The Soft Coup Of RussiaGate
Trump and Comey NBC News
By Robert Parry, www.consortiumnews.com
May 14th, 2017
Above: Donald Trump and James Comey meet at the White House. Source NBC
News.
The RussiaGate hysteria has grown stronger after President Trumps firing of
FBI Director Comey, but the bigger question is whether an American soft
coup is in the works
Where is Stanley Kubrick when we need him? If he hadnt died in 1999, he
would be the perfect director to transform todays hysteria over Russia into
a theater-of-the-absurd movie reprising his Cold War classic, Dr.
Strangelove, which savagely satirized the madness of nuclear brinksmanship
and the crazed ideology behind it.
A scene from Dr. Strangelove, in which the bomber pilot (played by actor
Slim Pickens) rides a nuclear bomb to its target in the Soviet Union.
The Post cited complaints from former U.S. intelligence officials who
criticized the presence of the Russian photographer as a potential security
breach because of the danger that a listening device or other surveillance
equipment could have been brought into the Oval Office while hidden in
cameras or other electronics.To prove my point, The Washington Post on
Thursday published a lengthy storyentitled in the print editions Alarm at
Russian in White House about a Russian photographer who was allowed into
the Oval Office to photograph President Trumps meeting with Russian Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov.
To bolster this alarm, the Post cited a Twitter comment from President
Obamas last deputy CIA director, David S. Cohen, stating No, it was not a
sound decision to admit the Russian photographer who also works for the
Russian news agency, Tass, which published the photo.
One could picture Boris and Natasha, the evil spies in the Bullwinkle
cartoons, disguised as photographers slipping listening devices between the
cushions of the sofas.
Or we could hear how Russians are again threatening to impurify all of our
precious bodily fluids, as Dr. Strangelove character, Gen. Jack D.
Ripper, warned us in the 1964 movie.
Watching that brilliant dark comedy again might actually be a good idea to
remind us how crazy Americans can get when theyre pumped up with
anti-Russian propaganda, as is happening again now.
Taking Down Trump
I realize that many Democrats, liberals and progressives hate Donald Trump
so much that they believe that any pretext is justified in taking him down,
even if that plays into the hands of the neoconservatives and other
warmongers. Many people who detest Trump view Russia-gate as the most likely
path to achieve Trumps impeachment, so this desirable end justifies
whatever means.
Boris and Natasha, the evil spies from the Rocky and Bullwinkle shows.
Boris and Natasha, the evil spies from the Rocky and Bullwinkle shows.
Some people have told me that they even believe that it is the
responsibility of the major news media, the law enforcement and intelligence
communities, and members of Congress to engage in a soft coup against
Trump also known as a constitutional coup or deep state coup for the
good of the country.
The argument is that it sometimes falls to these Establishment institutions
to correct a mistake made by the American voters, in this case, the
election of a largely unqualified individual as U.S. president. It is even
viewed by some anti-Trump activists as a responsibility of responsible
journalists, government officials and others to play this guardian role,
to not simply resist Trump but to remove him.
There are obvious counter-arguments to this view, particularly that it makes
something of a sham of American democracy. It also imposes on journalists a
need to violate the ethical responsibility to provide objective reporting,
not taking sides in political disputes.
But The New York Times and The Washington Post, in particular, have made it
clear that they view Trump as a clear and present danger to the American
system and thus have cast aside any pretense of neutrality.
The Times justifies its open hostility to the President as part of its duty
to protect the truth; the Post has adopted a slogan aimed at Trump,
Democracy Dies in Darkness. In other words, Americas two most influential
political newspapers are effectively pushing for a soft coup under the
guise of defending democracy and truth.
But the obvious problem with a soft coup is that Americas democratic
process, as imperfect as it has been and still is, has held this diverse
country together since 1788 with the notable exception of the Civil War.
If Americans believe that the Washington elites are removing an elected
president even one as buffoonish as Donald Trump it could tear apart the
fabric of national unity, which is already under extraordinary stress from
intense partisanship.
That means that the soft coup would have to be carried out under the guise
of a serious investigation into something grave enough to justify the
Presidents removal, a removal that could be accomplished by congressional
impeachment, his forced resignation, or the application of Twenty-fifth
Amendment, which allows the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet to
judge a President incapable of continuing in office (although that could
require two-thirds votes by both houses of Congress if the President fights
the maneuver).
A Big Enough Scandal
That is where Russia-gate comes in. The gauzy allegation that Trump and/or
his advisers somehow colluded with Russian intelligence officials to rig the
2016 election would probably clear the threshold for an extreme action like
removing a President.
President Donald Trump being sworn in on Jan. 20, 2017. (Screen shot from
Whitehouse.gov
Theres not even any public evidence from U.S. government agencies that
Russia did meddle in the 2016 election or even if Russia did slip
Democratic emails to WikiLeaks (which WikiLeaks denies) there has been
zero evidence that the scheme resulted from collusion with Trumps
campaign.And, given the determination of many key figures in the
Establishment to get rid of Trump, it should come as no surprise that no one
seems to care that no actual government-verified evidence has been revealed
publicly to support any of the Russia-gate allegations.
The FBI has been investigating these suspicions for at least nine months,
even reportedly securing a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant
against Carter Page, an American whom Trump briefly claimed as a foreign
policy adviser when Trump was under fire for not having any foreign policy
advisers.
One of Pages alleged offenses was that he gave a speech to an academic
conference in Moscow in July 2016 that was mildly critical of how the U.S.
treated countries from the former Soviet Union. He also once lived in Russia
and met with a Russian diplomat who apparently unbeknownst to Page had
been identified by the U.S. government as a Russian intelligence officer.
It appears that is enough, in these days of our New McCarthyism, to get an
American put under a powerful counter-intelligence investigation.
The FBI and the Department of Justice also reportedly are including as part
of the Russia-gate investigation Trumps stupid campaign joke calling on the
Russians to help find the tens of thousands of emails that Hillary Clinton
erased from the home server that she used while Secretary of State.
On July 27, 2016, Trump said, apparently in jest, I will tell you this,
Russia: if youre listening, I hope youre able to find the 30,000 emails
that are missing.
The comment fit with Trumps puckish, provocative and often tasteless sense
of humor, but was seized on by Democrats as if it were a serious suggestion
as if anyone would use a press conference to seriously urge something like
that. But it now appears that the FBI is grabbing at any straw that might
support its investigation.
The (U.K.) Guardian reported this week that Senior DoJ officials have
declined to release the documents [about Trumps comment] on grounds that
such disclosure could interfere with enforcement proceedings. In a filing
to a federal court in Washington DC, the DoJ states that because of the
existence of an active, ongoing investigation, the FBI anticipates that it
will
withhold all records.
The statement suggests that Trumps provocative comment last July is being
seen by the FBI as relevant to its own ongoing investigation.
The NYTs Accusations
On Friday, in the wake of Trumps firing of FBI Director James Comey and the
Presidents characterization of Russia-gate as a total hoax, The New York
Times reprised what it called The Trump-Russia Nexus in a lead editorial
trying to make the case of some fire behind the smoke.
Though the Times acknowledges that there are many unknowns in Russia-gate
and the Times cant seem to find any evidence of collusion, such as slipping
a Russian data stick to WikiLeaks, the Times nevertheless treats a host of
Trump advisers and family members as traitors because theyve had some
association with Russian officials, Russian businesses or Russian allies.
Regarding Carter Page, the Times wrote: American officials believe that Mr.
Page, a foreign policy adviser, had contacts with Russian intelligence
officials during the campaign. He also gave a pro-Russia speech in Moscow in
July 2016. Mr. Page was once employed by Merrill Lynchs Moscow office,
where he worked with Gazprom, a government-owned giant.
You might want to let some of those words sink in, especially the part about
Page giving a pro-Russia speech in Moscow, which has been cited as one of
the principal reasons for Page and his communications being targeted under a
FISA warrant.
Ive actually read Pages speech and to call it pro-Russia is a wild
exaggeration. It was a largely academic treatise that faulted the Wests
post-Cold War treatment of the nations formed from the old Soviet Union,
saying the rush to a free-market system led to some negative consequences,
such as the spread of corruption.
But even if the speech were pro-Russia, doesnt The New York Times respect
the quaint American notion of free speech? Apparently not. If your carefully
crafted words can be twisted into something called pro-Russia, the Times
seems to think its okay to have the National Security Agency bug your
phones and read your emails.
The Ukraine Case
New York Times building in New York City. (Photo from Wikipedia)
Another Times target was veteran political adviser Paul Manafort, who is
accused of working as a consultant for a pro-Russia political party in
Ukraine and for Ukraines former president, Viktor Yanukovych, who was
backed by the Kremlin.
Yanukovych was then ousted in February 2014 in a violent putsch that was
backed by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S.
Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt. The putsch, which was spearheaded by right-wing
nationalists and even neo-Nazis, touched off Ukraines civil war and the
secession of Crimea, the key events in the escalation of todays New Cold
War between NATO and Russia.Left out of that Times formulation is the fact
that the Ukrainian political party, which had strong backing from ethnic
Russian Ukrainians not just Russia competed in a democratic process and
that Yanukovych won an election that was recognized by international
observers as free and fair.
Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraines Azov battalion. (As
filmed by a Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)
Though Im no fan of U.S. political hired-guns selling their services in
foreign elections, there was nothing illegal or even unusual about Manafort
advising a Ukrainian political party. What arguably was much more offensive
was the U.S. support for an unconstitutional coup that removed Yanukovych
even after he agreed to a European plan for early elections so he could be
voted out of office peacefully.
But the Times, the Post and virtually the entire Western mainstream media
sided with the Ukrainian coup-makers and hailed Yanukovychs overthrow. That
attitude has become such a groupthink that the Times has banished the
thought that there was a coup.
Still, the larger political problem confronting the United States is that
the neoconservatives and their junior partners, the liberal
interventionists, now control nearly all the levers of U.S. foreign policy.
That means they can essentially dictate how events around the world will be
perceived by most Americans.
The neocons and the liberal hawks also want to continue their open-ended
wars in the Middle East by arranging the commitment of additional U.S.
military forces to Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria and perhaps a new
confrontation with Iran.
Early in Obamas second term, it became clear to the neocons that Russia was
becoming the chief obstacles to their plans because President Barack Obama
was working closely with President Vladimir Putin on a variety of projects
that undermined neocon hopes for more war.
Particularly, Putin helped Obama secure an agreement from Syria to surrender
its chemical weapons stockpiles in 2013 and to get Iran to accept tight
constraints on its nuclear program in 2014. In both cases, the neocons and
their liberal-hawk sidekicks were lusting for war.
Immediately after the Syria chemical-weapons deal in September 2013, key
U.S. neocons began focusing on Ukraine as what National Endowment for
Democracy president Carl Gershman called the biggest prize and a first
step toward unseating Putin in Moscow.
Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who
pushed for the Ukraine coup and helped pick the post-coup leaders. US Nuland
with Neo Nazi Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok (left) Source Reuters
Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who
pushed for the Ukraine coup and helped pick the post-coup leaders. US Nuland
with Neo Nazi Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok (left) Source Reuters
Gershmans grant-giving NED stepped up its operations inside Ukraine while
Assistant Secretary Nuland, the wife of arch-neocon Robert Kagan, began
pushing for regime change in Kiev (along with other neocons, including Sen.
John McCain).
The Ukraine coup in 2014 drove a geopolitical wedge between Obama and Putin,
since the Russian president couldnt just stand by when a virulently
anti-Russian regime took power violently in Ukraine, which was the well-worn
route for invasions into Russia and housed Russias Black Sea fleet at
Sevastopol in Crimea.
Rather than defend the valuable cooperation provided by Putin, Obama went
with the political flow and joined in the Russia-bashing as key neocons
raised their sights and put Putin in the crosshairs.
An Unexpected Obstacle
For the neocons in 2016, there also was the excited expectation of a Hillary
Clinton presidency to give more momentum to the expensive New Cold War. But
then Trump, who had argued for a new détente with Russia, managed to eke out
an Electoral College win.
Perhaps Trump could have diffused some of the hostility toward him but his
narcissistic personality stopped him from extending an olive branch to the
tens of millions of Americans who opposed him. He further demonstrated his
political incompetence by wasting his first days in office making ridiculous
claims about the size of his inaugural crowds and disputing the fact that he
had lost the popular vote.
Widespread public disgust over his behavior contributed to the determination
of many Americans to resist his presidency at all junctures and at all
costs.
Peter Sellers playing Dr. Strangelove as he struggles to control his right
arm from making a Nazi salute.
Russia-gate, the hazy suggestion that Putin put Trump in the White House and
that Trump is a Putin puppet (as Clinton claimed), became the principal
weapon to use in destroying Trumps presidency.
However, besides the risks to U.S. stability that would come from an
Establishment-driven soft coup, there is the additional danger of
ratcheting up tensions so high with nuclear-armed Russia that this extreme
Russia-bashing takes on a life or arguably many, many deaths of its own.
Which is why America now might need a piercing satire of todays
Russia-phobia or at least a revival of the Cold War classic, Dr.
Strangelove, subtitled How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.
