{"id":76981,"date":"2016-12-19T17:31:21","date_gmt":"2016-12-19T17:31:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2016\/12\/19\/quelques-chuchotements-du-silent-coup\/"},"modified":"2016-12-19T17:31:21","modified_gmt":"2016-12-19T17:31:21","slug":"quelques-chuchotements-du-silent-coup","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2016\/12\/19\/quelques-chuchotements-du-silent-coup\/","title":{"rendered":"Quelques chuchotements du Silent Coup<\/em>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Quelques chuchotements du Silent Coup<\/em><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

Pour commencer, nous ferons deux remarques essentielles. La premi\u00e8re est que ces \u00ab\u00a0quelques chuchotements\u00a0\u00bb du Silent Coup<\/em>, pourtant venus d’une source tr\u00e8s bien inform\u00e9 et \u00e9chappant \u00e0 l’essentiel des pressions du Syst\u00e8me, ne suffisent absolument pas, – loin et tant s’en faut, – \u00e0 \u00e9clairer compl\u00e8tement et d’une fa\u00e7on satisfaisante ce Silent Coup<\/em>, de quelque lumi\u00e8re qu’on l’\u00e9claire et de quelque c\u00f4t\u00e9 qu’on l’observe. C’en est m\u00eame, – et cette observation-l\u00e0 est absolument fondamentale et \u00e9crase toutes les autres<\/strong>, – \u00e0 ce point qu’on peut se demander s’il y a quelqu’un, quelque groupe, quelque organisation dans le champs des humains et des sapiens<\/em>, qui soit capable d’embrasser une compr\u00e9hension compl\u00e8te et coh\u00e9rente de la description, de la compr\u00e9hension et de la strat\u00e9gie de ce Silent Coup<\/em>.<\/strong> (Et nous r\u00e9pondrions, de plus en plus sans h\u00e9siter : non, personne…)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\n

La seconde remarque est que ce spectacle, que nous jugeons \u00e0 la fois formidable et incompr\u00e9hensible par les limites humaines de la connaissance aliment\u00e9e par le syst\u00e8me de la communication dans toute sa puissance, se fait litt\u00e9ralement \u00e0 ciel ouvert pour qui sait consulter les sources ad\u00e9quates ; par cons\u00e9quent, spectacle de crise paroxystique, d’une crise normalement absolument couverte par le secret (d\u00e9finition du Silent Coup<\/em>) et qui n’est pourtant dissimul\u00e9e en rien et en aucune fa\u00e7on<\/strong>. Plus encore, nous dirions que cette visibilit\u00e9, cette identification ais\u00e9e de la sorte d’\u00e9v\u00e9nement en cours pour ceux qui disposent d’un bon r\u00e9seau de sources ouvertes, bien s\u00e9lectionn\u00e9es, \u00e9prouv\u00e9es, etc., est une condition sine qua non<\/em> et compl\u00e8tement paradoxae <\/strong>de l’\u00e9volution du Silent Coup<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

C’est effectivement le paradoxe, nomm\u00e9 plus justement inversion, de cette \u00e9poque sans aucun pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent ni \u00e9quivalent : une op\u00e9ration crisique dont la condition est le secret, la dissimulation, l’action clandestine, ne peut se faire que par la communication la plus tonitruante, et donc n\u00e9cessairement expos\u00e9e en plein jour, sous les feux de tous les commentaires, compl\u00e8tement approbateurs et soumis, ou compl\u00e8tement antagonistes et furieux… Et c’est justement en cela que cette op\u00e9ration est crisique, parce qu’elle doit se faire au grand jour, que c’est la substance m\u00eame de sa tactique et de son op\u00e9rationnalit\u00e9, puisque c’est par une communication tonitruante que le Coup<\/em>, pourtant silencieux et secret par d\u00e9finition, doit s’accomplir<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

… Et sans doute est-ce une des causes, disons une cause op\u00e9rationnelle et humaine car il y en a d’autres, d’autres de natures bien plus importantes, – sans doute ce brouhaha extraordinaire de ce qui devrait \u00eatre silencieux est une de causes qui rendent ce Silent Coup<\/em> incompr\u00e9hensible et indescriptible, m\u00eame pour ceux qui s’imaginent en \u00eatre les seuls maîtres d’œuvre<\/strong>. Robert Parry lui-m\u00eame, particuli\u00e8rement bien inform\u00e9, journaliste d’une extr\u00eame circonspection et d’un professionnalisme reconnu, homme d’une belle probit\u00e9 qui ne cesse de d\u00e9noncer les turpitudes extraordinaires que le syst\u00e8me impose \u00e0 la politique washingtoniennes totalement d\u00e9structurante et nihiliste, m\u00eame Parry qui nous explique ce Silent Coup<\/em> nous laisse sur notre faim sur bien des aspects. (D’ailleurs, le point d’interrogation de son titre marque bien que lui-m\u00eame admet la difficult\u00e9 où il se trouve, et avec lui ses nombreuses sources dans le milieu du renseignement US, de donner une compl\u00e8te appr\u00e9ciation, une explication nette de la chose.) On ne peut lui en faire reproche, en aucun cas, il ne fait que renforcer notre sentiment g\u00e9n\u00e9ral expos\u00e9 dans les paragraphes ci-dessus.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Pour autant, Parry nous am\u00e8ne des \u00e9l\u00e9ments pr\u00e9cieux dans son texte du 18 d\u00e9cembre sur ConsortiumNews<\/em>. Il est particuli\u00e8rement explicite notamment sur la fa\u00e7on dont les documents fuit\u00e9s par WikiLeaks<\/em> essentiellement dans deux domaines, – la convention DNC du parti d\u00e9mocrate de juillet et la correspondance \u00e9lectronique de John Podesta, chef de la campagne Clinton, – sont arriv\u00e9s \u00e0 cette plate-forme de diffusion du mat\u00e9riel antiSyst\u00e8me. Bien entendu, on laisse de c\u00f4t\u00e9 \u00e0 ce point la piste russe qui semble \u00eatre la seule pr\u00e9occupation de 99% de la presse-Syst\u00e8me qui d\u00e9pend des fameux 0,1%. Tous les professionnels s\u00e9rieux placent cette hypoth\u00e8se syst\u00e9matiquement en queue de liste, souvent pour la pr\u00e9senter en la ridiculisant par une remarque ou l’autre ; mais les \u00ab\u00a0professionnels s\u00e9rieux\u00a0\u00bb, c’est-\u00e0-dire ceux qui sont capables de r\u00e9sister \u00e0 la double corruptions, celle de la psychologie celle de l’argent, ne sont pas l\u00e9gions ces temps-ci. Parry apporte d’importantes pr\u00e9cisions sur ce qui semble de plus en plus \u00eatre une action de plusieurs individus, dans tous les cas au moins deux, un fuiteur\/lanceur d’alerte au DNC m\u00eame, un fuiteur\/lanceur d’alerte dans l’\u00e9quipe de campagne d’Hillary. Il confirme d’une fa\u00e7on implicite mais extr\u00eamement pr\u00e9cise que l’ex-ambassadeur britannique Craig Murray<\/a> a jou\u00e9 un r\u00f4le d’interm\u00e9diaire vital en r\u00e9cup\u00e9rant, pour ce cas, le mat\u00e9riel de la correspondance Podesta, le 25 septembre \u00e0 Washington<\/strong>, \u00e0 l’occasion de la tenue d’un symposium organis\u00e9 pour la remise du prix annuel de l’association Sam Adams Associates form\u00e9e d’anciens agents de renseignement US plut\u00f4t du genre dissidents :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

« Mais il<\/em> [Murray] semble avoir r\u00e9alis\u00e9 une mission pour WikiLeaks pour prendre contact avec une source, ou un interm\u00e9diaire de cette source, le 25 septembre \u00e0 Washington où il se trouvait en visite, avec une personne dans les bois entourant l’American University. Murray \u00e9tait \u00e0 Washington pour une c\u00e9r\u00e9monie de remise d’une r\u00e9compense \u00e0 l’ancien officier de la CIA John Kiriakou, au nom d’un groupe d’ancien officiels du renseignement occidental, la Sam Adams Associates, nomm\u00e9e d’apr\u00e8s le nom d’un analyste de la CIA, Sam Adams, devenu un lanceur d’alerte. L’ancien analyste de la CIA, Ray McGovern, un des fondateurs du groupe Sam Adams, m’a dit que Murray \u00e9tait un des maîtres de c\u00e9r\u00e9monie de l’\u00e9v\u00e9nement mais qu’il a disparu apr\u00e8s sa pr\u00e9sentation, n’assistant pas \u00e0 la r\u00e9ception qui suivait la remise de la r\u00e9compense<\/em>… »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Il semble au travers de ce r\u00e9cit et aussi de l’analyse que Parry fait de diverses interventions de Murray, que ce dernier, l’ancien ambassadeur britannique en Ouzb\u00e9kistan, occupe une place de plus en plus importante<\/strong> dans le r\u00e9seau d’exploitation des informations des lanceurs d’alerte vers WikiLeaks<\/em>. Il se pourrait que Murray prenne peu \u00e0 peu la place de porte-parole de cette sorte de dissidence qu’occupe Julian Assange<\/strong>, dont on n’a plus de nouvelles et qui semble neutralis\u00e9 dans l’ambassade de l’Equateur \u00e0 Londres, d’où toute communication avec l’ext\u00e9rieur lui est interdite. Cela implique \u00e9galement qu’une connexion directe et quasi-officielle (elle existait d\u00e9j\u00e0 officieusement) est \u00e9tablie entre WikiLeaks<\/em> et des associations d’anciens officiers de renseignement US (Anglo-Saxons) dissidents telle que VIPS<\/a> qui se manifeste \u00e9galement, en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, sur ConsortiumNews<\/a><\/em>. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Parry fait un r\u00e9cit substantiel des \u00e9v\u00e9nements, s’attardant surtout \u00e0 la question de l’origine des documents, et s’employant en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, avec nombre de d\u00e9tails et surtout ce que l’on sent \u00eatre un tr\u00e8s solide background<\/em> d’informations et d’analyses venant de ses nombreuses sources dans les services de renseignement et les groupes d’anciens officiers de ces m\u00eames services regroup\u00e9s dans des associations patriotiques et qui contestent sous une forme tr\u00e8s document\u00e9e les activit\u00e9s officielles qu’on voit se d\u00e9ployer. On a donc une vision assez pr\u00e9cise du Silent Coup <\/em>sans pour autant en avoir une appr\u00e9ciation et une identification satisfaisantes, en m\u00eame temps qu’on peut ais\u00e9ment contester certaines informations de Parry, notamment celle qu’il fait en alignant tous les services de renseignement sur une m\u00eame ligne (notamment le FBI et la NSA sur la CIA, ce qui nous paraît loin d’\u00eatre \u00e9vident, m\u00eame si le FBI semble se \u00ab\u00a0rallier\u00a0\u00bb au point de vue de la CIA, mais \u00e0 partir d’informations venues du Washington Post<\/em>, avec toutes les r\u00e9serves que cela suppos). Si l’on tient compte du s\u00e9rieux de l’auteur et de sa compl\u00e8te ind\u00e9pendance critique des courants de la presse-Syst\u00e8me, on est en effet renvoy\u00e9 \u00e0 ce constat peu ordinaire que l'\u00a0\u00bbon peut se demander s’il y a quelqu’un, quelque groupe, quelque organisation dans le champs des humains et des sapiens<\/em> qui soit capable d’embrasser une compr\u00e9hension compl\u00e8te et coh\u00e9rente de la description, de la compr\u00e9hension et de la strat\u00e9gie de ce Silent Coup<\/em>.<\/strong> (Et nous r\u00e9pondrions, de plus en plus sans h\u00e9siter : non, personne…)\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Nous sommes renvoy\u00e9s au d\u00e9sordre r\u00e9gnant partout dans les grands centres d’action et de d\u00e9cision du bloc BAO, en m\u00eame temps qu’\u00e0 la r\u00e9f\u00e9rence \u00e0 l’action de forces qui sont hors de contr\u00f4le du champ humain. Dans tous les cas, on ne peut que partager l’avis de Parry lorsqu’il \u00e9crit qu’avec l’offensive de ce Silent Coup, <\/em>« aurait \u00e9t\u00e9 pr\u00e9par\u00e9e une d\u00e9faite de Trump devant le Coll\u00e8ge Électoral, ouvrant la porte \u00e0 la d\u00e9signation d’un r\u00e9publicain plus traditionnel. Quoi qu’il en soit, m\u00eame si cet \u00e9v\u00e9nement improbable, – la d\u00e9faite de Trump devant le Coll\u00e8ge, – apparaît impossible<\/em> [NDLR : lire ici<\/a> les derniers \u00e9chos du sprint final], Trump serait dans tous les cas tr\u00e8s affaibli lorsqu’il entrerait \u00e0 la Maison-Blanche et, de ce fait, ne serait pas capable d’agir d’une fa\u00e7on aggressive vers une d\u00e9tente avec la Russie<\/em> ».<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Cette conclusion vient logiquement au terme de l’analyse de Parry et, pourtant, justement parce que nous sommes dans \u00ab\u00a0cette \u00e9poque sans aucun pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent ni \u00e9quivalent\u00a0\u00bb, nous ne la partageons pas du tout, – et nous reviendrons bien entendu rapidement l\u00e0-dessus. Pour nous, ce serait justement parce qu’il serait affaibli, parce qu’il serait contraint sur le plan int\u00e9rieur par diverses pressions, entraves, traîtrises et ainsi de suite, que Trump devrait se montrer tr\u00e8s agressif dans ses entreprises ext\u00e9rieures pour casser la politique ext\u00e9rieure actuelle<\/strong>, justement parce qu’il s’agit d’un domaine où le pr\u00e9sident a beaucoup de pouvoir dans toutes les circonstances. (Dans d’autres circonstances mais selon une logique similaire, Roosevelt en 1937 et Nixon en 1973, agirent de m\u00eame, en se tournant vers la politique ext\u00e9rieure \u00e0 cause du blocage int\u00e9rieur.) En fait, nous pourrions m\u00eame \u00eatre conduit \u00e0 nous demander si les conditions ne sont pas en train d’\u00eatre r\u00e9unies pour \u00ab\u00a0forcer\u00a0\u00bb Trump \u00e0 devenir l'\u00a0\u00bbAmerican<\/em> Gorbatchev\u00a0\u00bb que l’on attend depuis pr\u00e8s de trois d\u00e9cennies<\/strong>, et cela sans qu’il en soit vraiment inform\u00e9 lui-m\u00eame…<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

(Texte ci-dessous, de ConsortiumNews<\/em>, le 18 d\u00e9cembre 2016<\/a>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

dedefensa.org<\/em><\/h4>\n<\/p>\n

________________________<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

A Spy Coup in America?<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

As Official Washington’s latest \u00ab\u00a0group think\u00a0\u00bb solidifies into certainty – that Russia used hacked Democratic emails to help elect Donald Trump – something entirely different may be afoot: a months-long effort by elements of the U.S. intelligence community to determine who becomes the next president.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

I was told by a well-placed intelligence source some months ago that senior leaders of the Obama administration’s intelligence agencies – from the CIA to the FBI – were deeply concerned about either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump ascending to the presidency. And, it’s true that intelligence officials often come to see themselves as the stewards of America’s fundamental interests, sometimes needing to protect the country from dangerous passions of the public or from inept or corrupt political leaders.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

It was, after all, a senior FBI official, Mark Felt, who – as \u00ab\u00a0Deep Throat\u00a0\u00bb – guided The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in their Watergate investigation into the criminality of President Richard Nixon. And, I was told by former U.S. intelligence officers that they wanted to block President Jimmy Carter’s reelection in 1980 because they viewed him as ineffectual and thus not protecting American global interests.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

It’s also true that intelligence community sources frequently plant stories in major mainstream publications that serve propaganda or political goals, including stories that can be misleading or entirely false.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

What’s Going On?<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

So, what to make of what we have seen over the past several months when there have been a series of leaks and investigations that have damaged both Clinton and Trump — with some major disclosures coming, overtly and covertly, from the U.S. intelligence community led by CIA Director John Brennan and FBI Director James Comey?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Some sources of damaging disclosures remain mysterious. Clinton’s campaign was hobbled by leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee – showing it undercutting Clinton’s chief rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders – and from her campaign chairman John Podesta – exposing the content of her speeches to Wall Street banks that she had tried to hide from the voters and revealing the Clinton Foundation’s questionable contacts with foreign governments.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Clinton – already burdened with a reputation for secrecy and dishonesty – suffered from the drip, drip, drip of releases from WikiLeaks of the DNC and Podesta emails although it remains unclear who gave the emails to WikiLeaks. Still, the combination of the two email batches added to public suspicions about Clinton and reminded people why they didn’t trust her.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

But the most crippling blow to Clinton came from FBI Director Comey in the last week of the campaign when he reopened and then re-closed the investigation into whether she broke the law with her sloppy handling of classified material in her State Department emails funneled through a home server.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Following Comey’s last-minute revival of the Clinton email controversy, her poll numbers fell far enough to enable Trump to grab three normally Democratic states – Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin – enough to give him a victory in the Electoral College.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Taking Down Trump<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

However, over the past few weeks, the U.S. intelligence community, led by CIA Director Brennan and seconded by FBI Director Comey, has tried to delegitimize Trump by using leaks to the mainstream U.S. news media to pin the release of the DNC and Podesta emails on Russia and claiming that Russian President Vladimir Putin was personally trying to put Trump into the White House.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

This remarkable series of assessments from the CIA – now endorsed by the leadership of the FBI – come on the eve of the Electoral College members assembling to cast their formal votes to determine who becomes the new U.S. president. Although the Electoral College process is usually simply a formality, the Russian-hacking claims made by the U.S. intelligence community have raised the possibility that enough electors might withhold their votes from Trump to deny him the presidency.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

If on Monday enough Trump electors decide to cast their votes for someone else – possibly another Republican – the presidential selection could go to the House of Representatives where, conceivably, the Republican-controlled chamber could choose someone other than Trump.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

In other words, there is an arguable scenario in which the U.S. intelligence community first undercut Clinton and, secondly, Trump, seeking — however unlikely — to get someone installed in the White House considered more suitable to the CIA’s and the FBI’s views of what’s good for the country.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Who Did the Leaking?<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

At the center of this controversy is the question of who leaked or hacked the DNC and Podesta emails. The CIA has planted the story in The Washington Post, The New York Times and other mainstream outlets that it was Russia that hacked both the DNC and Podesta emails and slipped the material to WikiLeaks with the goal of assisting the Trump campaign. The suggestion is that Trump is Putin’s \u00ab\u00a0puppet,\u00a0\u00bb just as Hillary Clinton alleged during the third presidential debate.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

But WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has publicly denied that Russia was the source of the leaks and one of his associates, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, has suggested that the DNC leak came from a \u00ab\u00a0disgruntled\u00a0\u00bb Democrat upset with the DNC’s sandbagging of the Sanders campaign and that the Podesta leak came from the U.S. intelligence community.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Although Assange recently has sought to muzzle Murray’s public comments – out of apparent concern for protecting the identity of sources – Murray offered possibly his most expansive account of the sourcing during a podcast interview<\/a> with Scott Horton on Dec. 13.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Murray, who became a whistleblower himself when he protested Britain’s tolerance of human rights abuses in Uzbekistan, explained that he consults with Assange and cooperates with WikiLeaks \u00ab\u00a0without being a formal member of the structure.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

But he appears to have undertaken a mission for WikiLeaks to contact one of the sources (or a representative) during a Sept. 25 visit to Washington where he says he met with a person in a wooded area of American University. At the time, Murray was at American University participating in an awards ceremony for former CIA officer John Kiriakou who was being honored by a group of former Western intelligence officials, the Sam Adams Associates, named for the late Vietnam War-era CIA analyst and whistleblower Sam Adams.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, a founder of the Sam Adams group, told me that Murray was \u00ab\u00a0m-c-ing\u00a0\u00bb the event but then slipped away, skipping a reception that followed the award ceremony.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Reading Between Lines<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

Though Murray has declined to say exactly what the meeting in the woods was about, he may have been passing along messages about ways to protect the source from possible retaliation, maybe even an extraction plan if the source was in some legal or physical danger.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Murray has disputed a report in London’s Daily Mail that he was receiving a batch of the leaked Democratic emails. \u00ab\u00a0The material, I think, was already safely with WikiLeaks before I got there in September,\u00a0\u00bb Murray said in the interview with Scott Horton. \u00ab\u00a0I had a small role to play.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Murray also suggested that the DNC leak and the Podesta leak came from two different sources, neither of them the Russian government.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0The Podesta emails and the DNC emails are, of course, two separate things and we shouldn’t conclude that they both have the same source,\u00a0\u00bb Murray said. \u00ab\u00a0In both cases we’re talking of a leak, not a hack, in that the person who was responsible for getting that information out had legal access to that information.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Reading between the lines of the interview, one could interpret Murray’s comments as suggesting that the DNC leak came from a Democratic source and that the Podesta leak came from someone inside the U.S. intelligence community, which may have been monitoring John Podesta’s emails because the Podesta Group, which he founded with his brother Tony, served as a registered \u00ab\u00a0foreign agent\u00a0\u00bb for Saudi Arabia.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0John Podesta was a paid lobbyist for the Saudi government,\u00a0\u00bb Murray noted. \u00ab\u00a0If the American security services were not watching the communications of the Saudi government’s paid lobbyist in Washington, then the American security services would not be doing their job. … His communications are going to be of interest to a great number of other security services as well.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Leak by Americans<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

Scott Horton then asked, \u00ab\u00a0Is it fair to say that you’re saying that the Podesta leak came from inside the intelligence services, NSA [the electronic spying National Security Agency] or another agency?\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0I think what I said was certainly compatible with that kind of interpretation, yeah,\u00a0\u00bb Murray responded. \u00ab\u00a0In both cases they are leaks by Americans.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

In reference to the leak of the DNC emails, Murray noted that \u00ab\u00a0Julian Assange took very close interest in the death of Seth Rich, the Democratic staff member\u00a0\u00bb who had worked for the DNC on voter databases and was shot and killed on July 10 near his Washington, D.C., home.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Murray continued, \u00ab\u00a0WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the capture of his killers. So, obviously there are suspicions there about what’s happening and things are somewhat murky. I’m not saying – don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying that he was the source of the [DNC] leaks. What I’m saying is that it’s probably not an unfair indication to draw that WikiLeaks believes that he may have been killed by someone who thought he was the source of the leaks … whether correctly or incorrectly.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Though acknowledging that such killings can become grist for conspiracy buffs, Murray added: \u00ab\u00a0But people do die over this sort of stuff. There were billions of dollars – literally billions of dollars – behind Hillary Clinton’s election campaign and those people have lost their money.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0You have also to remember that there’s a big financial interest – particularly in the armaments industry – in a bad American relationship with Russia and the worse the relationship with Russia is the larger contracts the armaments industry can expect especially in the most high-tech high-profit side of fighter jets and missiles and that kind of thing.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0And Trump has actually already indicated he’s looking to make savings on the defense budget particularly in things like fighter [jet] projects. So, there are people standing to lose billions of dollars and anybody who thinks in that situation bad things don’t happen to people is very na\u00efve.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

An Intelligence Coup?<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

There’s another possibility in play here: that the U.S. intelligence community is felling a number of birds with one stone. If indeed U.S. intelligence bigwigs deemed both Clinton and Trump unfit to serve as President – albeit for different reasons – they could have become involved in leaking at least the Podesta emails to weaken Clinton’s campaign, setting the candidate up for the more severe blow from FBI Director Comey in the last week of the campaign.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Then, by blaming the leaks on Russian President Putin, the U.S. intelligence leadership could set the stage for Trump’s defeat in the Electoral College, opening the door to the elevation of a more traditional Republican. However, even if that unlikely event – defeating Trump in the Electoral College – proves impossible, Trump would at least be weakened as he enters the White House and thus might not be able to move very aggressively toward a d\u00e9tente with Russia.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Further, the Russia-bashing that is all the rage in the mainstream U.S. media will surely encourage the Congress to escalate the New Cold War, regardless of Trump’s desires, and thus ensure plenty more money for both the intelligence agencies and the military contractors.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Official Washington’s \u00ab\u00a0group think\u00a0\u00bb holding Russia responsible for the Clinton leaks does draw some logical support from the near certainty that Russian intelligence has sought to penetrate information sources around both Clinton and Trump. But the gap between the likely Russian hacking efforts and the question of who gave the email information to WikiLeaks is where mainstream assumptions may fall down.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

As ex-Ambassador Murray has said, U.S. intelligence was almost surely keeping tabs on Podesta’s communications because of his ties to Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments. So, the U.S. intelligence community represents another suspect in the case of who leaked those emails to WikiLeaks. It would be a smart play, reminiscent of the convoluted spy tales of John LeCarr\u00e9, if U.S. intelligence officials sought to cover their own tracks by shifting suspicions onto the Russians.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

But just the suspicion of the CIA joining the FBI and possibly other U.S. intelligence agencies to intervene in the American people’s choice of a president would cause President Harry Truman, who launched the CIA with prohibitions against it engaging in domestic activities, and Sen. Frank Church, who investigated the CIA’s abuses, to spin in their graves.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Robert Parry<\/h4><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Quelques chuchotements du Silent Coup Pour commencer, nous ferons deux remarques essentielles. La premi\u00e8re est que ces \u00ab\u00a0quelques chuchotements\u00a0\u00bb du Silent Coup, pourtant venus d’une source tr\u00e8s bien inform\u00e9 et \u00e9chappant \u00e0 l’essentiel des pressions du Syst\u00e8me, ne suffisent absolument pas, – loin et tant s’en faut, – \u00e0 \u00e9clairer compl\u00e8tement et d’une fa\u00e7on satisfaisante… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[3104,934,4840,4750,12591,6528,6379,2838,12602,7654,4464,9275,4607,3134,2730,2639,12538],"class_list":["post-76981","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ouverture-libre","tag-cia","tag-clinton","tag-college","tag-craig","tag-dnc","tag-electoral","tag-exterieure","tag-fbi","tag-leaked","tag-murray","tag-parry","tag-podesta","tag-politique","tag-robert","tag-russie","tag-trump","tag-usa-2016"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76981","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=76981"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76981\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76981"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76981"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76981"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}