Real Reason for the FBI Mar-a-Lago raid: The public worldwide outraged. For what motive? What object?

Neither the Biden regime, nor the Federal Bureau of Investigation wants to cause a Republican mega victory in November. So why did the FBI bust into Trump’s property?

No other US president in history has had to submit to the indignity of a police raid like that of 8 August.

‘We are no better than a third world country, a banana republic,’ Trump wrote in a press release. ‘Biden knew all about this , just like he knew all about Hunter’s deals’ with corrupt people in Ukraine, Russia and China.

The FBI refused to let Trump’s lawyer examine their warrant. They expelled Christina Bobb while they made their search.

‘Why did they STRONGLY insist on having nobody watching them, everyone out?’ Trump asked. ‘Obama and Clinton were never ‘raided’ despite big disputes.’

The motive for the shock raid was allegedly to find the documents destined for the National Archives, but FBI officials did not just search the boxes in the basement where they were kept. They intruded themselves everywhere. They bust open President Trump’s safe. That must have involved permission sought and given by Merrick Garland, Attorney General of the Department of Justice, Christopher Wray, head of the FBI, and lawyers in the White House, perhaps including Biden himself. He will take the rap for it.

What were the FBI looking for in Trump's safe or Milania's closet? Why, if the motive was these archive documents, did the FBI not first send him a polite request followed by subpoena? Apparently the boxes that Trump took with him had already been communicated to the national archives. No problem was reported. The president has authority to declassify all documents. So the alleged motive of national security does not stand up. Presidents often take such documents with them for their presidential libraries. The FBI never raided the files of Barack Hussein Obama or George Bush.

Why did the FBI send so many officers (30 to 100?) from Washington?

Why did they undertake such a controversial operation that would only enrage the Trump supporters? That makes a Republican surge in upcoming elections even more likely.

Why did they wait till Trump was out of town?

Here's my guess. 

I do not think they were looking for documents for the national archives. Trump has life-long powers to de-classify all documents and had already done so on major issues (but the FBI etc was slow-walking them).

The magistrate Bruce Reinhard wrote the warrant. He had a long-time work record working with Jeffrey Epstein's people as a defense lawyer. Epstein ‘died’ in prison while awaiting trial for global sex-trafficking.

Here is my impression of the most explosive document that would implode on the major enemies of Trump. A time bomb.  Clinton, Gates and others have made numerous trips on Epstein’s aircraft known as the Lolita Express to his private island. Epstein’s partner, Ghislaine Maxwell, was convicted of involvement in this pedophilia and high-level blackmail operation.

But the client list of world VIPs involved in this operation was not published at the time of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. This is a blackmail list on pedophilia to beat all lists. It has names of top politicians, financiers and scientists and their foibles that lays them open for control by several intelligence services (including the Israelis).

Why was it not published as evidence at the trial? Where is Epstein's little black book?

The safest way to keep secrets is not to put them on the internet, especially if you are dealing with intelligence agencies, experts in cyber-crime. Hence the little black book has always been the safest for blackmailers.

Who took charge of it afterwards? And other compromising evidence. The FBI does not seem to know where the Hunter Biden laptop is! In it he describes his relationship with the person he called China’s top spy and the money he received.

The little black book is probably the WORLD'S MOST VALUABLE DOCUMENT. It gives the dirt about how to control Arab oil sheikhs, billionaire financiers, the leaders of the world's most powerful nations, global banks and how to distort scientific results to exploit the wealth of the world, maintain geostrategic control of vital foods and medicines, and encourage the depopulation of 'unwanted' peoples.

The person who has right to place in safe-keeping this highly sensitive information of criminal activity and treason is the US president. It does not take much brain to realise that this black book with the names of world presidents, prime ministers, top politicians, billionaires, together with the most influential scientists (another Epstein speciality) would be placed in safe-keeping during President Trump’s administration.

Where is it now?

RUSSIA: How Spies deceive other Spies and You!

The UK is about to change the main focus of its intelligence surveillance operations.
Russia.

Was Russia involved in the Brexit referendum? Did it influence the Scottish independence referendum?

How can governments know where the main threat is? Intelligence is about deception. The agencies are not only in the business of collecting information on others, foes and friends, but of deceiving enemies.

Sometimes they are so good at deception that they fool themselves. And the Public is at the end of the whole business. It gets deception information from all sides.

So should we be surprised if governments feel the main threat comes from a smaller State while ignoring a powerful foe with a population of 1.3 billion and an economy second only to America’s? And significantly Communist countries set a premium on propaganda to subvert and undermine those they consider their strongest enemies.

So shouldn’t we be a little leery of pat answers based on old prejudices?

Science not Prejudice

Who is in charge of the Intelligence agencies? It is the public in the shape of bureaucrats and politicians. If politicians cannot always be trusted, can the top spies they place in position to run the intelligence services always be trusted? Are they always honest? Politicians come and go. bureaucrats remain. If they are not honest, what can be done?

Thus Democracies often end up being run by deceived politicians trying to control the deceiving machines of the spy community.

Take the case of the recent report on Russia by the UK Parliament Intelligence and Security Committee. This has hit the headlines because Prime Minister Boris Johnson delayed the publication till after the election that brought him a large majority of seats in Parliament (although a minority of popular votes.)

The politicians enquiry was conducted in the years of Prime Minister May and draws on interviews of the time and published material dating even further back.

Much information has come out since then that throws the evidence into a critical light.

The Concluding Decision.

The report has led politicians to the conclusion that the intelligence services underestimated the role of Russia in the two referendums. They say that the services did not take the danger seriously. They did not investigate thoroughly or properly.

So what must be done? In the future Russia must be analysed with more care and more money.

Is this the correct conclusion? Let us turn to the key paragraphs that leads the parliamentary rapporteurs to come to this decision.

The main sources of Russian propaganda are:

• Broadcaster RT and Sputnik,
• Trolls and bots on the internet,
• Hack and Leak of important documents, as exampled in the US elections,
• Real life interference such as giving bank loans to the French National Front party.

If this is the evidence then it is pretty thin except for one point.

• In a footnote the Report admits that only 1300 people on average watch the Russian broadcaster, RT. Hardly enough to swing a referendum of 46 million voters.
• Trolls and bots might increase FaceBook traffic etc but what influence do these have?
• Did the Russians actually turn the US elections to their favour by getting the American public to vote for Donald Trump? His opponent, Hillary Clinton and her husband, seemed to have intimate relations with the Russian government.
• As for one Russian bank making a loan to a French nationalist party, it was refused loans from all Western banks. What was it to do? What loans do other parties get from foreign-owned banks or foreign millionaires such as the oil-States?

One could contrast this with China’s success in its Unrestricted Warfare policy:

• taking over British Steel Ltd (after massive Chinese steel dumping destroyed the viability of EU’s steel sector).
• taking over a major sector of the UK nuclear power industry as constructors.
• implementing of Chinese Huawei connectors into the UK communications networks. This has made the new 5G upgrade seem inevitable. But this could lay the whole network susceptible to infiltration. What better potential for spying?

Thus the Chinese have a grip on UK construction and defence materials, the energy sector and communications. How can a State build battleships and canons if the steel is controlled by foreigners? How can you compete if the lights go out? Who needs spies on the ground when you can tap into their communications?

Russian hack is ‘evidence-free’

This UK conclusion also contrast with a group of US intelligence veterans who say that when certain politicians claim a Russian hack changed the US election results, it is 'evidence-free'.

So what is the key triumph of the Russians that shows their guilt and proves they are the main foe of the West? Surely having swung the US elections in favour Donald Trump. But did they? What is the evidence?

The UK report says:

42. It was only when Russia completed a ‘hack and leak’ operation against the Democratic National Committee in the US – with the stolen emails being made public a month after the EU referendum – that it appears that the Government belatedly realised the level of threat which Russia could pose in this area, given that the risk thresholds in the Kremlin had clearly shifted, describing the US ‘hack and leak’ as a “game changer”, and admitting that “prior to what we saw in the States, [Russian interference] wasn’t generally understood as a big threat to [electoral] processes”.
43. It appears that the Intelligence Community did learn lessons from the US experience, and HMG recognised the Russian threat to the UK’s democratic processes and political discourse.

Let’s examine the ‘Game Changer‘ as it is the main ground for the report’s conclusion. The report admits here that this was an allegation in a far different league than bank loans, trolls or propaganda TV with no audiences.

FBI hierarchy fired under Trump

It was clear from the US election campaign and later events of 2017 involving the US intelligence service that corruption ran deep in the State system. Three and a half years on, we find that almost the entire intelligence superstructure has been fired.

Spying on the President

A notable exception was Admiral Rogers head of the NSA, the National Surveillance Agency. On 17 November 2016, he revealed to President-elect Trump that his staff’s communications were under illegal surveillance by both the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) and the FBI (the Federal Bureau of Investigation). This is not only highly illegal but treasonous as it undermined the newly elected president.

So who is in the right, the top FBI agents or the president? The FBI mandate is to investigate US-based criminal personalities. The CIA is the external agency for intelligence. But the CIA works with friendly intelligence agencies such as the British and Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand services in the Five Eyes collaboration. These other agencies can, if the CIA requests it, tap into US citizens in the USA. Hence the CIA has track on whomsoever it wishes.

Corruption and Big Money

Where does the corruption come in? Money and power. The US spends as much on Defence and intelligence as most of the rest of the world combined. A candidate who promises to clean up the Swamp is suspect and to be eliminated.

An early manifestation of the efforts of the intelligence community to oust President Trump was the ‘Dirty Dossier‘. This, according to FBI chief Comey, alleged that Trump had been caught with prostitutes and framed by the Russians when in Moscow.

This utterly untenable tale was soon proved false. Who had fabricated this fraudulent file? Who paid for it and spread it abroad?

It was a former British spy now open for hire as an independent adviser. His name: Christopher Steele. He was found to be paid by the lawyers who worked for the Democrat National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton.

Steele’s rewriting of unsubstantiated material in the dossier were so outrageous that even the supposed subsource of the information is suing him for deformation. Steele’s defence: The material should not have been divulged as it was secret.

What else do we know about Steele? He was known as virulently anti-Trump. And he is one of the contributors to the UK Parliament’s report on Russia! Mr Christopher Steele, director of Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd, is listed as one of the five ‘external expert witnesses.’

In the US his Dirty Dossier was mischievously introduced as grounds, countersigned by FBI chiefs, to further surveille president Trump and his colleagues. Hundreds of documents have now been released showing how this fake document was used time after time in the FISA court to sustain a criminal and treasonous activity against the president. (FISA is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that requires a court to agree to any surveillance.)

The intelligence chiefs knew the key dossier was fraudulent!

It was also used to initiate the Mueller enquiry. Over several years of investigation and multiple millions of dollars, it could not find any case for Trump being involved in illegal activity with the Russians. Some 2800 subpoenas were issued by Mueller, 500 witnesses called and 500 search warrants were executed.

The Democrats then turned to an attempted impeachment based on supposed mishandling of anti-corruption matters in Ukraine. That too failed. Why the Ukraine? A cover-up is the most obvious motive as Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden has now been declared to be a criminal suspect in what the Ukrainian president Zelensky declared may involve treason there.

So what about the key factor in the UK parliamentary report that is the real ‘game changer‘ for intelligence work to refocus on Russia? The allegation is that Russian hackers were able to penetrate the computers at the DNC and download files of Democrat leaders. These Russian hackers then allegedly passed them on to WikiLeaks who published them.

WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange denied the information came from a State actor, that is, Russia. He hinted broadly that he received the data from a disillusioned Bernie Sanders supporter and DNC employee. He was later assassinated in unusual circumstances.

UK report’s main evidence

This ‘cyber hacking‘ is the key to how UK may spend its intelligence budget, so what have later investigations shown?

William Binney

One man should know. That is Wlliam Binney the former technical director at the NSA, the top surveillance agency in the world. He broke with NSA as a whistleblower, because it was taking and storing all data of Americans contrary to its statute. This is the spy-on-everyone, Stasi version of intelligence. Besides his career, his integrity cost him dear.

He examined the metadata of the supposed downloaded files. It was not hacked, he concluded. It was downloaded locally. The internet would not support the speed stamps that the data recorded. The files could not have been downloaded and transmitted over the internet, and certainly not across the Atlantic. The speed of the download was so fast it could only have been accomplished by attaching a drive into the DNC computer itself. It was an inside job.

This view was confirmed by a group of former Intelligence community experts who wrote a memo to President Donald Trump, emphasizing that the data was taken locally.

They wrote:

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT: Was the “Russian Hack” an Inside Job?

Executive Summary

Forensic studies of “Russian hacking” into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computer. After examining metadata from the “Guccifer 2.0” July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device.

Something smelt foul. The intelligence community in charge refused to make any scientific evidence to back up their political assertions. They said that no evidence had been adduced that Russians were involved. Any attempt to analyse the evidence was resisted!

Why the FBI neglected to perform any independent forensics on the original “Guccifer 2.0” material remains a mystery – as does the lack of any sign that the “hand-picked analysts” from the FBI, CIA, and NSA, who wrote the “Intelligence Community Assessment” dated January 6, 2017, gave any attention to forensics.

They concluded:

From the information available, we conclude that the same inside-DNC, copy/leak process was used at two different times, by two different entities, for two distinctly different purposes:

-(1) an inside leak to WikiLeaks before Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, that he had DNC documents and planned to publish them (which he did on July 22) – the presumed objective being to expose strong DNC bias toward the Clinton candidacy; and

-(2) a separate leak on July 5, 2016, to pre-emptively taint anything WikiLeaks might later publish by “showing” it came from a “Russian hack.”

The second leak by ‘Guccifer 2.0’ was alleged to be a Russian or he may have been dressed up to be one using the CIA tool box. CIA Director Brennon was sacked by President Trump and his security clearance removed.

Thus it is highly unlikely that any Russians were involved at all. The FBI management refused to make a direct investigation of the DNC computers. They were never confiscated and examined by forensically. Instead, they contented themselves to have a contracted company, Crowdstrike, who worked for the DNC issue a report that was never finalised.

Secretary of State Pompeo has discussed this conclusion with Binney, as far back as 24 October 2017 when Pompeo was the new CIA Director. Is the UK parliamentary committee on Intelligence not familiar with this? Is the EU?

Given the importance of the issue it is appalling that the key ‘game changer’ issue has not been properly investigated in open Court.

The European Commission seems also to hold to the, as yet uncertain and probably untenable, idea that Russians cyber-hacked the DNC computer across the Atlantic internet. On June 2019 the Security Union Commissioner Julian King still repeated the Russian hack story as if it were a fact.

Are the UK, the EU and millions in the USA and across the world being fooled by what is easily testable Fake News?

Fake News, Stealth Coups in US and Europe

9, May, 2019

A stealth Coup d’Etat may be defined as one that undermines democratic government “of the people, by the people, for the people.”

Robert Schuman, the initiator of Europe’s democratic system, took Lincoln’s definition further. In a Democracy, he said, the people must be able to define the proposed objectives and the means to attain them. They must be at the service of the people and be agreed with the people.

The system of democracy he proposed involving the active participation of

• • national government ministers,
  • Europe-wide economic associations and
  • individuals.

It is far from being properly applied today.
Why?

Both Europe and USA are at risk of stealth coups. Democracy, that is open, honest politics, needs constant defence against the tendency of all humans to subtle frauds and major treacherous fakes leading to tyranny. The West is facing the dire consequences of apathy.

Democracy needs defence, as the body needs blood.

“Nothing is easier for political counterfeiters to exploit the illusion of good principles, and nothing is more disastrous than good principles (such as open democracy and freedom of expression) being badly applied.’ Schuman wrote quoting philosopher Jacques Maritain.

The most dangerous of these threats, Schuman said, was that unaccountable and rigid bureaucracies would replace the voice of the people.

The Western society today is unsettled by more violence and division. Censorship is subtly being imposed by global information cartels. We should therefore be reminded about what Schuman added. He warned that any democracy that failed to defend Christian values of open, honest politics is likely to fall into tyranny and anarchy. The supposed liberating, democratic leaders of the Russian people became the Soviet ‘Dictators of the Proletariat.’

All founding States of the European Community agreed the basis of European democracy. Their Great Charter said that basis was the Freedom to Choose. This Declaration opposed Soviet dictatorship or Gaullist autocracy that wished to end political parties. In the same year, European Statesmen confirmed that signatory States of the Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms thus defined the borders of the New Europe.

Subsequent politicians tried to bury Europe’s Magna Carta.

In USA, the Mueller Report concluded that there was no Russian collusion with the Trump presidential campaign. No collusion, even less a conspiracy. Only conspiracy is illegal. But is that all we can conclude?

Mueller’s team of 17 lawyers had 13 registered Democrats, the rest being unaffiliated or unknown. Six had donated to the campaign of Hillary Clinton. It is unlikely therefore that any suspicious stone was left unturned.

Yet before the report, half a million articles on internet concluded that Trump was guilty. A majority of television and the press were convinced.

Television commentariat and funny guys were tireless in pressing the Trump-Russia collusion theme. A quarter of a billion interactions on FaceBook discussed and debated Trump’s guilt for allegedly colluding with the Russians. Many Democrat Congress leaders spoke vehemently about Trump’s guilt. Some still do!

Pulitzer prizes were given to New York Times and Washington Post for their investigations into Russian Collusion. But now we know: No Collusion!

Donald J. Trump✔@realDonaldTrump

So funny that The New York Times & The Washington Post got a Pulitzer Prize for their coverage (100% NEGATIVE and FAKE!) of Collusion with Russia – And there was No Collusion! So, they were either duped or corrupt? In any event, their prizes should be taken away by the Committee!

149K 1:25 AM – Mar 30, 2019

What evidence would stand up in Court? None. That is the conclusion of more than two years of forensic investigation about lawyers, some of them lawyers who have acted for Hillary Clinton and many of Trump’s most vicious opponents.

It was all Fake News! Massive-scale Fake News. They were shown to be deluded. At best it was a fishing expedition. But nothing fishy! There was nothing to hook. Or was whole campaign a pro-Clinton conspiracy?

Sooner or later, the public eye discerns the real truth. The most deceived or prejudiced take longer for the logic to click. Open discussion of evidence is the principle of natural justice of law courts. Under interrogation and deep analysis, rumours can be torn apart. Analysis is the only answer to Fake News, not censorship.

The careful analysis of facts is the opposite to the mob rule of the social media.

Fake News information campaigns need to be dissected, their deceitful techniques surgically examined. If mob rule on the internet brings a great section of the public to one conclusion, then the other side which says the opposite must be able to examine their assumptions.

Fact one: The conclusion of Mueller’s investigation is that they found no evidence of Russia colluding.

Fact two: A false story was hyped around the media very heavily for three years. Who was behind it? Was it Mrs Clinton? Mr Obama? or a misguided media? Who owns this media? Or are other disinformation agencies acting in the shadows? Are the Obama-nominated chiefs of intelligence agencies acting crookedly anti-Trump?

Trump includes them in the Washington ‘swamp‘. It is illegal for agencies to spy on US citizens. Spying on a presidential candidate is treasonous. The US Attorney General William Barr thinks so and is preparing cases. Were European agencies complicit in this electronic Stasi plot?

Fact three: a score of people at the top of the intelligence services (FBI, CIA, plus more than a dozen other agencies and the Department of Justice) have resigned or been sacked as more of the core material of the Russia collusion fake was exposed as false. Guilt is evident. They were involved in declaring Mrs Clinton innocent of extremely serious security violations and corruption and fabricating a case to stop Mr Trump taking office. Documents have been released under the Freedom of Information Act.  Court cases are being prepared.

One key bit of “evidence” was the “Dirty Dossier” also known as the Steele Dossier. (An anti-Trump British former spy was hired to write it.) This report aimed to show that Donald Trump was involved in scurrilous behaviour with prostitutes in Moscow and that this was a means to blackmail Trump. It does not stand up to any sort of veracity test.

The false dossier was then used as ‘evidence‘ for warrants from the FISA court (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). Once one target for surveillance is agreed, the intelligence services could then track all communications he had with his contacts, and, even further, follow the contacts. Thus the entire Trump campaign could be penetrated by the Clinton Clan. Very KGB.

The intelligence services could thus track the communications of all the Trump team and make sure he was never elected. The same agents were supposed to investigate Mrs Clinton. They didn’t. Incendiary evidence of Mrs Clinton’s guilt in selling State secrets to foreign powers was brushed aside.

However, crooked warrants allowing the Clinton-biased spy chiefs to tap into communications of the entire Trump campaign provide an electronic paper trail. When the relevant documents are declassified in the next few weeks, the public will be able to judge on the horrendous proportions of this criminal spying conspiracy against the present president and more.

The fake dossier was knowingly introduced as a legal base for this political surveillance. The high officials signing these documents have now been sacked or resigned. Mr Barr is collating information prior to charges.

Much of the media showed their bias against Donald J Trump in the campaign and after. It is willing to slant their articles.Yet the facts have slipped out. Were journalists in the major newspapers and internet media, television and social being used? That should not surprise us. Fake News is a common thread of history. It takes an unusual journalist to buck many layers of editorial and publishing control.

Now European institutions and governments are on the hunt for ‘Fake News‘. They are simply aping the US media. 

The big danger about Fake News is not about click bait but world politics and information domination.

The only sure way to have unbiased journalism is to have independent journalists. The big $5 Trillion InfoTech companies (Google/Alphabet, FaceBook, Twitter, Amazon, Apple) now declare that censorship is their policy. They stop ‘hate speech‘ or ‘dangerous‘ journalists, but they do not define these terms. They ban other journalists from mentioning the names favourably. Thus they define the ‘enemies of the people.‘ No appeal. Banks close down their accounts and credit cards. Thus some veteran journalists are losing the means to survive.

These new media giants have destroyed years of previous archive postings of independent journalists. (Too often they expose fakes!) For others who do not expose them it is different. FaceBook vice president says ‘we do not remove lies or content that is inaccurate — whether it’s denying the Holocaust, the Armenian massacre, or the fact that the Syrian government has killed hundreds of thousands of its own people.’

Who guards the guardians? Who defines these ‘enemies‘? Are the InfoTech companies public service companies or an information cartel? Some politicians in US and Europe love this censorship. It silences their legitimate critics who point out their corruption. ‘Nationalists!‘ ‘Populists!‘

Dictatorship of the InfoTech giants.

Control of the media is equivalent to control by a dictatorship. Violence and smears were used to stop the truth appearing publicly to counter ideologies.

The USSR had Kominform. It used AgitProp: agitation (violent demonstrations) and propaganda (smears) to seize control of eastern Europe.

That’s when the western agencies developed their own means to spy on people. In early 1950s, US Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, set up its programme to manipulate information for propaganda and political control of media. Called ‘Operation Mockingbird’, it funded students and cultural organisations and magazines as ‘front organisations.’

CIA and Marxists both targeted main stream media (MSM). This still threatens independent journalism. But the West had laws against the intelligence agencies spying on their own people. It is scarcely surprising that many journalists today are sympathetic (knowingly or unknowingly) to Marxist and Trotskyist ideologies.

The CIA wanted to keep track of suspects. The US Defence Department research agency, DARPA created LifeLog to collect personal data and compile a massive electronic database of every activity and relationship a person engages in. This was to include credit card purchases, web sites visited, the content of telephone calls and e-mails, preferences in books and magazines, television and radio, and physical location via wearable GPS sensors, biomedical data.

Criticised for privacy law violation, it was closed in early 2004. Simultaneously, in Feb 2004 Facebook was founded with multi-million investments. Coincidence? It was part of the trend for privatising the spying services.

Since then, mega info-tech corporations control global information access systems. How did Google (Alphabet), Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft start up? The technology is derived from defence and intelligence industries.

Contemporary issues in US and Europe

How did the recent public fuss about 'Fake News' arise? The real origin was exposed by a journalist who did real investigative work.

Yes, there is fake news about the origin of fake news! The key is to check the first usages, the chronology and how it was spread. That’s what historians and journalists should normally do.

‘Fake News‘ was first used to create a smoke screen to hide bureaucratic ‘oversights‘ and corruption. Investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson showed today’s explosive use of the term ‘Fake News,’ and the call to manage it, originated with President Obama, NOT Donald Trump.
Attacking Freedom of Expression is no public service. It is acting contrary to the people’s rights as it provides political weapons to close down debates.

After the Obama administration launched the campaign, Europeans did the same. Then Google executives helped Hillary Clinton weaponize it as an anti-Trump political device by 'shadow-banning' and manipulating the algorithms. They wanted to deter Trump from pursuing the case of Clinton treason. Calling anything ‘fake news‘ and ‘conspiracy theory‘ was supposed to embarrass Trump. The media would take it off the news agenda.

Instead Donald Trump made it doubly clear that Hillary Clinton should be in jail for selling US classified secrets of State to donors to the Clinton Foundation. People agreed that something stank in Washington. It was too late to hide the initial evidence. Trump was elected. Clinton and many Democrats and Republicans who had played the system lost.

Trump called the bluff of Obama. He exposed the corruption of Clinton and some earlier leaders. He did not stop because of this bad press. Instead he accused the media who took up the Obama slogan of ‘fake news‘ as being purveyors of fake news. These politically active journalists who refused to investigate the ‘cover-up‘, he said, were ‘enemies of the people.’ These were the same people who predicted the Clinton victory as 95 percent certain.

Truth will out. He said any attempt to hide the facts was itself fake news and a failure of journalism. Clinton and the Democrat establishment and some Republicans were trying to hide Clinton emails, destroying evidence, implicating her in the Uranium One, the anti-Trump Steele ‘Dirty Dossier’ and FISA spygate frauds. But copies of many emails exist and will be used in Court.

Real undercover journalism have exposed major InfoTech execs with their anti-Trump activities. They were caught on video saying how they invoke shadow-banning, censorship algorithms and demonetizing popular outlets.

Media is slow to change its prejudices. US President Donald Trump is forced to use Twitter as most of US media plays the news against him. Twitter has banned his supporters as ‘dangerous‘. To whom? The outcome of the 2020 elections? To corrupt business and the trillions that are freely spent in the Department of Defense?

An ex-CIA officer working at the highest levels, Kevin Shipp, exposed shadow government ‘black operations’ and showed that the CIA is just one of 19 US agencies that work outside legal and democratic control. So does much of the defence industries that also lack budgetary control. The Federal Reserve System is able to ‘print’ money now at the touch of a computer button. It ‘created‘ two trillions after the 2008 crash, magically tripling its balance sheet.

The Congressional-military-industrial complex (Eisenhower’s term) has now multi-trillion interests in ‘Fake News’ and censorship.

So are the American people in charge of their own destiny? Are Europeans?

Europe has developed a similar bureaucratic seizure of control and democratic paralysis. Real news has been taken hostage.

Fake News should not be confused with bad reporting. It involves global forces. Robert Schuman, the initiator of the European Community and Europe’s longest peace, warned about such forces. Americans are relative new comers to fake news and disinformation.

For thousands of years ‘Information warfare’ (disinformation) has been more effective than ‘hot war’ or was preliminary to it. Fake news deceives the enemy.

It was used three times in one century in wars between Germany and France.

The German Chancellor Bismarck edited a telegram (the Ems telegram) and then published it on Bastille Day 1870 to make it seem insulting to the French. The French media could magnified the affront to French dignity. The French impetuously declared war, which they lost. With the same fake news, Bismarck also forced German States to unify under Prussian Kaiser Wilhelm.

Today the main danger of truth to power is not just cities or nation states but global cartels.

Last century, before the First World War (WW1), the arms race was ignited by steel and armaments firms who emphasized their patriotism. In reality, international cartels, like Harvey United Steel, were formed which exchanged patents information. ‘Enemies‘ sat on the same board. The Arms Ring fooled War Departments and governments constantly into upgrading their weapon systems.

UK’s Armstrong Vickers, Germany’s Krupp Thyssen, France’s Schneider Creusot, US, Russian and Japanese companies became among the richest companies in a world cartel conspiracy. They owned not only the steel firms and coal mines for blast furnaces but newspapers, banks and controlled central bank policy. Journalists were more or less openly paid by foreign governments to write columns in the main newspapers of their foes. Extraordinarily this continued throughout the war! Well-placed articles by cartels manipulated governments. Governments and people were the victims of this Fake News in two world wars.

In USA Fake News is designed to subvert the freedoms of the Constitution. In Europe Fake News is used to block democracy ever being fully launched.

Robert Schuman created an anti-cartel, peace system called the ‘European Coal and Steel Community’ (ECSC). It also laid down rules for impartial information in the sector. The treaty all people and States agreed to described how elections should take place in this sector to deal with

• individual rights (by an elected open assembly),
• associations of industries, workers and consumers (through an open tripartite Consultative Committee) and
• national rights (through a open Council of Ministers).

Did this stop cartel trying to control of the press? Obviously not! When Charles de Gaulle seized power in 1957, he placed his loyal followers in key positions in radio and television and also in the press.

Then he planned to control all the Community institutions by blocking elections to the European Parliament and Consultative Committees dead in their tracks. He made out that all European decisions should be made in the Council of Ministers where his minister browbeat the smaller and less politically powerful countries to agree to his ‘package deals‘. He wanted to turn the European Commission into a political secretariat.

When de Gaulle left the scene in 1969, what did the politicians do? Did they restore democratic elections? Did they open up the Councils to the press, like good democrats? Not at all. They created a system where multiple little Napoleons ruled the roost to the detriment of the people. The people expressed their growing disgust at the democratic deficit.

The politicians have never allowed a legal European Parliament election YET. From 1950 to 1979 there were no elections. European Parliamentarians were delegated by governments and national parliaments.

In his book Pour l’Europe, published in 1963 Schuman wrote:

‘It is necessary in the near future to facilitate, according to the Charter of the Community, the election by direct universal suffrage of the members of the Assembly exercising the powers of deliberation and control. Article 138 (of the EEC treaty) moreover gave a mandate to that Assembly to draft such an electoral law. This must be uniform for all Member States. It is certain that the public’s consciousness of a unified Europe would be accentuated and take concrete form if it could affirm its existence regularly by a vote on a European scale. The elector would be integrated in a single electoral body and be able to pronounce their views on goals that attract the whole of the territories joined in unity. This idea needs to be welcomed and put into action without delay.‘ p147.

From 1979 to today politicians have refused to observe the second part of the treaty article that says elections should be Europe-wide. Instead they cut the sentence in half and implemented 28 national elections! They have a system that is biased in favour of governmental parties.

Today they still refuse to act.

Article 223 TFEU (Lisbon)

The European Parliament shall draw up a proposal to lay down the provisions necessary for elections of its members by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States or in accordance with principles common to all Member States.

This month’s election continues the politician’s fraud for nearly 70 years! Brexitis the latest red warning light!

When dealing with disinformation we are dealing not just with lax ethics or immoral journalists or even just disinformation by secret services, e.g. KGB /FSB. We are dealing with global forces who work in trillions not billions of dollars: armaments, technocracies, banksters (bankers who make taxpayers responsible for their corrupt practice like the 2008 crash).

Democratic Deficit
Not having proper elections created a Democratic Deficit. Europe has never had its proper elections. The public started complaining about these little Napoleons acting against the public will win in the 1980s. Of course the leaders said they were working for the public good. But that did not include asking the public whether they agreed with them. They have still not held elections that had been in the treaties for decades before de Gaulle.

They also censored European history. Instead of recalling the principles of 9 May 1950, the 1957 Treaty of Rome’s Common Market became the start of Europe. Peace obviously came from people trading with each other, they said. Not true! What was really the democratic foundation of postwar peace was buried.

In 2018 Brussels bureaucracy failed to mark the 70th anniversary of democratic principles and freedoms that rescued the Continent from World War III. They forgot why a customs union was created and Brexiteers still have not been told.

Europe’s main Fake News comes by omission. Its media continuously fails to expose how European leaders have long failed to hold these basic elections and hold open Councils. They failed to expose the neo-Gaullist take-over of the supposedly impartial Commission by the fraudulent Spitzenkandidat system. What happens to citizens who declared they are candidates but are not attached to lobbyist-ridden political parties?

Europe’s media fail to reveal today’s Fake History!

But crunch time is coming. The experience of Europe’s corrupt elites is shaping up to be similar to that of America’s democratic frauds.