Читать книгу Killing the Deep State - Jerome R. Corsi. Ph.D. - Страница 28

That the mainstream media built the case that Trump had colluded with Russia on a mountain of leaks is clear by examining any of a large number of stories that were informed only by anonymous sources and unnamed insiders. On May 27, 2017, for instance, the New York Times published an article titled, “Top Russian Officials Discussed How to Influence Trump Aides Last Summer.” The first paragraph of the article read as follows: “American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisors, according to three current and former American officials familiar with the investigation.” None of these sources were named or otherwise identified in the article.10

Still, New York Times reporters did not hesitate to write that the unnamed Russians focused on Paul Manafort, identified as “Trump campaign chairman at the time,” and General Michael Flynn, identified as “a retired general who was advising Mr. Trump.” The article insinuated in print that both Manafort and Flynn “had indirect ties to Russian officials, who appeared confident that each could help shape Mr. Trump’s opinions on Russia.” So in summary, the Times article claimed as sources “three current and former American officials familiar with the investigation”—all unnamed—who said unnamed Russian officials who felt they could influence Trump were involved in undocumented conversations with Manafort and Flynn. Finally, the New York Times referenced that “intelligence was among the clues,” which included information “about direct communications between Mr. Trump’s advisors and American officials—that American officials received last year as they began investigating Russian attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of Mr. Trump’s associates were assisting Moscow in the effort.”11

These examples clearly suggest that Obama administration officials had leaked to the New York Times information obtained illegally by “unmasking” Trump campaign officials so as to obtain conversations and or emails with them that the NSA obtained through electronic surveillance of foreign nationals. No wonder Grassley and Nunes were suspicious.

Perhaps Mueller’s two most blatant leaks were evident first in a New York Times story published on September 18, 2017, titled “With a Picked Lock and a Threatened Indictment, Mueller’s Inquiry Sets a Tone.” In the article, reporters Sharon LaFraniere, Matt Apuzzo, and Adam Goldman made public that Mueller intended to follow his predawn gestapo-like raid into Manafort’s Alexandria, Virginia, apartment home with an indictment, according to information the newspaper reported learning from typically anonymous sources identified only as “two people close to the investigation.”12

Then on Friday, October 27, 2017, Mueller obtained his first indictments in the Russia collusion case from a Washington, DC, grand jury. Yet instead of making the charges public, Mueller had the grand jury seal the indictments until the following Monday, allowing the special counselor’s office to leak the news to CNN. This gave Mueller the weekend, including the Sunday morning news programs, to allow Clinton operatives to build the case on television that Manafort, Flynn, and whoever else Mueller had indicted were guilty as charged. Through the weekend, the uncertainty among Trump supporters was heightened by their inability to identify exactly which suspects Mueller had indicted.

Mueller should be forced to explain why he should be allowed to continue his investigation when a pattern of illegal unmasking and illegal leaking of classified information reaches beyond him to include the highest levels of the Obama administration. Proof abounded that Mueller’s Russia probe was riddled with systematic government impropriety that would not only justify his firing and disqualify his Russian collusion investigation from being allowed to continue but also demand a criminal investigation of Mueller himself and of the Obama administration officials involved in the illegal unmasking and illegal leaking.

The question is whether Donald Trump is capable, with the support of US patriots, of defeating the Deep State, or whether the Deep State has advanced to the point where it will crush the last vestiges of the Tea Party movement by removing Donald Trump from office. The Deep State will not care if Trump is impeached, declared mentally incompetent, or—as a final resort—assassinated, as long as he is removed from office before the completion of his first term.