruit Mike Pence’s former chief of staff, Nick Ayers, back to Washington for a senior position at the RNC to bolster the GOP’s fund-raising. “Jared wants Nick, but Ronna would protest that,” the former West Wing official said. (The White House did not respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for the RNC said the group “has a great working relationship with the team at the White House” and praised McDaniel for “fundraising records month after month.”)
But a large part of the problem is that Trump has lost the financial support of one of his biggest backers in 2016: the Mercers. With their ties to Steve Bannon, Breitbart, and Cambridge Analytica, Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah were superstars last cycle. According to half a dozen sources familiar with the reclusive family’s political activities, the Mercers have drastically curtailed their political donations in recent months and will likely not play a significant role in 2020. “They think that the administration could do so much more. They’ve been very vocal about that to the president,” a person familiar with the Mercers’ thinking told me. “It’s like they’ve disappeared,” the former West Wing official added. “Crickets. They’re gone,” a prominent Republican strategist said. ...

Of course, the Mercer's had a big problem, in that they were not originally onboard with Trump, and they were political novices. In the last regard, they were much like Trump's base, paranoid about Hillary. And the Trump cabal took full advantage of them.

And so a war will help to justify his suspension of the constitutional government in pursuit of the imperium, which will keep his ass out of prison. This needs to happen soon for him, prefereably before the Dems adopt the language of impeachment. As I've stated, I expect July 4th to be telling.

Richard Stanley

The follow excerpt is from an opinion piece by high level Israelis, discussing why the Kushner peace deal is a bad idea. But is it merely the naive mistake of real estate moguls, Trump and Kushner, or is it more a cynical ploy?

That is the very real danger we are facing again. By putting economics first while ignoring the end game, Trump is repeating a colossal mistake: resuming talks without defining the end goal. For both Palestinians and Israelis, that goal should be ending the occupation and establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel within 1967 borders, with necessary land swaps. Unless both parties and the mediating power state this clearly at the outset, the expectations gap will breed mistrust. Thus, sitting down together will be futile. This will lead to further disillusionment—and escalating violence. Unless the goal of the talks is explicitly defined as ending the conflict and establishing a Palestinian state, more lives will be lost.
Moreover, there will be no Jewish and democratic state without resolving the Palestinian issue.
The problem is that once Trump’s deal hits the table, it will be hard to ignore. Israel and the Palestinian Authority will have to respond. This will place Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, already considered a collaborator with Israel by most Palestinians, in a dangerous bind. He will not able to accept a deal that blatantly ignores Palestinian national aspirations, yet rejecting it will paint him as resisting peace. Domestic pressure may force him to stop cooperating with Israel on security, which will lead to a hike in terrorism. The path from there to igniting the entire area would be short, as the painful history of the conflict shows.
A Middle East explosion could be ignited by another conflict point: the rapidly escalating tensions between the U.S. and Iran, which is connected to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. The best way to effectively confront Iran is via a regional coalition of relatively moderate Sunni regimes, headed by Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, with tacit participation of Israel. But forming such a coalition is not possible unless a credible political process aimed at resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is underway; Arab people will not tolerate cooperation with Israel without it. Thus, for the Trump administration, which views confronting Iran as a key foreign policy objective, a plan that establishes this process should be critically important.
As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Yet it is not clear whether Trump’s intentions are good or merely seek to do Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a political favor. Presenting Abbas with an impossible choice will allow Netanyahu to win another round of the blame game and accuse the Palestinians of backing away from a good deal, playing into Netanyahu’s electoral base that rejects a two-state solution. But the result may be more death and an escalation that would delay constructive talks—and a Mideast anti-Iran coalition—for years. ...
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Trump's supposed re-election strategy depends upon Electoral College tactics even more than in 2016. How long can the mid-west ag states continue their support for this maniac? More of this below will only increase Trump's need for war, to keep him out of a visit to the Graybar Hotel.

President Donald Trump’s trade wars are pushing America’s rural economy toward a full-blown meltdown after years of financial hardship, causing more farmers to default on loans while putting the squeeze on agricultural lenders.
Farmers have seen their net income plummet by half since 2013 and are now expected to hold nearly $427 billion in debt this year — the most since the farm crisis in the 1980s. The default rate for farm loans held by banks hit its highest level in seven years in the first three months of 2019.
In Iowa earlier this month, Trump blamed his predecessors who “did nothing” about falling farm income, while crediting his own administration for “turning it all around.”
Except he hasn't. Instead, his trade battles have accelerated the deterioration of financial conditions. Retaliatory tariffs from major trading partners like China and Mexico have slammed U.S. farm exports and taken a chunk out of commodity prices. And soaring debt levels are pushing more and more farmers and ranchers — already suffering from epic floods — toward insolvency. ...

Richard Stanley

The following excerpt is from an emptywheel blog post discussing the shadow foreign policy being run by Jared Kushner, completely bypassing the State Department. This involves advancing Trump and Kushner personal financial interests with Russia, the Saudis and the UAE, at least, and includes the recent Peace Plan for Israel and Palestine (see more at the bottom). One has to presume this is Trump standard operating procedure for any country open to such corruption, and one should read this in the context of Trump telling Putin that all journalists should be killed.

The below from:

Earlier in the interview, [House Foreign Relations Committee - rs] staffers told Tillerson (for the first time!) that Kushner and Steve Bannon got advance notice of the Gulf blockade of Qatar, which pissed Tillerson off.
Q A couple of weeks later on May 20th, 2017, you were in Riyadh with the President in advance of the Middle East summit. And you again gave public remarks with the Saudi Foreign Minister. This is the night before the President’s speech. Did he say anything to you or did anyone else say anything to you on that same topic, regional tensions, something might be changing?
A No.
Q So that same night as we understand it, so on or about May 20th, 2017, there was apparently a private dinner that was hosted between Steve Bannon, Jared Kushner, and the rulers of Saudi Arabia and UAE, respectively. Were you aware of that dinner?
A No.
Q We understand that as part of that dinner the leaders of Saudi and UAE did lay out for Mr. Kushner and Mr. Bannon their plans for the blockade. That wasn’t something that you had heard previously?
A No.
Q And to clarify, sir, not prior to when I just said it? A Correct.
Q Okay. What’s your reaction to a meeting of that sort having taken place without your knowledge?
A You mean now?
Q Yes. A Today?
Q Well —
A It makes me angry.
Q Why is that?
A Because I didn’t have a say. The State Department’s views were never expressed.

In any case, the revelation that Jared continued to conduct shadow foreign policy even after his father-in-law took over — and the fact that his so-called “peace” “process” in Palestine has been shown instead to be a hedge fund driven excuse to turn apartheid into a profit center (See these threads on just how bad it is: one, two, three) — I’d like to point to a more subtle detail in Tillerson’s interview. He claims that — contrary to what Jared told Mueller — the President’s son-in-law did not share a plan from Kirill Dmitriev with him.
[Q] Either during the transition or early in your tenure as Secretary, did anyone ever pass you a plan or sort of a roadmap regarding policy changes in the US Russia relationship?
A Not that I can recall.
Q And as you’ll note, sir, I believe one of those was mentioned in the Mueller report and it was stated that that had gone from a Mr. Kirill Dmitriev to Mr. Kushner who I believe was said that that was passed to you. Do you have any recollection of that?
A I don’t recall ever receiving any such report as described in the Mueller report or any other.
Q Okay. And no other sort of here’s what we should do on Russia proposals from anyone else?
A No.
Q Nothing from the Trump family, the organization?
A No.

Note in the Twitter thread links the motivations involved in the 'fake' Peace Plan. Is it possible that the blatant financial interests involved, sans the critical political half of the 'plan', is indeed designed to make the Palestinians appear intransigent? It seems so to me, and if this is the case, then at least we can be thankful that not everything is about the Trump and Kushner financial interests, at least directly.

We might also be led to believe that Trump's hiring of Tillerson was a head fake. We were supposed to be wondering about Tillerson's oil ties to Russia, while Kushner was pulling the strings, with Tillerson supposedly not in the loop. The story about the coincidental Tillerson run-in with Kushner and the Mexican attache at a DC restaurant makes me wonder if we're even getting played at this level.

Richard Stanley

The title and first half of this clip are focused on the insane inclusion of Ivanka Trump in the official mix of the G20. This is nepotism on steroids.

At about 5:45 the focus shifts to Trump's reaction to Putin's recent FT interview, where Trump responds to a question about Western style Liberalism in a more literal and politically recontextualized sense -- that Putin was referring to such as American West Coast Lefty excesses. Taking Jerry's comments on another thread into account, in this sense it does seem that Trump and Putin are in lockstep in focusing on this context for the word Liberal(ism), and here we must consider that Trump's response to take 'Western' as the West Coast seems contrived to help sell this shell game.

You mean that the East Coast doesn't have Lefty excesses, ... like whatever happened to Hillary and AOC?


Jerry Russell

Staff member
Trump's attempt to take over the 4th of July celebration in Washington didn't go so well. City officials wouldn't allow tanks along the usual parade route, so he moved the fireworks display to the Lincoln Memorial. The idea was to draw a crowd to see the tanks, and Trump's speech.

But, if any crowds had been planning to turn out, they were discouraged by buckets of rain. Trump gave his speech from inside a bullet proof glass enclosure that was covered with raindrops. The vast majority of the speech was given over to a rose-colored homage to triumphant American militarism and American military history. And, Trump had some trouble with the teleprompter. At 40:00 into the speech, he talks about the American Continental revolutionary army commanded by George Washington, and how they valiantly conquered all the British airports.

But, I don't know what the big deal is about tanks & military parades in Washington. As Caitlin Johnstone points out, it's an old American tradition.





Richard Stanley

Trump's attempt to take over the 4th of July celebration in Washington didn't go so well. City officials wouldn't allow tanks along the usual parade route, so he moved the fireworks display to the Lincoln Memorial. The idea was to draw a crowd to see the tanks, and Trump's speech.

But, if any crowds had been planning to turn out, they were discouraged by buckets of rain. Trump gave his speech from inside a bullet proof glass enclosure that was covered with raindrops.
Obviously, my warnings on this thread that this BS would trigger a civil war caused a change in their plans. Thus they seeded the clouds and had to give everyone a stand-down and rain check. They also triggered the earthquakes to warn me off from doing this again. All this effort to discredit and stop my efforts. I am truly humbled. o_O

I haven't looked very hard, but I've seen no one mentioning the crowd size.

Richard Stanley

The Jeffery Epstein 'affair' has finally brought about one casualty, Trump's Labor (Sex Slave) Secretary Alexander Acosta. In the same time frame we learned that Trump and Epstein had staged a party at Mar-A-Lago where there were 28 young 'calendar girls' brought there under false pretenses, for the supposed sole pleasure of Epstein and Trump. Now Trump says (typically) that he was never on good terms with Epstein, despite having prior gone on record as having been such party friends with him for about 15 years (including that he knew that Epstein liked them young).

Read that in light of this 2015 RT [sic] discussion about the Epstein matter at the time, where at about 4:30 it is pondered whether or not Epstein was doing such with the likes of Trump, and Dogod knows how many others (besides Bill Clinton for one) for purposes of blackmail, financial and/or political.

A similar discussion between Mike Papantonio and Sam Seder discusses the participation of Kenneth Starr in the matter, which brings further nexus with Bill Clinton. In this case, I feel these two are a little naive in relation to what Starr was really doing with Whitewater and Lewinsky. IMHO, Starr's redirection of the Clinton investigation onto Lewinsky, via Linda Tripp, is paradoxically what saved Clinton's ass. It also placed hyperpoliticization in the USA into high gear, again centered around the wrong issues, as is the case with Trump. The Clintons always were in the pocket of the corporations, including Bush / CIA interests. There was a good (smuggling) reason the airport at Mena, AR was used to support the Nicaraguan Contra efforts. The Clintons (as fake progressives) would look the other way.

Sadly the two ponder if the reason that the 90's Republicans didn't go all-in on Clinton is because they understood there was nothing there (and of course, too many Clintonistas were like Trumpistas --- they can do no wrong, especially regarding women). But more likely is that too many Washington politico have long been blackmailed in the same way that Epstein has done. Epstein just wasn't covert enough.
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

The following excerpted article discusses 4 speculated methods that Jeffry Epstein may have earned his fortune. I have excerpted means 2 and 3, which I find most pertinent to the Trump aspect, albeit that I could see that all four methods may apply in Epstein's case.

The article mentions Epstein's having been hired as a math and physics teacher at the prestigious Dalton School, despite not having garnered a degree, which as I understand it is rather unique for this school.

Theory #2: Blackmail
As the Intercept D.C. bureau chief Ryan Grim noted, a piece of evidence detailed in the SDNY’s detention memo could hold a great deal of blackmail potential:
CD's in Epstein's safe labeled: "Young [Name] + [Name]"

That looks an awful lot like they found the blackmail tapes
— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) July 8, 2019
And in a 2015 court filing, alleged Epstein victim Virginia Roberts Giuffre claims that U.S. authorities were in possession of footage of her having sex with members of Epstein’s elite friend group. “Based on my knowledge of Epstein and his organization, as well as discussions with the FBI, it is my belief that federal prosecutors likely possess videotapes and photographic images of me as an underage girl having sex with Epstein and some of his powerful friends,” she said. Giuffre claimed that Epstein “debriefed her” after she was forced into sexual encounters so that he could possess “intimate and potentially embarrassing information” to blackmail friends into parking their money with him.
Theory #3: Epstein “Belonged to Intelligence”
One of the more mysterious quotes of this whole conspiracy-adjacent mess comes from Alexander Acosta, the current Labor secretary, who arranged for Epstein to get off with just a wrist-slap in 2007, when he was a U.S. attorney. According to Vicky Ward, when Acosta was being interviewed for the Labor secretary job, he was asked if his involvement in the Epstein case would be a problem during his confirmation hearings.
Acosta had explained, breezily, apparently, that back in the day he’d had just one meeting on the Epstein case. He’d cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein’s attorneys because he had “been told” to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone,” he told his interviewers …
Whether that’s the American intelligence community, the greater point-one-percent brain trust, or just a garbage excuse, the answer was good enough for the Trump administration to go forward with Acosta’s nomination. ...