US election meddling; Russia or the UK?

Presidents Trump & Putin at the news conference following their historic summit. Russian election meddling was blandly assumed by one media hack.

Presidents Trump & Putin at the news conference following their historic summit. Russian election meddling was blandly assumed by one media hack.

So President Donald Trump mixed up his ‘would’ and his ‘wouldn’t’? Apparently it happened in the press conference after his summit meeting with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin.

No collusion, but hacking

According to the BBC, Mr Trump insisted there was ‘no collusion at all’ between his campaign and Russia. Mr Putin laughed at the suggestion. The American press has been full of charges of this alleged ‘collusion’. However, US Special Counsel Robert Mueller has not yet alleged any.

The more serious charge is that of ‘election meddling’. That appears to mean attempts, successful or not, to hack into Democratic Party emails.  That’s assuming the emails were not leaked by an insider.

The BBC reports twelve Russian nationals have been indicted by Mueller. The DNC leak showed that top Democrats preferred Mrs Clinton for the presidential nomination. In fact, they constantly worked against her left-wing challenger, Senator Bernie Sanders.

Election meddling

Wikileaks published the emails with ‘eighteen revelations’. Julian Assange has denied any Russians were behind what he described as leaks. But such is the feverish level of anti-Russian hysteria in US corridors, his denial simply would not do.

A reporter asked Mr Trump after the summit to condemn Russia and Mr Putin on election meddling. It was not even ‘alleged’, it was taken as fact. In reply, Mr Trump said his intelligence officials – including Director of Intelligence Dan Coats – have told him ‘they think it’s Russia’. Mr Putin, he continued, just told him it was not Russia.

‘I don’t see any reason why it would be,’ Mr Trump concluded, leaning toward the Russian professions of innocence over the apparent conclusions of his own officials.

All hell broke loose

As Mr Trump was flying home from Helsinki, all hell was breaking loose among the US elite.

Senate Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called it a ‘shameful performance’ that was ‘thoughtless, dangerous and weak’. John Brennan, director of the CIA under Barack Obama, not given to understatement, said Mr Trump was guilty of treason.

On the Republican side, political consultant and Jeb Bush advisor Mike Murphy called it a ‘dark day’, after tweeting a string of invective. Former 2008 Republican presidential candidate John McCain said it was ‘one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory’.

‘The damage inflicted by President Trump’s naivete, egotism, false equivalence, and sympathy for autocrats is difficult to calculate,’ said the Arizona Republican senator. ‘But it is clear that the summit in Helsinki was a tragic mistake.’

Who are the critics?

Why are Mr Trump’s critics so quick to condemn Russia and President Putin? Why do they not want peace and some measure of tranquility which would allow normal people to trade and do business? Well, Senator McCain is chair of the Armed Services Committee. Senator Schumer, 66, has never had a job outside politics. The Intercept reports he raises millions of dollars for the Democrats from the finance industry. Moreover, that sector is heavily involved in armaments companies.

Mr Schumer voted for the Iraq war, taking at face value the tissue of lies about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction which were peddled by the same ‘Intelligence Community’ that now accuses Russia of election meddling. He warned of Iraq’s imaginary yet ‘vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons’. Like John McCain, he is a member of the US Council on Foreign Relations. Russia is a thorn in the side of the CFR’s globalism.  And its president also opposes the advance of sodomy, a liberal sacred cow.  That’s unforgivable to someone like Schumer.

Armaments companies’ funding

OpenSecrets.org reveals another Trump critic, Republican Congressman Michael Turner, received $161,000 from defense companies for his 2016 re-election campaign. He also serves on the Arms Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee.

On top of that, he is the liaison to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and has served as its president. ‘Russia absolutely meddled in our election,’ said the prominent warmonger.

Newt Gingrich is another top Republican who sits on the CFR. He called Mr Trump’s statements on intelligence agencies ‘the most serious mistake of his presidency’. Mr Gingrich is also a member of the secretive Bilderberg Group and the disreputable occultist Bohemian Grove.

In the media, the Drudge Report had a headline blaring that ‘Putin dominates’ the summit. Such an approach assumes a zero-sum game where there must be a ‘winner’ and a ‘loser’.  On Fox News cable networks, normally pro-Trump, Neil Cavuto called the president’s performance ‘disgraceful’ and said it ‘sets us back a lot’. Fox News White House correspondent John Roberts opined ‘There is a growing consensus across the land tonight … that the president threw the United States under the bus.’

Barrage of criticism

In the face of this barrage of criticism, Mr Trump could easily have stood firm, remembered the intelligence community’s past failings and observed that they haven’t come up with anything stronger than alleged attempts to discredit Mrs Clinton. He could have said she herself did the best job in that direction.

Instead, says the BBC, Mr Trump said he had reviewed the transcript and ‘realised’ he needed to clarify. ‘In a key sentence in my remarks, I said the word “would” instead of “wouldn’t”,’ he said. ‘The sentence should have been: “I don’t see any reason why I wouldn’t’ or why it wouldn’t be Russia”. Sort of a double negative.’

The US president added: ‘I accept our intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election took place. Could be other people also. A lot of people out there.’

US meddling

Speaking of ‘a lot of people out there’, Mr Trump could also have observed that the US has a long history of interfering in other countries and their elections.

A Channel4 ‘factcheck’ says: ‘The west – and particularly the US – have a long history of rigging polls, supporting military coups, channeling funds and spreading political propaganda in other countries.’

Professor Dov Levin is from the Institute for Politics and Strategy at Carnegie Mellon University. He reckons ‘60 different independent countries have been the targets’ of post-war US interventions.

Channel4 goes on: ‘According to Levin’s research, those countries where secret tactics have been deployed by the US include: Guatemala, Brazil, El Salvador, Haiti, Panama, Israel, Lebanon, Iran, Greece, Italy, Malta, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, South Vietnam and Japan.

‘For Russia, the list of covert interventions includes: France, Denmark, Italy, Greece, West Germany, Japan, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Congo, Venezuela, Chile, Costa Rica, and the US.’

US meddled in Kenya

This author had personal knowledge of US meddling in Kenya’s constitution referendum in 2010. Then Ambassador Michael Ranneberger worked with EU counterparts to secure a vote to adopt a South African-style constitution. In addition to its liberalism, it cemented the role of Sharia courts in the country. Even today, his two immediate predecessors, Mark Bellamy and Johnnie Carson, argue openly for more intervention by the US and ‘external partners’ in Kenya in particular and African nations in general.

On top of that, there is much recent history of Western governments providing funding for NGOs dedicated to overturning Christian morality in African nations. Legal access to abortion, the adoption of gay rights and feminist empowerment are the three favourites of Western governments. Naturally, they are assisted by a plethora of philanthropic -so to speak – western funders, led by George Soros and his Open Society Institute and OS Foundations.

The UK Foreign Office, one has to say, almost exists to interfere in the affairs of foreign nations.

The real election meddling story

Which leads us to the real meddling story hiding away behind all the anti-Russian rhetoric. From June 2016, a British ex-intelligence office, Christopher Steele, supplied the US Democratic Party with gossip on Donald Trump’s business dealings in Russia. Only when Donald Trump was elected in November of that year did the Democrats stop paying Steele’s firm, Orbis Business Intelligence, for information through the intermediary Fusion GPS.

But Christian Voice discovered that Steele linked up with MI6 officers during the time he was working on the dossier memos he drip-fed to the Democrats. Not only that, but his consultant at Orbis was MI6 man Pablo Miller. Miller was Russian double-agent Sergei Skripal’s handler in Salisbury. A US expert in Russia and its intelligence services has said there is no doubt the Trump dosser was not written by Steele but by a Russian intelligence officer. And with which Russian intelligence officer was Christopher Steele in touch through his MI6 pal Miller? Step forward Sergei Skripal.

The real US election interference story might not be the Russian FSB trying to discredit Hillary.  It could be British intelligence trying to do the dirty on Mr Trump.  No wonder Theresa May and two Home Secretaries have worked so hard to blame the Salisbury poisonings on Russia.  Furthermore, by a D-notice blanking Pablo Miller and Orbis they have tried to deflect attention away from where we should be looking.

Doing business

Clearly, President Trump is wary of vested interests at home. That explains his partial backtrack here and his earlier two half-hearted missile strikes against Syria. He had to be seen to be doing something, but he tried to keep it as inoffensive, particularly to the Russians, as possible. He cannot always rein in his State Department and the Pentagon. Nevertheless, moving the US embassy to Jerusalem and appointing at least one pro-life Supreme Court judge (the jury is out on the next one) have been matters of principle.

But his meeting with Kim Jong-Un, his advice to Mrs May on the EU – best not walk away – and his attempt at a reset with Russia all speak of a business man. For the Donald, above all, doing a deal is what motivates him. There are times like 1939 and over the Falklands when a nation has to stand up to an aggressor. But in ordinary times, doing deals, trading, living in peace, is better than daggers drawn. (Except to the armaments industry of course.)

As President Putin said at the news conference, the summit was the ‘first important step … we do have interests that are common. We are looking for points of contact’.

Stop Press

Later, Mr Trump tweeted: ‘So many people at the higher ends of intelligence loved my press conference performance in Helsinki. Putin and I discussed many important subjects at our earlier meeting. We got along well which truly bothered many haters who wanted to see a boxing match. Big results will come!’

He added: ‘Some people HATE the fact that I got along well with President Putin of Russia. They would rather go to war than see this. It’s called Trump Derangement Syndrome!’

Keep praying for peace.

We’ll really appreciate your support
Click below to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings

Click on the social media links below to share this post:

Share

26 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. Like pieces of a jigsaw.

  2. ” twelve Russian nationals have been indicted by Mueller. ”

    In the USA, what does it mean to be “indicted” ? Is it the same as “charged” in the UK ?

    1. you know what these Americans are like, Rox

    2. Surely somebody must know this ! The word is bounded around enough.

      1. I suppose Mark is implying that they are likely to be ill-treated, but that wasn’t really my question. I was simply asking what”indicted” officially means in the USA.

        1. I suggest you look it up and then share the result so everyone may benefit from your research.

            • Rocks
            • Rox G on 24 July 2018 at 18:17

            Well, it was you who used the word !
            “The BBC reports twelve Russian nationals have been indicted by Mueller. ”

            How significant is that ?

        2. I’ll put you out of your misery Rox. The word is a synonym for “give a good talking to”.

          Thus your phrase COULD read, “twelve Russian nationals have been [given a good talking to] by Mueller”.

          I hope this answers your question.

            • BigMarktheGeezer
            • Mark J on 26 July 2018 at 12:29

            sorry, I put in this last comment because I thought my first reply wouldn’t make it past the moderator!! but glad it did!!

      2. I’ll put you out of your misery, Rox. “To indict” is a synonym for “to sodomise”.

        So the phrase you quote COULD read: “twelve Russian nationals have been [sodomised] by Mueller”.

        1. This calls for the Concise Oxford Dictionary at least.

          The definition of ‘indict’ is simple but vague, and is marked as ‘chiefly North American’. “to formally accuse of or charge with a crime”.
          An ‘indictment’ is
          (1) Still ‘chiefly North American’, ” a formal charge or accusation of a crime” .
          [so that is still vague]
          (2) “an indication that a system or situation is bad and deserves to be condemned.”
          [ So “Christian Voice has identified several indictments against sections of British society, both Muslim and secular, involving also some ‘Christians’, and most of all homosexuals of all kinds”. ]

          The dictionary also has a reminder of how a derived word is used in England & Wales, an indictable offence being one for which you could be tried by a jury. “Indictment” is a technical word in English law, but not much used by the general public, and the verb ” to indict” is little used.

          I think that many of us first came across this word in the heyday of Ms Lewinsky, when the great question was “Can the president be indicted ?”, and this gave the impression that the unfamiliar word was reserved for presidents, and people of that ilk. It seemed to be a way of unseating them, specifically. Nothing, necessarily, to do with sodomy.

          I believe this assumed specialised meaning may have been reinforced by examples in English history of important people being “indicted” in a grand manner.

            • BigMarktheGeezer
            • Mark J on 26 July 2018 at 19:08

            thank you for shedding light on this murky subject, Rox. I’m sure many of us will sleep more soundly having been furnished with this information.

            mumble, grumble, still think it means “sodomise”, mumble, grumble

            • Rocks
            • Rox G on 26 July 2018 at 23:58

            “Can the President be impeached ?”
            Another unfamiliar word more common in the USA.

            In the 20th and 21st century, impeachment has been a relatively common practice in the USA, still used to remove variously corrupt officials of various kinds, e.g the Governor of Illinois in 2009 . If you say “President Clinton was impeached”, well he was, but it’s like saying “The demonstrator was charged with treason”. That doesn’t mean necessarily successfully, and Clinton was acquitted. However, Alcee Hastings (a federal judge) was “impeached and removed from office” (in 1989, just one example).

            In England & Wales, the process became obsolescent almost as soon as the newly independent USA took it up. Well-known from appropriate history books, the last successful impeachment was of Warren Hastings, a Governor-General of India, in 1788, but the verdict was reversed seven years later. The First Lord of the Admiralty was impeached in 1806, but acquitted. The salacious trial of Caroline of Brunswick in 1820 began as an impeachment, but the form of it was changed.

            The next and last attempt at an impeachment in the UK has something of a topical flavour about it. In 1848, Palmerston (the Foreign Secretary) was accused of having signed a secret treaty with Russia and received money from the Tsar. He was acquitted.

            If the USA persists with this basically 18th century procedure, one might reflect that they adhere equally to a somewhat out-of-date 18th century constitution.

            • BigMarktheGeezer
            • Mark J on 27 July 2018 at 11:01

            you should write a book, Rox: oh sorry, you’re well on your way!

            I dare say your book would be a valuable contribution to the fight against insomnia!

            • BigMarktheGeezer
            • Mark J on 27 July 2018 at 12:59

            you say that their Constitution is “somewhat out-of-date”. Could you elucidate on this please, perhaps giving some examples of how it is “out-of-date”? (perhaps leaving the obvious example of the Electoral College, which we could argue about for hours as to whether this is indeed “out-of-date”).

            • Rocks
            • Rox G on 9 August 2018 at 17:42

            If you wrote a constitution for a newly founded country, you would write it to suit the circumstances you found around you, so in our lifetime, in the 20th or 21st century. Theirs was written for the 18th century, so it’s bound to be out of date. A lot changes. It is possible to amend the American constitution, but basically they look on it as almost holy, and inalterable.

            One striking example of what is wrong is the right to bear arms. This was by no means uniquely American, actually. They lifted it almost word for word from the English Bill of Rights, 1689 . Unfortunately, like the internet and transport and television and a good many other things, arms have changed a lot since 1689 and even 1788. It never meant the right to carry machine guns and to mow down schoolchildren. The circumstances in which being armed at all might be desirable have changed too. (Originally: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” ) This necessary responsibility has been passed to the American army, and the machine guns should be limited to them.

            What happened to our right to bear arms ? It was gradually modified by Parliament according to what seemed sensible from time to time, and had virtually disappeared after 1920, and has become even more limited since then. I won’t bore you with more details or more examples, but you did ask.

            You are mixing your metaphors, Mark. I can’t be BOTH an aid to “sleep more soundly” AND “a valuable contribution to the fight against insomnia” !

            • Stephen
            • Stephen on 15 August 2018 at 14:04
              Author

            You love using language to obsure reality. Their right to bear arms never gave anyone a right to kill an innocent person. Rather it encapsulates a healthy mistrust of government. Yes, to ensure the ‘security of a free state’. Taking away the peoples’ means of self-defense and making sure only the police and army are armed is what every despot dreams of doing.
            Dunblane provided the perfect excuse to take away our right to hold handguns. Thomas Hamilton was certifiable and only gained his license because he knew the chief constable. Then, hey presto, a Bill immediately came out of a drawer, was dusted down and became law in the heat of the moment. Crafty, aren’t they, these politicians?

            • Rocks
            • Rox G on 15 August 2018 at 21:18

            Of course it didn’t give anybody the right to kill an innocent person, but in the days of the Wild West, a lot of innocent people were killed. You need to balance the likelihood of deaths of innocent people with the likelihood of a thoroughly odious government being in place AND ARMED CIVILIANS BEING ABLE TO DEFEAT ITS FORCES, always assuming that Right will triumph .

            If there ever was another civil war in the USA, presumably between rough and ready republicans and a Democratic administration equipped with the latest weapons in well-trained hands, it’s difficult to imagine a pleasant outcome for anybody.

            In this country, I just can’t imagine “the despot” or “the dictator” (who has already been hypothesised in Christian Voice comments) mowing down citizens, whether unarmed or lightly armed. Nor can I imagine Stephen, revolver in hand, leading his close followers with any kind of weapon, against the army, either successfully or unsuccessfully.

            How could we be sure, anyway, that the people with the guns were the best people to decide how we should live, rather than those we elected ? You only have to look at Northern Ireland to see how unlikely it is for gunmen to be the best way to go. Do we want Stephen blowing up casinos and brothels and whatever else he may disapprove of with semtex ? I don’t think so. Call this “using language to obscure reality” if you like !

            • Stephen
            • Stephen on 16 August 2018 at 09:09
              Author

            Oppression has happened in the past. It will again. The Lord is against it.

            • Rocks
            • Rox G on 16 August 2018 at 12:27

            Then you will have to depend on the Lord to overturn this oppression, because I don’t think the citizens would be much good against tanks and missiles, or even against the police with what we see the police carrying these days.

            • BigMarktheGeezer
            • Mark J on 16 August 2018 at 16:48

            debating with this guy is like trying to nail jelly to the wall, as I’m sure you are aware by now Stephen. He completely misses the point in most instances, then obfuscates etc. Like banging your head against a wall, its nice when it stops though!!

        2. Rox: “Then you will have to depend on the Lord to overturn this oppression, because I don’t think the citizens would be much good against tanks and missiles, or even against the police with what we see the police carrying these days.”

          Well, you could be right there Rox. As I said in previous posts, the Bible seems to predict a time just like this (if you are a Dispensationalist), called the Tribulation, 7 years long, after which Jesus returns to set up a kingdom of righteousness and justice for 1,000 years, when the “swords shall be beaten into ploughshares”, “the lion will lie down with the lamb” (or is it “wolves”? see “Mandela Effect”) etc etc etc. The Bibel says that even in this near paradise, some will rebel.

          However, this 7 Year Tribulation is a time when God pours out his wrath on mankind, allowing Satan to have his way (arguable), for our sins (eg 50,000 children starve to death every day (UN estimates it would take just US$30billion per year to feed, clothe & educate everyone on the planet (the UK aid budget alone is some US$25 billion) and yet we just don’t seem to be able to do it, mainly because it doesn’t really bother most people, they just want nice, comfortable lives for THEMSELVES personally), 200,000 abortions every year in the UK alone (ditto), [insert your own sins of mankind HERE]). The Bible says that men (and women, of course: oooh, mustn’t forget the women, we’re all “equal” now!!) will beg God to kill them, but God won’t let them die, He wants to punish them some more. God is love, but love includes JUSTICE and RIGHTEOUSNESS. I expect this doesn’t fit with your idea of a loving God, some old doddering, bearded grandfather figure on top of a cloud, who tut tuts at our disobeying Him, but still goes around stressfully mopping up our mess, but never mind, because He still “loves” us? Oh dear.

  3. thank you for this article, Stephen. Seems you may have an alternative careeras an investigative journalist!

    Gosh, its murky isn’t it? Talk about the Swamp!

  4. This is quite involved and confusing, with all the intrigue, it leaves the ordinary man (or woman) a little puzzled as to what the real end game is. There is clearly an anti-Christian motive behind much of all this, especially NGOs in the African continent promoting gay rights, etc. However, I am left with the feeling of total powerlessness over what to believe, and what is likely to be exposed next.
    For me, I take the view that this summit with Putin was a mistake as clearly Trump was ill prepared for it, and it was replete with political clangas which happened. Putin should not be trusted, given his history in the Russian security, but he is Russian leader and needs to be dealt with kid gloves. However, to generate a ‘pals’ meeting with him was politically inept and could still prove Trump’s undoing. I am not against Trump and do not want to see him fall. However, it is right to be wary of him.

  5. God has given people positions of power, either as a judgment upon their country, or a blessing.
    Kick against the ‘pricks’ and you could be opposing God’s will.

  6. I have never seen as much evil in a government as what we are seeing in these days. Everytime you blink it gets worse. It is really useful to be a part of Prayer for Britain prayer meeting fortnightly. One can then give it all to God as the Battle belongs to the Lord. I don’t think I would be able to cope with all this news without Him. If you get so much bad news that it stuns you and makes you prayerless and hopeless then you are getting too much. We need to ration what we can handle and pray about. Hopefully our capacity will grow though practice.

Leave a Reply