Friday, September 22, 2017

James Clapper, who admitted lying to the US Senate in 2013, is on Advisory Board of Rob Reiner's 'Committee to Investigate Russia'




Added: In 2013 James Clapper lied to the US Senate about NSA surveillance. "What else will he lie about?" Clapper wasn't fired, was given even more authority:

6/11/2013, "Fire James Clapper," Slate, "The Director of National Intelligence lied to Congress about NSA surveillance. What else will he lie about?" Slate, Fred Kaplan

"Nor was this a spontaneous lie or a lie he regretted making. Wyden revealed in a statement today that he'd given Clapper advance notice that he would ask the question and that, after the hearing, he offered Clapper a chance to revise his answer. Clapper didn’t take the offer." 


9/19/17, "Reiner, Frum headline group to publicize Russia probes," CNN, Daniella Diaz

"Film director Rob Reiner and Atlantic senior editor David Frum are teaming up to promote a group that aims to widely share information about Russia's involvement in the 2016 election and its ongoing threat to US institutions. 

The Committee to Investigate Russia's website,, launched on Tuesday and includes a video featuring actor Morgan Freeman. Reiner and Frum, who are both members of the group's advisory board, told CNN that they felt compelled to act on the news of Russia's alleged meddling in the 2016 election.... 

Frum was a former special assistant to President George W. Bush and has been an outspoken critic of President Donald Trump. Reiner is a lifelong liberal who backed Hillary Clinton during both of her failed White House bids and hosted a fundraiser for her at his Los Angeles home in 2015. 


Today’s NSA is in position to clear up any and all questions about intrusions into DNC server: No need to "assess," no need for CrowdStrike, no need for Russia-Gate, no need for presidential order to release NSA data. Apparently Trump prefers Americans to be misinformed-William Binney, Ray McGovern, Consortium News

"Today's NSA is in position to clear up any and all questions about intrusions into the DNC."...Media making millions off Russia-Gate, so it's Too Big to Fail.
9/20/17, "More Holes in Russia-gate Narrative," Consortium News, William Binney, Ray McGovern

"Must Americans, apparently including President Donald Trump, remain in a Russia-did-it-or-could-have-maybe-might-have-done-it subjunctive mood on this important issue – one that has been used to inject Cold War ice into relations with Russia? The answer is absolutely not. Rather, definitive answers are at hand.

How can we be so confident? Because NSA alumni now active in Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) are intimately familiar with NSA’s capabilities and practice with respect to bulk capture and storage of fiber-optic communications. Two of us actually devised the systems still in use, and Edward Snowden’s revelations filled in remaining gaps. Today’s NSA is in position to clear up any and all questions about intrusions into the DNC.

In sum, we are certain that the truth of what actually happened – or didn’t happen – can be found in the databases of NSA. We tried to explain this to President Barack Obama in a VIPS Memorandum of Jan. 17, just three days before he left office, noting that NSA’s known programs are fully capable of capturing – and together with liaison intelligence services do capture – all electronic transfers of data.

Our Jan. 17 Memorandum included this admonition: “We strongly suggest that you ask NSA for any evidence it may have indicating that the results of Russian hacking were given to WikiLeaks.” … “If NSA cannot give you that information – and quickly – this would probably mean it does not have any.”

We also appealed to Obama in his final days in office to order the chiefs of the NSA, FBI and CIA to the White House and have them lay all their cards on the table about “Russian hacking,” and show him what tangible evidence they might have – not simply their “assessments.” We added, “We assume you would not wish to hobble your successor with charges that cannot withstand close scrutiny.” Having said this, we already were reaching the assumption that there was no real evidence to back the “assessments” up.

FBI: Not Leaning Forward

The FBI could still redeem itself by doing what it should have done as soon as the DNC claimed to have been “hacked.” For reasons best known to former FBI Director James Comey, the Bureau failed to get whatever warrant was needed to confiscate the DNC servers and computers to properly examine them.

In testimony to the House Intelligence Committee six months ago, Comey conceded “best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves.” And yet he chose not to. And his decision came amid frenzied charges by senior U.S. officials that Russia had committed “an act of war.”

But is it not already too late for such an investigation? We hope that, at this point, it is crystal clear that the answer is: No, it is not too late. All the data the FBI needs to do a proper job is in NSA databases including data going across the Internet to the DNC server and then included in their network logs. 

If President Trump wants to know the truth, he can order the FBI to do its job and NSA to cooperate. Whether the two and the CIA would obey such orders is an open question, given how heavily invested all three agencies are in their evidence-impoverished narrative about “Russian hacking.” 

Let us close with the obvious. All three agencies have been aware all along that NSA has the data.

One wonders why it should require a Presidential order for them to delve into that data and come up with conclusions based on fact, as opposed to “assessing.”"

"William Binney ( worked for NSA for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and reporting; he created many of the collection systems still used by NSA. Ray McGovern ( was a CIA analyst for 27 years; from 1981 to 1985 he briefed the President’s Daily Brief one-on-one to President Reagan’s most senior national security officials."

Added: James Clapper, who admitted lying to the US Senate in 2013, is on Advisory Board of Rob Reiner's Committee to Investigate Russia:



Added: In 2013 James Clapper lied to the US Senate about NSA surveillance. "What else will he lie about?" Clapper wasn't fired, was given even more authority:

6/11/2013, "Fire James Clapper," Slate, "The Director of National Intelligence lied to Congress about NSA surveillance. What else will he lie about?" Slate, Fred Kaplan

"Nor was this a spontaneous lie or a lie he regretted making. Wyden revealed in a statement today that he'd given Clapper advance notice that he would ask the question and that, after the hearing, he offered Clapper a chance to revise his answer. Clapper didn’t take the offer." 



9/19/17, "Reiner, Frum headline group to publicize Russia probes," CNN, Daniella Diaz

"Film director Rob Reiner and Atlantic senior editor David Frum are teaming up to promote a group that aims to widely share information about Russia's involvement in the 2016 election and its ongoing threat to US institutions. 

The Committee to Investigate Russia's website,, launched on Tuesday and includes a video featuring actor Morgan Freeman. Reiner and Frum, who are both members of the group's advisory board, told CNN that they felt compelled to act on the news of Russia's alleged meddling in the 2016 election....

Frum was a former special assistant to President George W. Bush and has been an outspoken critic of President Donald Trump. Reiner is a lifelong liberal who backed Hillary Clinton during both of her failed White House bids and hosted a fundraiser for her at his Los Angeles home in 2015.


Thursday, September 21, 2017

Establishment treatment of Trump is message to people like Kid Rock--don't try it or this will happen to you. Establishment can't have another Trump pop up in 10 years-Rush Limbaugh, 9/20/17

"All of this is aimed at destroying Donald Trump and everybody with him to send the signal to others who might be thinking of trying it, like Kid Rock."

9/20/17, "The Establishment Must Destroy Donald Trump," Rush Limbaugh

"Rush: Last night on Fox News. Michael Caputo was on, and he was asked about this effort of Mueller and the special counsel investigation and what it all means, and here is the Limbaugh Echo.

CAPUTO: I’m not quite certain they’re gonna beat President Trump and the people around President Trump, but I believe that that is their purpose. I think the establishment that’s been entrenched in Washington for so very, very long on both sides of the aisle, they can’t have another Donald Trump pop up in 10 years, another billionaire populist who wants to make things right in Washington. So they have to punish Donald Trump, his family, destroy his businesses, his friends, where I guess I fit in and others, and just to make sure that this never happens again.

RUSH: Folks, I cannot tell you how correct that is. That is almost 100 percent of the motivation behind the Mueller investigation, the deep state leaks on supposed collusion between Trump and Russia. All of this is aimed at destroying Donald Trump and everybody with him to send the signal to others who might be thinking of trying it, like Kid Rock.

Don’t even think about it, because we will destroy you too. I’ve tried to come up with various analogies to further explain and be persuasive on how this is actually structured and what it is, searching for ways to explain just how elite and distant and removed from the rest of the country the Washington establishment is. It does compromise people of all parties, not just both, but all parties.

It’s made up of people who have certain university pedigrees, they are in certain vocations, and it is a very exclusive, very arrogant organization....There’s not a single figurehead leader of the establishment. It’s more a way of life and a way of thinking....

And I’m telling you, it’s the most exclusive club in the country. And they have been rocked.

The establishment has been in charge, in control and running things for longer than you would believe. And it gets away with disguising itself by having two political parties that appear to be at war with each other, and they make a pretty good show of it. There are some differences in the parties. I mean, the establishment’s not all friends. They’re not all like-minded.

They’re not all going to backyard barbecues together, but even those who are on the outs politically, say Republicans not part of the mainstream media apparatus, not part of the dominant liberal culture, there nevertheless are members, and they value that, and they treasure it, and they will put their remaining membership, staying a member of the establishment above anything else: winning elections, finding certain kinds of employment.

It really is a close and tight-knit group. It’s relatively small, when you compare it to the entire population of the country, but it is where all of the power and the wealth is actually concentrated....And the attitude is they are better than everybody else. They are special simply by virtue of membership in this club....It’s that exclusive....

It’s an attitude, it’s an aura, and the attitude is one of total superiority, supremacy, knowledge, power, they’re better and they know it, than everybody else. It doesn’t matter how dumb or stupid they are. These are the people ruining everything, by the way. These are the people that got us into $20 trillion in debt....

And Trump will never, ever, no matter what, never, ever will be admitted to this. No matter what he does, no matter what he says, no matter how many friends he makes that are in the establishment, it will never happen. They can’t permit it. If somebody like Trump is permitted in the establishment and is an acknowledged member of it, then there goes the establishment. Everything they have used to keep people out will have blown to smithereens. He can’t become a member of it, and he shouldn’t even try or want to. Because the things he would have to do to convince them he’s worthy would mean betraying everybody that elected him. And he’s not gonna do that.
But Caputo here is more right than he knows. The Mueller investigation, 17 investigators, all Clintonites or Obamaites. They’re looking at Trump business affairs 10 and 15 years ago. And I will guarantee you they’re looking at Trump’s tax returns that hadn’t been made public and that $900 million tax deduction. If they can wipe Trump out with IRS penalties and taxes, they will do it folks....They won’t care. They have no compassion. There’s nothing humanitarian about this group whatsoever. If they could wipe him out, they will, to send the message to everybody: don’t even try it."


Rush Limbaugh "Related Links"


Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Attention elected Republicans: You've had enough time to look for your lost balls. Time to get off the golf course-comment to, "Wiretaps may prove Trump right--and that's absolutely terrifying"


Above from commenter to following article:

9/19/17, "Wiretaps may prove Trump right--and that's absolutely terrifying," New York Post, Michael Goodwin

"Over the years, a curious habit has taken hold at the United Nations. A body designed to strengthen the best of humanity has too often become a font of doublespeak and appeasement that protects the worst of humanity.

That tragic comity was shattered when President Trump played the skunk at the garden party and dared to tell the truth. Many truths, in fact.

Among them, that Islamic terrorism is a scourge that must be stopped. That Iran is controlled by a “murderous regime” bent on getting nukes.

That North Korea’s “Rocket Man is on a suicide mission” and the United States “will have no choice but to totally destroy” that country if war begins. And that socialism and communism have failed everywhere, including Cuba and Venezuela.

The delegates and heads of state got The Full Trump, including what it means to put America First. It was the president’s finest, most complete expression of his worldview and, thankfully, contained no apologies for American power or history.

Yet even as Trump spoke, a threat to his presidency gained new steam. Reports that special counsel Robert Mueller had wiretapped former Trump campaign boss Paul Manafort and plans to indict him sent Washington into a new tizzy of speculation.

According to CNN, which first carried the wiretapping report, Manafort was surveilled under a FISA warrant, meaning the FBI suspected he was operating as a foreign agent. The network said it is possible G-men listened to the president talking to Manafort because the wiretap continued into this year and Trump and Manafort often talked in 2017.

If so, that would mark an infamous history — an American president being overheard by secret agents of his own government. It would also be additional support for Trump’s charge that former President Barack Obama “had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory.”

It was in March when Trump made that explosive claim, and the Democratic media rushed to denounce him even before Obama did. Subsequent denials from then-FBI boss James Comey and other Obama aides all were rock-solid in declaring that no such thing had happened. There was no wiggle room in their denials, some of which were made under oath before Congress.

But something certainly happened. And what if it was the worst imaginable something? What if the Republican candidate for president was put under surveillance by a Democratic administration that was trying to elect another Democrat?

There was reason to suspect that was true before the Manafort reports added fuel to the fire.

Recall that, starting last fall, continuing throughout the transition and into the early months of the administration, much of the media was obsessed with the narrative that “Russia hacked the election and Trump colluded.”

It was a feeding frenzy of reports naming various Trump associates who had any contacts with Russians. It was guilt by association, all based on leaks of classified secrets that originated either in law enforcement or intelligence agencies, or the Obama White House.

As I wrote back in April, at least six people from the campaign, including Trump himself, were identified in various reports as having been picked up in intercepted communications.

Always, the reports insisted that the Americans were not the targets of the surveillance, that they were “incidentally” picked up while talking to targets.

Those six included Gen. Mike Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser, then-Senator and now-Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Jared Kushner.

Another was Carter Page, briefly a Trump adviser, and Manafort. But since then, media reports say that Page was, in fact, being surveilled under a FISA warrant. And now we learn that Manafort was, too.

So those initial reports about the Trumpsters being “incidentally” picked up were wrong. Fake news, you might say, because Manafort and Page were FBI targets whose communications were being intercepted — and the media’s sources had to have known that.

That the public has been lied to repeatedly is beyond doubt. Recall also that Susan Rice, Obama’s last national security adviser, initially claimed in interviews to know nothing about the “unmasking” of Americans whose names were picked up in intercepted calls.

But before Congress, she told a different tale — about needing to know who in Trump’s circle met with a visiting official from the United Arab Emirates, and so she “unmasked” their names. 

Thus, skepticism is required over her insistence that she knows nothing about how those names were then leaked to the media, which could be a felony.

And we still don’t know why Samantha Power, Obama’s UN ambassador, frequently requested the names of Americans picked up in foreign surveillance. Such information would have no bearing on her job, yet her requests were said to be routinely granted.

Related current reasons to doubt our government’s honesty involve the Hillary Clinton email case. For example, the State Department refused to release ­emails to Judicial Watch showing how she arranged government favors for big donors to the Clinton Foundation until a court ordered it to last week.

And the FBI still refuses to allow two top aides to appear before Congress, even though the aides told a Justice Department investigator that Comey had written a draft letter exonerating Clinton months before he interviewed her or 15 other witnesses.

These and other incidents appear to be part of the effort to undermine Trump from within the government, and they give rise to a growing belief that America is infected with a “deep state,” a malevolent permanent bureaucracy that feels entitled to power and will stop at almost nothing to keep it.

I have been reluctant to reach that conclusion, believing that deep state” is a more fitting concept for a Third World country that has corrupted institutions and no rule of law or history of individual freedom.

But I’m beginning to wonder. The more we learn about the last eight years and eight months, the more reason there is to believe that something is rotten in Washington.

I don’t just mean the ordinary corruption of the swamp variety. I mean something fundamental, something that suggests major elements in our government believe they, and not the people, are sovereign.

Which brings us back to the ultimate test: Did Obama or somebody working for him put Trump under surveillance during or after the election for the purpose of a political coup?

It’s a frightening question, all the more so because I suspect the answer will be yes — if we can ever get to the truth."


Comment: If the US had two political parties there would be no need to be terrified or frightened. But it has only one, the Democrat/government, and the entire political class is in it. This renders the US a dictatorship and US citizens slaves.  


Putin praises Obama leading up to Nov. 2012 election, says Obama re-election would be better chance to resolve missile defense, that Romney would widen rift. Putin gushes that Obama is "an honest person who really wants to change much for the better"-Reuters, 9/6/2012



Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Jeff Sessions should resign his position as Attorney General of the United States, but before doing so, he should belatedly commence legal action against Comey, Hillary, and Susan Rice. Sessions has resisted producing documents subpoenaed by House Intel Committee relating to Golden Showers Anti-Trump dossier-Gregg Jarrett, Fox News

9/19/17, "Gregg Jarrett: Sessions should resign, but not before taking action against Clinton, Comey and Rice," Fox News, Gregg Jarrett 

"Jeff Sessions should never have accepted the position of Attorney General of the United States. His leadership has proven unproductive and ineffectual.

There are two reasons for this. 

First, he deceived President Trump by concealing his intent to recuse himself from the federal investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election.  Hours after he was sworn in, Sessions began setting his recusal in motion by meeting with Department of Justice officials to discuss stepping aside from the probe. Failing to disclose such a material matter to the president was an egregious betrayal. 

Trump was reportedly disgusted and angry with Sessions when he learned of the recusal – rightly so.  “If he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me prior to taking office, and I would have picked someone else, said Trump at a news conference.  The president was entitled to know the truth, but Sessions actively hid it from him.  Sessions’ deception deprived him of Trump’s confidence and trust which are essential to the job of Attorney General. This ethical impropriety renders him unfit to serve. 

Second, Sessions appears either incapable or incompetent. He has resisted producing the documents relevant to the anti-Trump dossier which were subpoenaed by the House Intelligence Committee. He has failed to appoint a special counsel to reopen the case against Hillary Clinton for likely violations of the Espionage Act in the use of her email server, obstruction of justice for destroying 33,000 emails under congressional subpoena, and potential self-dealing for profit through her foundation.  The evidence is compelling. 

Moreover, Sessions has taken no action to investigate the unmasking of Trump aides during intelligence surveillance by the Obama Administration. Evidence continues to mount that the incoming president was spied upon for political reasons. Transition officials were unmasked, perhaps illegally.  And in one case, the unmasking was leaked to the media which is a crime.  Yet Sessions is twiddling his thumbs. 

And why hasn’t Sessions investigated the possible criminal conduct of James Comey? The fired FBI Director appears to have falsely testified before Congress, stolen government documents, and leaked them to the media

Jeff Sessions may have been a fine Senator, but he has proven to be a feckless Attorney General. He should resign. But before he does, he can attempt to rectify the wreckage he has wrought by initiating several necessary criminal investigations and/or appointing a special counsel to do so.

James Comey

Comey was asked, under oath, by the House Judiciary Committee if he decided not to pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton before or after he interviewed her.  He testified, After.” 

Yet, a document uncovered by the Senate Judiciary Committee belies his testimony. A full two months before the FBI ever interviewed Clinton and her top aides, Comey drafted a statement exonerating Clinton.  Absent some extraordinary explanation, it appears that Comey’s investigation of Clinton was nothing more than a charade and that he may have lied under oath.  If it can be proven, it would constitute the crime of perjury under 18 USC 1621 or a false statement under 18 USC 1001.

This document establishes persuasive evidence that Comey predetermined that Clinton would not be charged. What prosecutor writes a statement absolving a suspect before the evidence is fully gathered, especially from the principal witnesses?   No prosecutor I know of.  Unless, of course, the fix was in. Unless someone instructed him to protect Clinton or he decided to do it all on his own with a presidential election hanging in the balance. 

Either way, it might well constitute obstruction of justice.  It is a felony to interfere with a criminal investigation. It is also illegal to use your public office for a political purpose, if that is what Comey was doing. 

But Comey’s misconduct and potential illegality don’t stop there. As FBI Director, he converted government documents to his own personal use and leaked at least one of them to the media As FBI Director, he crafted seven presidential memorandums which are government property, took them into his personal possession when he was fired, and then conveyed one or more of them to a friend for the sole purpose of leaking them to the media. Under 18 USC 641, this could be a crime.

Under no circumstances were these memos “personal,”, as Comey claims. They were authored during the course and scope of his employment, composed on a government computer, shared with government employees, and pertained directly to meetings with the president that were central to his job as FBI Director. 

Under the Federal Records Act, they are government records.  This is indisputable, regardless of what Comey and his lawyers allege.  They know this because Comey signed an “Unauthorized Disclosure Agreement” promising that, under penalty of legal action, he would not disseminate workplace documents.  If the facts are as stated, he should be prosecuted under the Privacy Act.

Finally, four of the seven memos were “classified,” according to the FBI.  If Comey conveyed any of them to an outside source, this would constitute an Unauthorized Removal of Classified Documents (18 USC 1924) or a violation of the Espionage Act (18 USC 798) under which Clinton should have been charged when Comey was FBI Director. The irony is lost on no one. Yet, Sessions appears to have taken no action. 

Before he resigns, Sessions must open a full investigation and convene a grand jury to determine whether criminal charges should be brought against Comey.  In the alternative, he can appoint a second special counsel to investigate the case.  The current special counsel, Robert Mueller, is a long-time friend, ally and mentor to Comey.  Mueller is not likely to include Comey in his current investigation, even though he has authority to do so under the directive he received."...

Hillary Clinton

The case against Clinton is, by now, self-evident.  She stored 110 emails containing classified information on her home computer server, an unsecured and unauthorized place It is a crime to mishandle classified information under the Espionage Act. 

Yet Comey misinterpreted the criminal statute by claiming Clinton did not “intend to violate the law.”  This is not the legal standard, as any knowledgeable lawyer will tell you.  The standard is whether she committed intentional acts, such as intentionally setting up her personal server and knowingly using it for her work documents, including classified materials.  Clinton clearly intended to do these things. 

Regardless, the law under 18 USC 793 requires only “grossly negligent” behavior. Here, Comey insisted Clinton was “extremely careless.” However, the two terms are synonymous under the law.  

Indeed, there is a frequently used jury instruction which explains that gross negligence is extremely careless behavior.  So, in essence, Comey was admitting Clinton violated the law, although he twisted the statute to conclude otherwise.

There is strong evidence that Clinton obstructed justice. All of her emails were under a congressional subpoena. She was required to preserve and produce every single one of them. She did not. Instead, she deleted roughly 33,000 emails in defiance of the subpoena and cleansed her server of any incriminating evidence.  

Destruction of evidence under a lawful subpoena constitutes obstruction. Under the law, it is no excuse to claim that some of the emails were personal in nature. 

Growing evidence suggests that Clinton used her office as Secretary of State to confer benefits to donors and foreign governments in exchange for financial contributions to her foundation and cash to her husband. If proven, it would support various crimes of corruption.

It has been reported that Clinton helped UBS avoid the IRS.  

Thereafter, Bill Clinton got paid $1.5 million and the Clinton Foundation received a ten-fold increase in donations by the bank. It has also been reported that [Hillary] Clinton’s state department approved billions of dollars in arms sales to several nations whose governments gave money to the Foundation. 

And then, there is the infamous Uranium One deal. After the State Department under Clinton signed off on the U.S. sale of one-fifth of our nation’s uranium production capacity to the Russians, millions of dollars from Russian sources connected to the Kremlin began to flow to the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a speech in Moscow.  Coincidence? Or criminal “pay-to-play?” 

In his confirmation hearing, Sessions promised to recuse himself from any matter involving Hillary Clinton. Therefore, before he resigns, Sessions must appoint a special counsel to reopen the Clinton investigation and decide anew whether criminal charges are merited.
Susan Rice

In March, the former National Security Adviser to President Obama insisted she “knew nothing” about Trump transition officials swept up in surveillance at the end of the Obama administration. Her statement was not true, and not the first time Rice conjured a false narrative. When confronted with evidence to the contrary, she admitted she knew of the incidental collection and, further, she is the one who requested that names be unmasked.

If Rice or UN Ambassador Samantha Power or any other person requested the unmasking of names for a reason other than national security, it is a crime.  And so too is the leaking of those names to the media which clearly occurred. Under the Hatch Act, it is against the law for a public official to use his or her office for a political purpose. 

Congress is vigorously investigating Rice and others. Yet Sessions seems detached and unconcerned. As the nation’s top lawyer, he is duty-bound to pursue such a substantial breach of intelligence operations. 

Before he resigns, Sessions should launch a criminal investigation into the unmasking of names or appoint a special prosecutor to do the same. 

Jeff Sessions either wittingly or unwittingly bungled his confirmation hearing, which led to the recusal that is said to have angered Trump and alienated the AG from the president.

Regardless, Sessions’ performance as Attorney General ever since has been notable only for a series of failures to act when action is demanded.

The moment the President of the United States no longer has confidence in his Attorney General, it is time for him to submit his letter of resignation. But first, Sessions can restore integrity to the Department of Justice and salvage his own tattered reputation by taking aggressive action against Comey, Clinton and Rice. 
Then he should quietly bow out."


Rex Tillerson, please stop lying about the CO2 fraud industry. "We" don't all agree this 3 decade long crime against America is "a challenging issue." On CBS News Tillerson suggests Trump still believes CO2 is a global poison as "we all" do---BBC...(Meaning US taxpayers must pay more reparations to the world in perpetuity. Tillerson and Trump certainly know-as everyone does-that even if alleged global CO2 danger exists it's controlled by Communist China)

9/17/17, "Paris climate deal: Trump open to staying in, Tillerson says," BBC

"Donald Trump is open to staying in the Paris accord on climate change, his secretary of state has said, just hours after the White House insisted there would be "no change" to US policy.
Rex Tillerson said the US would stay in the agreement "if we can construct a set of terms that we believe is fair".

His comments come despite the White House earlier denying reports it was softening its stance on the accord....

Speaking to US network CBS, Mr Tillerson suggested the US might not leave at all.

Asked if there was a chance the US could stay in the accord, Mr Tillerson said: "I think, under the right conditions, the president has said he's open to finding those conditions where we can remain engaged with others, on what we all agree is still a challenging issue."

This backs up reports on Saturday suggesting Mr Trump had softened his attitude towards the agreement....

But later the same day, White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said: "There has been no change in the United States' position on the Paris agreement.

"As the president has made abundantly clear, the United States is withdrawing unless we can re-enter on terms that are more favourable to our country.""...

Comment: "Unless?" This means Trump endorses the 3 decades long massive criminal racket of CO2 danger forced on this country by the US political class for the purpose of starving and punishing us in perpetuity. Only a monster would consider this for one second. No amount of money we give can ever be enough. Real problems, the poor and needy, are starved so climate profiteers can be enriched. We've paid billions every year for almost 30 years. In 2016 over $115 million tax dollars PER DAY were spent on "climate" from just 8 US agencies. The total would likely top $200 million a day when all agencies are tallied. Has one Republican even demanded this number be reduced to $10 million a day? Our genocide was begun by "new world order" Bush #1 in 1989-1990 with USGCRP. In 1992 the US Senate unanimously approved UNFCCC which blamed Americans for unequal use of the atmosphere and said as a result they must give money to everyone else in the world in perpetuity. That is, the US political class declared Americans permanent global slaves. This slow genocide has been kept alive every day for 30 years by the US political class. Trump suggesting he'd consider a "climate" agreement of any kind means he sees us in chains, that he actually believes in the CO2 industry--an imaginary industry which only exists because US taxpayers were forced to create it beginning in 1990 with "climate" spending based in the White House. Even a UN official, Ottmar Edenhofer, clearly states the "climate" issue has nothing to do with climate, is just redistributing the world's wealth, that the US has used more than its fair share of the atmosphere and must pay a penalty. Only a monster would suggest that Americans would agree with any part of this massive crime against Americans and all humanity. Edenhofer can make such a statement because he knows the US political class agrees with him.


Added: Global slaves (US taxpayers) were forced to create the "global climate science" industry: Diverting US taxpayer dollars from the poor and needy, the US political class created "climate action," exploding in 1990 and continuing to the present.  (This chart, page 4, pdf, is an underestimate, doesn't include congressional appropriations):

"Note and Sources: The data shown here are funding disbursements by the White House U.S. Global Change Research Program and its predecessor, the National Climate Program, available at NCP 1988, 43; Climate Science Watch 2007; and Leggett, Lattanzio, and Bruner 2013. These data, however, do not represent congressional climate science funding appropriations to other government agencies. As we show later in a more detailed assessment of U.S. government climate science funding, the numbers here, especially those for more recent years, greatly underestimate the actual level of funding." pdf p. 4

Fall 2015, "Causes and Consequences of the Climate Science Boom,", Butos and McQuade

"Government policies and funding as well as the emergence of a scientific “Big Player” [UN IPCC] that has aggressively championed the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW)1, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have together fomented a boom in climate science that began in the early 1990s and has grown markedly over the past decade."...

Image of Bush #1, "New World Order quotes" via You Tube........

Added: The "climate" issue means 3 things for the US. This list is due to decades of effort by the united US political class:

"constraining industry, sending money abroad, and strengthening the UN-

that are inflammatory on their own right,” Nigel Purvis, a State Department official under the Clinton and Bush administrations, said on the phone from Washington."...

Jan. 13, 2012, "US Republicans stir transatlantic tensions over climate change," EurActiv, Arthur Neslan 


Comment: A political class can commit genocide of its country with a generation, the schools, the media, and no opposition. It must be exhilarating to sell out an advanced civilization like the US.


Jackass Rex Tillerson hasn't cleaned out cancerous garbage can that is the State Dept., instead has left in lots of Obama people and is making 2017 effectively Obama's 9th year. Tillerson opposed designating Muslim Bro. as a terrorist org., flip flop from statements in his Jan. 11 confirmation hearing-Free Beacon, Wash. Examiner, Middle East Eye, CNN, NBC News, Times of Israel,, Jerusalem Post, Reuters, Soeren Kern, Gatestone

By not firing Tillerson, Trump is protecting the Deep State:

Sept. 17, 2017, "Is The US State Department Waging "Open War" On The White House?," Zero Hedge, Authored by Soeren Kern via The Gatestone Institute

"Tillerson was supposed to clean house, but he left half of them in place and he hid the other half in powerful positions all over the building. These are career staffers committed to preventing Trump from reversing what they created."--Veteran foreign policy analyst, quoted in the Free Beacon." 

"The U.S. State Department has backed away from a demand that Israel return $75 million in military aid which was allocated to it by the U.S. Congress.

The repayment demand, championed by U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, was described as an underhanded attempt by the State Department to derail a campaign pledge by U.S. President Donald J. Trump to improve relations with the Jewish state.

The dispute is the just the latest example of what appears to be a growing power struggle between the State Department and the White House over the future direction of American foreign policy.

The controversy goes back to the Obama administration's September 2016 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Israel, which pledged $38 billion in military assistance to Jerusalem over the next decade. The MOU expressly prohibits Israel from requesting additional financial aid from Congress.

Congressional leaders, who said the MOU violates the constitutional right of lawmakers to allocate U.S. aid, awarded Israel an additional $75 million in assistance in the final appropriations bill for fiscal year 2017.

Tillerson had argued that Israel should return the $75 million in order to stay within the limits established by the Obama administration. The effort provoked a strong reaction from Congress, which apparently prompted Tillerson to back down.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) "strongly warned the State Department that such action would be unwise and invite unwanted conflict with Israel," according to the Washington Free Beacon.

Speaking to the Washington Examiner, Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) added:

"As Iran works to surround Israel on every border, and Hezbollah and Hamas rearm, we must work to strengthen our alliance with Israel, not strain it. Congress has the right to allocate money as it deems necessary, and security assistance to Israel is a top priority. Congress is ready to ensure Israel receives the assistance it needs to defend its citizens."
A veteran congressional advisor told the Free Beacon:

"This is a transparent attempt by career staffers in the State Department to f*ck with the Israelis and derail the efforts of Congressional Republicans and President Trump to rebuild the US-Israel relationship. There's no reason to push for the Israelis to return the money, unless you're trying to drive a wedge between Israel and Congress, which is exactly what this is. It won't work."
Another foreign policy operative said: "It's not clear to me why the Secretary of State wishes to at once usurp the powers of the Congress and then to derail his boss's rapprochement with the Israeli government."

Since he was sworn in as Secretary of State on February 1, Tillerson and his advisors at the State Department have made a number of statements and policy decisions that contradict Trump's key campaign promises on foreign policy, especially regarding Israel and Iran.

August 10. The State Department hosted representatives of the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), an umbrella group established by the Muslim Brotherhood with the aim of mainstreaming political Islam in the United States. Behind closed doors, they reportedly discussed what they said was Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine and the removal of all Israeli control of the Temple Mount and holy areas of Jerusalem. Observers said the meeting was part of larger effort by anti-Israel organizations to drive a wedge between the Trump administration and Israel. The USCMO includes a number of organizations, including American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), which promote "extreme anti-Israel views" and "anti-Zionist" propaganda, and which support boycotts of the Jewish state.

July 19. The State Department's new "Country Reports on Terrorism 2016" blamed Israel for Palestinian Arab terrorism against Jews. It attributed Palestinian violence to: "lack of hope in achieving statehood;" "Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank;" "settler violence;" and "the perception that the Israeli government was changing the status quo on the Haram Al Sharif/Temple Mount." The report also characterized Palestinian Authority payments to the families of so-called martyrs as "financial packages to Palestinian security reintegrate them into society."

Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) called on the State Department to hold the PA accountable in State Department Country reports: "The State Department report includes multiple findings that are both inaccurate and harmful to combating Palestinian terrorism.... At the highest level, the Palestinian Authority (PA) leadership incites, rewards, and, in some cases, carries out terrorist attacks against innocent Israelis. In order to effectively combat terrorism, it is imperative that the United States accurately characterize its root cause — PA leadership."

June 14. Tillerson voiced opposition to designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, saying that such a classification would complicate Washington's relations in the Middle East. 

During his confirmation hearings on January 11, by contrast, Tillerson lumped the Brotherhood with al-Qaeda when talking about militant threats in the region. He said:

"Eliminating ISIS would be the first step in disrupting the capabilities of other groups and individuals committed to striking our homeland and our allies. The demise of ISIS would also allow us to increase our attention on other agents of radical Islam like al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and certain elements within Iran."
June 13. During testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Tillerson said he had received reassurances from President Mahmoud Abbas that the Palestinian Authority would end the practice of paying a monthly stipend to the families of suicide bombers and other attackers, commonly referred to by Palestinians as martyrs. One day later, Palestinian officials contradicted Tillerson, saying that there are no plans to stop payments to families of Palestinians killed or wounded carrying out attacks against Israelis.

May 22. Tillerson sidestepped questions on whether the Western Wall is part of Israel, while telling reporters aboard Air Force One they were heading to "Tel Aviv, home of Judaism." Asked directly whether he considers the Western Wall under Israeli sovereignty, Tillerson replied: "The wall is part of Jerusalem."

May 15. In an interview with Meet the Press, Tillerson appeared publicly to renege on Trump's campaign promise to move the American embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem:

"The president, I think rightly, has taken a very deliberative approach to understanding the issue itself, listening to input from all interested parties in the region, and understanding what such a move, in the context of a peace initiative, what impact would such a move have."
Tillerson also appeared to equate the State of Israel and the Palestinians:
"As you know, the president has recently expressed his view that he wants to put a lot of effort into seeing if we cannot advance a peace initiative between Israel and Palestine. And so I think in large measure the president is being very careful to understand how such a decision would impact a peace process."
Critics of this stance have argued that moving the embassy to Jerusalem would, instead, advance the peace process by "shattering the Palestinian fantasy that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel."
March 8. The State Department confirmed that the Obama administration's $221 million payment to the Palestinian Authority, approved just hours before Trump's inauguration, had reached its destination. The Trump administration initially had vowed to freeze the payment.

In July 2017, the Free Beacon reported that Tillerson's State Department was waging an "open political war" with the White House on a range of key issues, including the U.S.-Israel relationship, the Iran portfolio, and other matters:

"The tensions have fueled an outstanding power battle between the West Wing and State Department that has handicapped the administration and resulted in scores of open positions failing to be filled with Trump confidantes. This has allowed former Obama administration appointees still at the State Department to continue running the show and formulating policy, where they have increasingly clashed with the White House's own agenda."
A veteran foreign policy analyst interviewed by the Free Beacon laid the blame squarely on Tillerson:

"Foggy Bottom [a metonym for the State Department] is still run by the same people who designed and implemented Obama's Middle East agenda. Tillerson was supposed to clean house, but he left half of them in place and he hid the other half in powerful positions all over the building.
These are career staffers committed to preventing Trump from reversing what they created." Notable holdovers from the Obama administration are now driving the State Department's Iran policy:

Michael Ratney, a top advisor to former Secretary of State John Kerry on Syria policy. Under the Trump administration, Ratney's role at the State Department has been expanded to include Israel and Palestine issues. Ratney, who was the U.S. Consul in Jerusalem between 2012 and 2015, oversaw $465,000 in U.S. grants to wage a smear to oust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from office in 2015 parliamentary elections, according to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Ratney admitted to Senate investigators that he deleted emails containing information about the Obama administration's relationship with the group.

Thomas A. Shannon, Jr., a career foreign service officer who serves as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. Shannon, the State Department's fourth-ranking official, has warned that scrapping the Iran deal would lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. "Any effort to step away from the deal would reopen a Pandora's box in that region that would be hard to close again," he said. His statement indicates that Shannon could be expected to lead efforts to resist any attempts to renege or renegotiate the deal; critics of the deal say that Iran's continued missile testing has given Trump one more reason to tear up his predecessor's deal with the Islamist regime.

Chris Backemeyer is now the highest-ranking official at the State Department for Iran policy. During the Obama administration, Backemeyer made his career by selling the Iran deal by persuading multinational corporations to do business with Iran as part of an effort to conclude the Iran nuclear deal.

Ratney, Shannon and Backemeyer, along with Tillerson, reportedly prevailed upon Trump twice to recertify the Iran nuclear deal. The Jerusalem Post explained:

Washington was briefly abuzz on the afternoon of July 17 when rumors began to circulate that President Trump was eager to declare that Iran was in breach of the conditions laid out in the 2015 Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INARA).
Those receptive antennas were further heightened given the previous signals sent. After all, the State Department already released talking points to reporters on the decision to recertify Iran. The Treasury Department also had a package of fresh sanctions on over a dozen Iranian individuals and entities ready to announce to appease the hawks who were eager to cut loose from the deal.
But Trump didn't want to recertify Iran, nor did he want to the last time around in April. That evening, a longtime Middle East analyst close to senior White House officials involved in the discussions described the scene to me: "Tillerson essentially told the president, 'we just aren't ready with our allies to decertify.' The president retorted, 'Isn't it your job to get our allies ready?' to which Tillerson said, 'Sorry sir, we're just not ready.'" According to this source, Secretary Tillerson pulled the same maneuver when it came to recertification in April by waiting until the last minute before finally admitting the State Department wasn't ready. On both occasions he simply offered something to the effect of, "We'll get 'em next time."
Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute."