Sans commentaire de réflexion particulière parce qu’il s’agit de documents factuels qui parlent d’eux-mêmes et constituent une documentation exceptionnelle, nous présentons, une véritable “dissection” de la guerre (le “coup) menée contre Trump depuis la fin de la campagne, son élection et son installation à la Maison-Blanche. Il s’agit de deux articles du professeur Michael S. Rozeff, actuellement de l’université de Buffalo, économiste de grande valeur, mais aussi commentateur politique et historien de l’évolution des USA. Rozeff etsde tendance libertarienne, il publie notamment (cas de ces deux articles) sur le blog collectif du site de référence LewRockwell.com, réunissant la crème des intellectuels libertariens, notamment les historiens.
(On sait que la tendance libertarienne aux USA n’a rien à voir, d’une part avec les libertaires européens, d’autre part avec les hyper-libéraux libre-échangistes, c’est-à-dire les deux tendances du globalisme. Il s’agit d’une tendance spécifiquement américaine, dont nous aurions tendance à relativiser les choix économiques en appuyant au contraire sur la référence principielle historique : ses racines se trouvent dans le localisme démocratique, notamment de Thomas Jefferson. Les libertatiens sont isolationnistes plus par principe que par stratégie économique, ils sont anti-statistes sinon sécessionnistes, ils sont absolument antiguerres. Du point de vue économique, ils sont nécessairement contre toute réglementation d’un État central qui, par définition aux USA, est privé de la légitimité régalienne, – d’où leur tendance sécessionniste.)
Rozeff a fait un remarquable travail de compilation sur les événements washingtoniens de USA-2016 débordant surUSA-2017. Sans être en aucune façon pro-Trump, il fait la part des choses et observe quasi-objectivement, en “non-partisan”, que l’agression vient exclusivement des anti-Trump, donc du Système. Il considère qu’il existe un processus de “coup” contre Trump, pour abattre Trump selon la technique d’un “coup d’État postmoderne”. C’est ce qu’il décrit dans deux textes séparés que nous publions selon une chronologie inversée, commençant par le plus court et le plus actuel : le premier sur le rôle qu’il juge indubitable de l’agression d’Obama contre Trump ; le second, sous forme d’une interview sans identification (questions-réponses, – Q pour Question, A pour Answer) sur les conditions du “coup” en général, avec définition du “coup postmoderne”. Le premier dans l’ordre de notre publication est du 8 mars 2017, le second du 21 février 2017. Ces deux textes sont longs (surtout le second) mais ils méritent la lecture par leur précision, leur impeccable documentation et leur clarté. Ils éclaire la situation washingtonienne dans un moment de crise fondamentale.
Lest there be any doubt,, a Daily Mail article dated 3/02/2017 reports that Obama wants to “oust” Trump. “Obama’s goal is to oust Trump from the presidency either by forcing his resignation or through his impeachment, a family friend tells DailyMail.com.”
In the light of Obama’s objective to bring about Trump’s downfall, we can now understand better a number of Obama’s actions before and after the November election. We can see that these actions of Obama have been critical in nurturing the anti-Trump coup.
On October 7, 2016, Obama formally blamed Russia for hacking the DNC, despite there being no evidence made public then or now that this is true.
This unsupported accusation kept alive the possibility of linking Trump to Russia as a tool of Russia and to the notion that Russia interfered in the election for Trump’s benefit as Putin’s man in the White House. This accusation supported Hillary Clinton’s own accusations against Trump. Of greatest importance, Obama’s accusation laid the foundation for keeping alive and extending investigations into Trump, his associates and the Trump campaign.
On December 9, 2016, Obama ordered a full review of Russian hacking attempts: “The President has directed the Intelligence Community to conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process…”
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes said “It appears, however, that after eight years the administration has suddenly awoken to the threat.”
Why did Obama authorize a review in early December after 8 years of inaction? The answer is that Clinton had lost the election and Obama wanted to use his powers to do what he could to bring Trump down. The investigation of Russian election influence was not for the high-sounding reason of electoral integrity. It was to diminish Trump’s powers, tie his administration in knots, remove key appointees of his, raise the importance of Democratic holdovers, and ultimately force Trump’s resignation or impeachment. Behind it all, Obama’s power hunger remains strong.
This authorization was a blank check to intelligence agencies and persons therein who were hostile to Trump to examine the communications of Trump and his appointees. The election had been over for a month, but Obama was continuing a pattern of behavior designed to bring about Trump’s ouster.
On December 16, 2016, Obama repeated his accusation against Russia, stating that “in fact”, Russia has “hacked into the DNC”, again an implicit condemnation of Trump’s election win.
Later in the month, Dec. 29, 2016, Obama again kept the matter alive by invoking new sanctions against Russia. Obama also ejected 35 Russian diplomats from the Washington embassy, San Francisco and other compounds in Maryland and New York.
On the same Dec. 29, 2016, we know that yet another reinforcement of the accusation appeared: “‘Joint Analysis Report’ by the FBI and DHS has been released that formally points the finger at Russia for the alleged hacking of the Democratic Party.”
Media accounts typically segued from these anti-Russian actions into the larger picture concerning Trump and the election. For example, the Business Insider article wrote “Obama ordered the intelligence community to conduct a full review of the Russian hacking campaign — and how it may have affected the presidential election — soon after the CIA report was leaked.” Also, they wrote “In it, the CIA said the Russians had been working toward a specific goal when they hacked into the inboxes of DNC staffers and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta: ‘to help Trump get elected.'”
On January 12, 2017, Obama gave the NSA broad new power to disseminate information and intelligence to other intelligence agencies in the government. This surprise move created a broad new field for leaks, not only of relevant intelligence but also of raw, undigested, un-evaluated, irrelevant, and false intelligence.
James Clapper was in on this simply astonishing move. He signed off on it on Dec. 15, 2016. Attorney General Loretta Lynn was in on it. She signed off on it on January 3, 2017. This is in the supporting government documentation to Obama’s executive order 12333.
All of a sudden, Obama opens the door to an enormous expansion of material that can only bedevil and hamstring the incoming Trump administration. Obama, the president who had been more strongly in favor of secrecy and prosecution of leakers and whistleblowers than any president, suddenly changes the rules to favor leaks. Why? To turn loose the anti-Trump forces and to supply them with ample ammunition. The goal is to undermine Trump as president.
Every anti-Russian move of Obama has simultaneously been an anti-Trump move, and this connection appears time and again in media articles. There is no known public evidence of an official Russian attempt to hack the DNC. There is no strong reason for Obama to make Russian meddling an issue. But there is a strong reason for Obama to make it an issue if it simultaneously makes Trump an issue.
One more of Obama’s anti-Trump moves has been the drive to retain information about Russian interference. A Newsweek article is headlined “Obama Officials ‘Fought to Preserve Evidence’ of Russian Election Meddling”. The first two paragraphs link Russia and election meddling to Trump:
“Obama-era officials worked to preserve a trail of evidence about alleged Russian efforts to undermine the U.S. presidential election in the last days before Donald Trump’s inauguration, according to a report in The New York Times.”
“Allegations about Russian influence in the election, and claims that figures close to the Trump team met with Russian officials, dogged Trump’s campaign throughout much of last year.”
Furthermore, in conjunction with the new Obama order increasing the spread of raw NSA intelligence, the classifications are altered: “Meanwhile, at intelligence agencies, efforts were made to keep reports at as low a classification level as possible in order to ensure a relatively wide readership.”
Obama’s actions have been key in nurturing and sustaining the anti-Trump coup. He did this by using the alleged links between Russia and Trump and his team. He took the high road of attacking Russia, not Trump. He left the attacks on Trump to Clinton and others. Obama turned the dogs of intelligence and investigation loose against Trump. How? He blamed Russia openly and then ordered a formal review of Russia’s election role. He reinforced his accusation in public several times and imposed sanctions on Russia. He knew that the media constantly associated the Russian meddling with Trump, forcing Trump into defensive denials. Obama opened the spigot of leaks of questionable and unverifiable material wide by allowing the spread of raw intelligence to many government agencies.
Q. What is a non-partisan?
A. Someone who is not committed to any political party. The non-partisan in theory can observe political events neutrally, whereas a partisan tends to view matters from a particular perspective.
Q. Did you vote in the last American election.
A. No, I did not. I didn’t contribute to any political party and I received no money from any political party.
Q. Is a coup d’état occurring in Washington, D.C. at this time?
A. Yes, a coup is being attempted. It is a non-traditional coup. There are no troops or armed masses converging on the White House with the aim of forcing Trump to resign and flee, at least not at this time. There has been no assassination or attempted assassination. There is no blood on the streets shed in an effort to remove Trump from office. It has been called a soft coup or a low-level coup. These adjectives are not important. What’s important is that there has been an ongoing effort to discredit Trump, the ultimate objective being his removal from office, and Trump has not squashed this effort.
Q. Will the coup succeed in removing Trump from office?
A. Not in its present form. It is currently destined to fail because the investigating agencies and enemies of Trump haven’t found a smoking gun against him on the basis of Russian ties or influence. No one can prove that Trump is being controlled by Putin, and so he won’t resign for that reason. The coup will peter out unless it comes up with new and more explosive anti-Trump material that’s not obviously specious or doubtful as much of the current material is. Furthermore, Trump hasn’t yet counterattacked and he has plenty of ammunition.
Q. What are the objectives of the coup?
A. One objective is to keep in place an anti-Russian policy. The coup’s instigators want to prevent Trump from letting up on the pressure (sanctions) on Russia and from cooperating with Russia. The coup forces are all anti-Russia, and that serves to unite them. A second objective is to maintain the positions, power, and influence of the coup’s seekers.
Q. How is the coup being conducted?
A. This is a “seed crystal” coup. The model for the seed crystal coup is the Watergate scandal. The operational goal is to crystallize and solidify the disunited Trump opposition into a movement that has irresistible momentum. In much the same way that seed crystals can accelerate a phase change from liquid to solid, the coup perpetrators introduce reports, accusations, and leaks over time in order to create the impression that a widening scandal is occurring. Each component has no merit but the media accept them at face value and provide publicity that creates new adherents and coherence among the anti-Trump forces. The anti-Trump forces are anxious to replicate the success in getting Nixon to resign.
Q. What is the role of the establishment media in the coup?
A. The anti-Trump media are critical in this effort. The anti-Trump media keep up a drumbeat of anti-Trump reporting. They slant the news, manufacture stories, repeat them and create fake news. They try to convince the public that the coup’s promoters are on the side of the angels (as in protecting national security and the election system’s purity) and Trump is on the side of the devils (as in making concessions to a dangerous foe and being too respectful to Putin). The media must paint Russia and Putin as enemies for this propaganda effort to succeed. The media provide a focal point that coordinates the coup’s backers even if they never sit down and conspire with one another. Everyone can observe the media stories and through that the effects of their anti-Trump leaks, reports, and innuendos. This allows them to plan their next moves.
Q. What is the role of social media in the coup attempt?
A. Social media have played a role in uprisings during the Arab Spring. The same thing can happen in America. There is a host of groups who are anti-Trump on grounds other than Russia. They can coordinate through social media. These groups seek to de-legitimize Trump so as to maintain items on their agenda. Aides to Hillary Clinton’s failed campaign are now piling on to the effort.
These groups are distinct from the coup’s perpetrators. They might launch a coup attempt of their own or they may become a front line of the existing coup, that is, merge with it as a force to reckon with that Trump has to address.
Q. How do you answer those who deny that there is an ongoing coup attempt?
A. Positing a coup attempt is the simplest and most comprehensive hypothesis that ties together and explains a host of known facts that we know have occurred. Being a model of events, it is imperfect; but it’s better than no model because it still helps us to understand what’s going on. We are not seeing a train of unconnected events that just happen to be anti-Trump. It is easier to understand it as a concerted effort going on to emasculate the Trump presidency and possibly see him replaced; and that effort is centered in the CIA.
The people behind the coup are operating partly openly and partly covertly. They are not so far using military means or physically threatening means so that the coup is not clearly recognizable as such. They are more like sharks circling their intended victims, with each one being hungry and attacking its own, as opposed to making pre-arranged attacks. Their coordination is achieved through publicity and a common goal.
We can see these attacks, and they show a pattern, a common goal and a recognizable origin, primarily among U.S. intelligence agencies, especially the CIA.
Q. What attacks are you referring to?
A. The first victim was Paul Manafort who resigned in mid-August 2016 as Trump’s campaign chairman. His lobbying efforts on behalf of the ousted head of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovych, resulted in a dirt campaign against him. That attack stemmed from anti-Russian sources in Ukraine whom the U.S. government supports. Attacks from foreign origins conceal their true U.S. origins. They are a sign of a CIA operation behind the scenes.
The second victim of the coup is Michael T. Flynn, who resigned as Trump’s National Security Advisor after only three weeks in that post. Leaks of tapped phone calls showed that intelligence operatives were behind this shark attack.
Q. Who is behind the coup attempt?
A. Mainly, unnamed intelligence officials and operatives who are in the CIA or recently retired from such. A number of media outfits are exceptionally active in propagating negative headlines and stories about Trump and his administration. Elements of other intelligence agencies and departments of government are possibly involved. We do not know the names of those operating against Trump, and this is a weakness of the coup hypothesis.
Q. When did the coup attempt begin?
A. Its foundation was laid in 2016 by accusations of Russian interference in the election. The coup began in earnest as soon as the election in November 2016 made Trump the winner.
Q. What evidence points to the CIA’s role in the coup attempt?
A. A news report from September 5, 2016, reports that “U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies are investigating what they see as a broad covert Russian operation in the United States to sow public distrust in the upcoming presidential election and in U.S. political institutions, intelligence, and congressional officials said.”
On Jan. 14, 2017, a news report states that the CIA set up a task force in 2016 to investigate possible Russian funding of Trump’s campaign. The task force included the FBI, the Treasury, and Justice Departments, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the National Security Agency (NSA).
Q. Why did the CIA set up a task force to investigate Trump’s campaign?
A. Why did the CIA not set up a task force to investigate Hillary Clinton’s activities during and after being Secretary of State in response to receipt of mammoth amounts of foreign money that were laundered through the Clinton Foundation? The reason is that she was the candidate favored by the CIA leadership and Trump was not.
Early in 2016, Trump was raising very strong doubts in the intelligence community that he’d govern as they saw fit.
On February 24, 2016, ex-CIA chief Hayden said he’d be “frightened” of a Trump presidency. He said, “I would be incredibly concerned if President Trump governed in a way that was consistent with the language that candidate Trump expressed during the campaign.” A news report told us “Former CIA director Michael Hayden believes there is a legitimate possibility that the U.S. military would refuse to follow orders given by Donald Trump if the Republican front-runner becomes president and decides to make good on certain campaign pledges.”
A month later, Hayden opined that Trump was a larger threat to national stability on security matters than Hillary Clinton.
On April 11, 2016, we learn that CIA Director “Brennan said on NBC News Sunday that he would not allow enhanced interrogation tactics, including waterboarding, even if a future president ordered it.” Trump wasted no time responding: “Donald Trump is taking on CIA Director John Brennan on torture, saying Brennan’s pledge not to allow waterboarding is ‘ridiculous.’”
On July 13, 2016, Brennan testified that he’d consider quitting rather than obey a president’s order to reinstate waterboarding, something that Trump had suggested. Another article says that even before that date, “[Brennan] has already expressed his distaste for Trump.”
There is ample evidence in the form of sharp public bickering between Trump and these two CIA chiefs, present and the past, that the CIA set up a task force to investigate Trump’s campaign as a weapon against Trump and his possible election. The motive behind the investigation was not to ensure a clean campaign free of Russian influence but to work against Trump’s election chances. The CIA was dismayed by what appeared to them to be a possible president who was aiming to work with Putin and not against him.
Q. But wasn’t the CIA doing the right thing to investigate possible Russian funding of the Trump campaign?
A. The idea of Russian funding of Trump’s campaign was absurd. This investigation had no reason to be started other than a goal of smearing Trump and preventing a Trump presidency. It was absurd because foreign money given to American political campaigns is illegal and everyone knows it. Trump would not jeopardize his campaign for some trivial amount of money nor would his campaign officials; and a large amount would easily be spotted through the banking system. It was also absurd because the Kremlin would not operate and does not operate in this way. It would not risk being found out blatantly violating American law in this way, as that would greatly diminish its credibility. “Doing the right thing” for the American system was strictly a plausible and disingenuous device.
Q. If the investigation was absurd, what leads or allegations did the CIA have to set it up?
A. The excuse was an allegation that three of Trump’s associates had received campaign money from the Kremlin. This allegation came from a Baltic state and it was processed by the CIA and made into something worthy of following up. We read that the task force “…was set up after the director of the CIA, John Brennan, received a recording of a conversation about money from the Kremlin going into Trump’s campaign coffers, the BBC’s Paul Wood reported. The recording was apparently passed to the CIA by the intelligence agency of one of the Baltic States.”
According to this, John Brennan is the key player in the anti-Trump movement. He wants to see Trump’s presidency brought to a quick end or otherwise neutered and made compliant to rule by the CIA. By their control over information and its interpretation, the leaders of the CIA have gained considerable power within the government. They’ve enhanced this by developing operational forces in the field.
As occurred during the propaganda campaign that preceded Bush 2’s attack on Iraq and as in the Ukraine case noted above, we again observe murky foreign sources that are given credence and validity by the CIA. The public and media have no viable way of checking on the story of Kremlin money except perhaps through off the record sources. Such stories can’t be traced through public hearings without subpoena power and a will to wash a lot of dirty linen in public. They are perfect for propaganda and cover-ups.
John Brennan has the CIA initiate an investigation on a flimsy basis and gets away with it. We know from his public statements at that time and later that he’s thoroughly anti-Trump and anti-Russia. This is why such an investigation went forward. Brennan had nothing to lose. If he found some dirt on Trump or his associates, he’d discredit Trump and lose him votes. If he didn’t find anything, the investigation itself would still raise suspicions about Trump and provide Hillary Clinton and her aides with anti-Trump ammunition. In fact, her campaign did use the alleged Russian connection against Trump.
Q. What else do we know of Brennan’s differences with Trump?
A. On Sept. 11, 2016, Brennan disagreed with Trump publicly: “CIA Director John Brennan pushed back against Donald Trump’s claim that he could read disapproval of President Barack Obama’s policies in the body language of the intelligence officers who gave him a confidential national security briefing.”
On November 30, 2016, we read that Brennan expressed another difference with Trump: “The director of the CIA has issued a stark warning to President-elect Donald J. Trump. Tearing up the Iran nuclear deal would be ‘the height of folly’ and ‘disastrous.’”
On January 3, 2016, Charles Schumer said that Trump was “being really dumb” for arguing against the assessments of the intelligence community on Russian hacking. He adds ominously: “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”
On January 15, 2017, we read “CIA Director John Brennan on Sunday had a stern parting message for Republican Donald Trump days before he assumes the U.S. presidency, cautioning him against loosening sanctions on Russia and warning him to watch what he says. Brennan rebuked the president-elect for comparing U.S. intelligence practices to Nazi Germany in comments that laid bare the friction between Trump and the intelligence community he has criticized and is on the verge of commanding.”
Q. What became of the allegations against the three associates of Trump?
A. The three accused men each strongly denied allegations of being paid by the Kremlin. On October 15, the FISA court granted a warrant to intercept communications from two Russian banks. The investigators were looking for evidence that money passed from Russia to the three Trump associates. No such evidence was found.
On January 19, 2017, the continuing investigation by “American law enforcement and intelligence agencies” was confirmed, and Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager, was mentioned:
“The counterintelligence investigation centers at least in part on the business dealings that some of the president-elect’s past and present advisers have had with Russia. Mr. Manafort has done business in Ukraine and Russia. Some of his contacts there were under surveillance by the National Security Agency for suspected links to Russia’s Federal Security Service, one of the officials said.”
Mr. Manafort has done nothing illegal, we learn. He has merely done some business in Ukraine and Russia. He merely came into contact with people with suspected links to a Russian intelligence outfit. They weren’t even known spies. Mr. Manafort has fallen victim to suspicion by association two or three times removed even from guilt by association.
The other two being investigated are Carter Page and Roger Stone, and we learn that they too are innocent of wrongdoing.
“The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said.”
So, we know that a concerted effort has been made to investigate three of Trump’s close aides. We know that the CIA was the instigator and that it used its typical murky and unverifiable tips to gain credibility. Finally, we know that this inquiry has produced no evidence of any illegal activities of Trump or his aides.
Q. What other evidence is there of an attempted coup against Trump?
A. On Oct. 7, 2016, there was released the “Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security”. This brief statement on behalf of U.S. intelligence agencies linked the Russian government to hacking: “The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.” It stated its belief “that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.”
On Nov. 30, 2016, an outfit named PropOrNot with links to the U.S. intelligence community published a report that named 200 websites as propagators of Russian propaganda: “Russia Is Manipulating US Public Opinion through Online Propaganda”.
On Dec. 9, 2016, it was reported that “The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency…”
Dec. 29, 2016, arrived the FBI-DHS report: “Grizzly Steppe – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity”. This was widely denounced as lacking even persuasive circumstantial evidence, never mind direct evidence of Russian involvement.
On Jan. 10, 2017, the Golden Showers report was leaked, accusing Trump of having been compromised by Russian agents and therefore subject to blackmail. This report had been circulating for weeks in intelligence and media circles. It had supposedly been written between July and December by former British MI-6 agent, Christopher Steele.
Once again we observe that a spurious anti-Trump report is purported or arranged to have a foreign origination; but that it is carried to the public by means of the CIA and leaks within the U.S.
On February 13, 2017, the coup perps drew fresh blood when Michael Flynn resigned, despite no evidence of wrongdoing. Their success is attributable to their use of wiretapped phone calls and to leaking these to the media. Since intelligence agents have access to these calls that the NSA collects, we once again observe that intelligence circles are active in seeking to undermine Trump. This is consistent with the conclusion that a coup attempt is ongoing.
Q. Could you summarize, please?
A. In 2016 Trump and the CIA became foes of one another because of vast policy differences. Past and present CIA directors went public against Trump. They instigated a series of reports and leaks to discredit Trump and to link his campaign to Russian meddling in the election. They went after several of his aides, causing Paul Manafort to resign. After the election, they produced new anti-Trump material and managed to get his National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, to resign. This adds up to an attempted coup that has had some success.
Q. What happens next?
A. The future is guesswork. We will be surprised at what happens, but here are some guesses. The coup attempt will not cease. There is nothing presently opposing it unless Trump is counterattacking behind the scenes, of which there is no evidence. Trump will eventually sense the coup’s efficacy and devise ways to stop it. The anti-Trump media will keep the pot boiling. They will need new stories to exploit. Anti-Trump elements in the CIA can be expected to come up with new, dubious and devious revelations aimed at discrediting Trump’s handling of foreign affairs. We can expect former intelligence officials to speak out against Trump at critical times and to recruit allies who will add what appears to be an even more independent criticism of Trump. The coup may transform into an effort to control Trump’s policies from outside his administration.