Nul ne pourra dire que nous n’ayons jamais manqu\u00e9 au devoir du \u00e0 Robert Parry, \u00e0 chaque fois que nous l’avons cit\u00e9, c’est-\u00e0-dire de mettre en \u00e9vidence ses qualit\u00e9s \u00e0 la fois professionnelles d’enqu\u00eateur et de commentateur, \u00e0 la fois \u00e9tiques d’homme ind\u00e9pendant que nous classerions volont\u00e9 dans le front antiSyst\u00e8me. Nous sommes par cons\u00e9quent beaucoup plus \u00e0 l’aise pour mettre en \u00e9vidence une occurrence où ce m\u00eame Parry paraît c\u00e9der, malgr\u00e9 ses r\u00e9ticences, \u00e0 l’influenede l’\u00e9trange fureur de haine anti-Trump qui caract\u00e9rise le climat et son \u00ab\u00a0bruit de fond\u00a0\u00bb \u00e0 Washington (et \u00e9videmment dans les capitales restantes du bloc-BAO où le suivisme par alignement est la politesse des copains et des coquins).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Le texte ci-dessous est caract\u00e9ristique de ce malaise qui touche les antiSyst\u00e8me qui gardent d’une fa\u00e7on trop contraignantes quelques-unes de leurs tendances politiques initiales, d\u00e9mocrates et un peu progressistes, et surtout antir\u00e9publicains et anti-conservateurs. (A c\u00f4t\u00e9 d’un Parry, on citerait un Tom Engelhardt ou un Glenn Greenwald, se trouvant dans le m\u00eame cas avec Trump.) Tous ces commentateurs ont r\u00e9guli\u00e8rement et sans rel\u00e2che, depuis le d\u00e9but des ann\u00e9es 2000 (et avant pour certains mais c’est pour \u00e9tablir une r\u00e9f\u00e9rence) combattu l’absurde politiqueSyst\u00e8me de Washington, les pressions des neocons<\/em>, les entreprises bellicistes sans autre but que la d\u00e9structuration, l’emploi de moyens ill\u00e9gaux, etc. Chaque fois, ces attaques avaient naturellement pour objectif le Syst\u00e8me<\/strong> puisque les directions responsables de ces exc\u00e8s \u00e9pouvantables \u00e9taient naturellement des directions-Syst\u00e8me. Aujourd’hui, ils sont plac\u00e9s devant un dilemme <\/strong>: la direction en place, avec Trump, quelque identit\u00e9 qu’on lui donne, est syst\u00e9matiquement l’objet d’attaques qui viennent sans le moindre doute du Syst\u00e8me, et par cons\u00e9quent cette identit\u00e9 douteuse est compl\u00e8tement d\u00e9pass\u00e9e par le fait que les actes et les \u00e9v\u00e9nements lui donnent par enchaînement de n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 une fonction antiSyst\u00e8me ; sous la pression consid\u00e9rable et dans la puissance catastrophique de la crise, cette fonction se fait ontologie, et Trump est effectivement antiSyst\u00e8me<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Nos \u00ab\u00a0excellents-commentateurs\u00a0\u00bb (Parry & Cie) peuvent naturellement et fort justement avancer, \u00e9ventuellement avec d\u00e9goût, les absurdit\u00e9s de type-capitaliste \u00e9ventuellement postmoderne ou tout simplement informes qu’on trouve chez Trump, que ce soit sur l’environnement, sur l’exploitation industrielle, y compris son goût du spectacle moderniste et sa folie de l’architecture verticale qui reste un signe du d\u00e9chaînement de la Mati\u00e8re, etc. ; n\u00e9anmoins, ils ratent compl\u00e8tement le ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne qu’on a d\u00e9crit plus haut. Le probl\u00e8me est que cette cat\u00e9gorie de commentateurs antiSyst\u00e8me (Parry & Cie) ne parvient pas \u00e0 admettre que la bataille se fait, du c\u00f4t\u00e9 antiSyst\u00e8me, par le moyen d'\u00a0\u00bboutils\u00a0\u00bb-sapiens<\/em> dont l’utilit\u00e9 et l’efficacit\u00e9 ne se peuvent appr\u00e9cier qu’en fonction de leurs capacit\u00e9s destructrices de tout ce qui est li\u00e9 de pr\u00e8s ou de loin au Syst\u00e8me<\/strong>, quels que soient leurs travers, leurs d\u00e9fauts, leurs vices personnels. Nous ne sommes d\u00e9cid\u00e9ment pas dans un concours individuel<\/strong> de reines de vertus \u00e0 mesurer dans l’instant mais dans une Lutte Finale collective<\/strong> dont l’enjeu est la structure m\u00eame du monde, sinon de l’univers.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Le texte ci-dessous de Robert Parry concerne le \u00ab\u00a0Watergate-2.0<\/a><\/em>\u00a0\u00bb qu’a lanc\u00e9 Trump samedi avec ses tweets accusant Obama ou son administration de l’avoir mis sur \u00e9coutes. Parry se d\u00e9sole parce que selon lui, le pr\u00e9sident lance des accusations sans preuves, ou du moins lui semble-t-il, « laissant l’impression qu’il a glan\u00e9 cette information \u00e0 partir d’un article de Breitbart News reprenant les affirmations d’un animateur de radio conservateur<\/em> [Mark Levin]… » (A-t-il envisag\u00e9, Parry, ce qui n’est tout de m\u00eame pas insens\u00e9 dans ces temps absolument insens\u00e9s où nul ne sait plus où se trouve l’autorit\u00e9 et où l’on peut encore imaginer sans doute qu’un pr\u00e9sident puisse avoir ses propres canaux d’information vers l’une ou l’autre agence de renseignement, que Trump dispose lui aussi de \u00ab\u00a0fuites\u00a0\u00bb, ou de renseignements secrets \u00ab\u00a0officiels\u00a0\u00bb, etc. ?) Parry met ainsi en cause Trump dans une action entreprise il y a trois jours<\/strong>, \u00e0 peu pr\u00e8s sur le m\u00eame pied, avec la m\u00eame impudene et la m\u00eame responsabilit\u00e9 que le Syst\u00e8me (les d\u00e9mocrates, Obama, l’Intelligence Community <\/em>[IC] dans certains de ses \u00e9l\u00e9ments les plus activistes, bref une tranche non n\u00e9gligeable du Deep State<\/em>) agissant comme il le fait depuis plusieurs mois<\/strong> \u00e0 propos d’un \u00ab\u00a0complot russe\u00a0\u00bb où il (le Syst\u00e8me) implique hyst\u00e9riquement Trump. Cela conduit Parry \u00e0 sugg\u00e9rer une condamnation globale de Washington (le titre le dit : \u00ab\u00a0Official Washington Tips into Madness<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0, c’est-\u00e0-dire le Tout-Washington, Trump et ses adversaires dans le m\u00eame sac).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Parry rappelle un exemple remontant \u00e0 1992-1993 (lors des pr\u00e9sidentielles aboutissant \u00e0 l’\u00e9lection de Clinton, et la suite) : Clinton avait \u00e9t\u00e9 l’objet d’une campagne de d\u00e9nigrement de la part de ses adversaires r\u00e9publicains, mais il avait r\u00e9agi avec mesure, se contentant de qualifier les autres de \u00ab\u00a0McCarthystes\u00a0\u00bb et laissant ces attaques se perdre dans leurs propres incoh\u00e9rences et leur propre ind\u00e9cence (et le tr\u00e8s-peu d’\u00e9cho de communication qu’elles recueillirent, nous en fûmes t\u00e9moins). Au contraire de Trump, \u00e9crit Parry, Clinton<\/p>\n<\/p>\n « semblait capable de \u00ab\u00a0compartimentaliser\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> [ses jugements et ses actes] entre le gouvernement que doit assurer un pr\u00e9sident, et la pol\u00e9mique avec les r\u00e9publicains \u00e0 propos de leurs accusations continuelles<\/em> ».<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Au contraire, selon Parry, Trump s’est laiss\u00e9 entraîner dans cette folie d’accusations sans preuve… Et de citer un \u00e9ditorial du Wall Street Journal<\/em> qui pontifie, dans un \u00e9ditorial :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n « Ce dont ce pays a d\u00e9sesp\u00e9r\u00e9ment besoin, c’est d’une intervention de responsables adultes, qui mettent \u00e0 jour les faits et les pr\u00e9sentent au peuple am\u00e9ricain<\/em> ». Parry dit ses doutes \u00e0 cet \u00e9gard : « Le probl\u00e8me avec l’id\u00e9e du WSJ, c’est qu’il sera difficile, sinon impossible de trouver les \u00ab\u00a0adultes\u00a0\u00bb esp\u00e9r\u00e9s dans le Tout-Washington officiel<\/em>… » (De la part du WSJ, qui n’a cess\u00e9, comme les autres de la presseSyst\u00e8me, de dauber sur les liens de Trump avec les Russes, c’est un peu dur \u00e0 avaler.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Parry n’a certes pas compl\u00e8tement tort, tant s’en faut, dans le constat imm\u00e9diat et factuel qu’il fait, sauf qu’il laisse de c\u00f4t\u00e9 les causes premi\u00e8res et les buts r\u00e9els de certains des protagonistes. Il met, en valeur absolue et en valeur strat\u00e9gique, sur le m\u00eame pied l’action de Trump samedi dernier d’une part<\/strong>, l’offensive de l’hyst\u00e9rie antirussiste et anti-Trump d’autre part, qui s’est d\u00e9ploy\u00e9e dans la campagne pr\u00e9sidentielle depuis 7-8 mois, offensive venue elle-m\u00eame d’une hyst\u00e9rie antirussiste, constitu\u00e9e d’accusations hyst\u00e9riques dont lui-m\u00eame (Parry) a d\u00e9montr\u00e9 la fausset\u00e9 \u00e9vidente depuis le d\u00e9but de 2014<\/strong>. Ainsi argumente-t-il, par ailleurs sans la moindre certitude que la d\u00e9marche de Trump vieille de trois jours soit sans preuves alors que les accusations contre le \u00ab\u00a0complot russe\u00a0\u00bb ne sont toujours \u00e9tay\u00e9es par aucune preuve depuis 7-8 mois d’intenses investigations, alors que le gouvernement et nombre des agences de l’IC \u00e9taient hostiles \u00e0 Trump et tenaient absolument \u00e0 d\u00e9couvrir des preuves, jusqu’\u00e0 en fabriquer l’une ou l’autre, \u00e0 l’une ou l’autre reprise sans lendemain. Il compare un pr\u00e9sident (Clinton) effectivement attaqu\u00e9 par les r\u00e9publicains mais qui avait une partie importante de la presse de son c\u00f4t\u00e9, y compris toute la coterie lib\u00e9rale-progressiste de la C\u00f4t\u00e9 Est et de la Californie. Enfin et surtout, il fait une simple question de forme juridique (il ne faut pas accuser sans preuves) de ce qui est \u00e9videmment une bataille pour le pouvoir, où le Syst\u00e8me se d\u00e9chaîne contre un intrus identifi\u00e9 comme assez peu manipulable et r\u00e9tif aux consignes<\/strong>. Enfin, ce qui s’est pass\u00e9 depuis l’\u00e9lection, c’est-\u00e0-dire une non-transition avec une acc\u00e9l\u00e9ration de l’antagonisme et une contestation ouvertes proche de la guerre civile de l’\u00e9lu du 8 novembre, n’a strictement aucun pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent dans de telles conditions, et ne souffre aucune comparaison avec ce qui a pr\u00e9c\u00e9d\u00e9, avec la responsabilit\u00e9 d’un seul c\u00f4t\u00e9, nettement identifi\u00e9e et indiscutable.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Parry ne semble pas prendre en compte le fait que Trump est l’objet d’attaques innombrables, avec peu de moyens d’influence \u00e0 sa disposition depuis plusieurs mois ; et le fait que, depuis son accession au pouvoir, une multitude d’actions de sabotage ont \u00e9t\u00e9 men\u00e9es contre lui, \u00e0 partir des bureaucraties, des agences, des minist\u00e8res qui sont cens\u00e9s faire partie de son gouvernement, tout cela organisant une paralysie du gouvernement et une menace directe contre Trump<\/strong>. Parry, qui juge si clairement et selon les responsabilit\u00e9s engag\u00e9es quand il s’agit de Nixon, de Reagan, des deux Bush, voire d’Obama dont il d\u00e9nonce les actions d’assassinat par drone et autres exc\u00e8s, voire de la folie antirussiste qui s’est empar\u00e9 du Syst\u00e8me depuis la crise ukrainienne autant que des manipulations durant la crise syrienne, semble en grande difficult\u00e9 pour \u00e9tablir une hi\u00e9rarchie des responsabilit\u00e9s, des dangers et des projets dans le sens de la subversion d\u00e9structurante dans le cas Trump-versus<\/em>-le-Syst\u00e8me. Il ne semble pas parvenir \u00e0 prendre en compte ce fait que Trump se trouve sur le fil du rasoir et proche d’\u00eatre victime d’un coup de force, et que le moins qu’il puisse faire, et que ses partisans r\u00e9clament de lui, est de riposter avec les faibles armes dont il dispose<\/strong>… Alors, les preuves, hein, camarade ! (\u00ab\u00a0Frappe ta femme, si tu ne sais pas pourquoi, elle, elle le sait\u00a0\u00bb, abominable lieu commun des abominables r\u00e9trogrades mais c’est bien l’id\u00e9e.) … Le cas emportant Parry dans cette d\u00e9monstration sophistique est bien qu’il s’agit de Trump, et que la personnalit\u00e9 de Trump et de tout ce qui va avec lui semblent anesth\u00e9sier la capacit\u00e9 critique et combative, et la lucidit\u00e9, de nombre de commentateurs de ce segment du front antiSyst\u00e8me<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n C’est par exemple ce qu’exprime Justin Raimondo lorsqu’il observe \u00e0 propos de Glenn Greenwald dans l’affaire du secr\u00e9taire \u00e0 la Justice de l’administration Trump Jeff Sessions :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n « Even Glenn Greenwald<\/a>, who has written eloquently about the dangers of the current anti-Russian hysteria, called on Sessions to recuse himself and support the appointment of a special prosecutor. But why is that? After all, plenty of media outlets have accused Greenwald of being a \u00ab\u00a0Kremlin tool.\u00a0\u00bb Does that mean we should investigate the charge, and perhaps even haul him up before a revived House Committee on Un-American Activities, where he will be subjected to a merciless grilling about his alleged \u00ab\u00a0Russian ties\u00a0\u00bb? Yet Greenwald, and those few on the left who have so far resisted the anti-Russian tide, couldn’t bring themselves to defend Sessions against this kind of attack. To do so would alienate them from their liberal followers: they just can’t afford to be so isolated. Yet they are making a colossal mistake, one they’ll come to regret in due course<\/em>. »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n … Tant il est vrai qu’il n’y a pas de plus grand danger, pour un antiSyst\u00e8me, que de conserver ses croyances id\u00e9ologiques<\/strong> m\u00eame les plus \u00e9videntes et les plus vertueuses, que d’\u00eatre ainsi fascin\u00e9 par le Syst\u00e8me<\/strong> par le canal de cette faiblesse, que de succomber \u00e0 ses slogans<\/strong> venues de cette m\u00eame id\u00e9ologie manipul\u00e9e par lui, comme un Ulysse imprudent et incons\u00e9quent, qui c\u00e9derait au chant des sir\u00e8nes parce qu’il n’aurait pas pris la pr\u00e9caution de se faire attacher au mat par ses marins… Le texte de Parry est bien sûr sur ConsortiumNews<\/em>, le 7 mars 2017<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n ________________________<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The intensifying hysteria over Russia has pushed Official Washington over the edge into outright madness. On one side of this asylum, you have the Democrats, neoconservatives and mainstream media, while on the other, you have the embattled Trump administration. Both sides have been making grave allegations with little or no evidence to support them.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The Democratic\/neocon\/MSM side has pushed the conspiracy theory that Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russians to put the real-estate mogul in the White House, but there is, as yet, no evidence that such a thing happened.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Even one of the top advocates feeding this Russia frenzy, New York Times correspondent Thomas L. Friedman, acknowledged on Sunday on NBC’s \u00ab\u00a0Meet the Press\u00a0\u00bb<\/a> that \u00ab\u00a0I agree, there is no evidence,\u00a0\u00bb but then added: \u00ab\u00a0which is why we need a special prosecutor or an independent commission to get to the bottom of it.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n But that is not how investigations are supposed to work. You’re supposed to have evidence of wrongdoing and then examine it in the investigative phase to see if the evidence withstands scrutiny. What Friedman is suggesting is more like a \u00ab\u00a0fishing expedition\u00a0\u00bb or a \u00ab\u00a0witch hunt.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The drip-drip of this investigative water torture finally got to President Trump last week as he flew down to his winter home at Mar-a-Lago. He joined the crazy melee early Saturday morning by sending out a flurry of tweets accusing President Obama of wiretapping Trump Tower in New York City in the weeks before the Nov. 8 election. Trump also offered no evidence while demanding an investigation to get to the bottom of this.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n By contrast, in all the major investigations that I have handled as an investigative reporter, such as Oliver North’s secret White House paramilitary operation; the related Nicaraguan Contra drug trafficking scandal<\/a>; Richard Nixon interference<\/a> with President Lyndon Johnson’s Vietnam peace talks in 1968; and Ronald Reagan’s campaign sabotage<\/a> of President Jimmy Carter’s Iranian-hostage negotiations in 1980 – there was substantial evidence from eyewitnesses and documents supporting the suspicions before the story was published<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n At no point would I have argued that just because Oliver North met a Contra leader that it was time to investigate whether he and his Reagan administration superiors were breaking the law. I first found multiple insiders, including people in the U.S. government and the Contra movement, describing how North was running his back-channel war. In some of these investigative situations, we had two dozen or so sources describing detailed aspects of these operations before we made any allegations in print<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Now the argument is that because some people suspect something, even without evidence, major investigations are warranted. That is usually what a conspiracy theory sounds like. Someone claims not to understand how something could have happened a certain way and thus a full-scale inquiry is needed into some highly unlikely and speculative scenario.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n In the case of the Russia investigation, the opening salvos came from President Obama’s intelligence agencies, which alleged that Russia had \u00ab\u00a0hacked\u00a0\u00bb Democratic emails and slipped the contents to WikiLeaks, but the agencies offered nothing in the way of U.S. government evidence to support that supposition.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The two reports that were issued were heavy on the word \u00ab\u00a0assesses\u00a0\u00bb – which in intelligence jargon usually means \u00ab\u00a0guesses\u00a0\u00bb – but short on anything that could be checked out<\/a> or verified.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The Jan. 6 report, issued by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, admitted as much, saying, \u00ab\u00a0Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Meanwhile, WikiLeaks representatives denied getting the two batches<\/a> of Democratic emails from Russia, suggesting that two different American insiders had leaked the material.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Yet, despite this dubious send-off, the \u00ab\u00a0scandal\u00a0\u00bb careened into the area of \u00ab\u00a0secondary\u00a0\u00bb offenses, such as the conversation between Trump’s National Security Adviser-designate Michael Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak which was intercepted by the National Security Agency on Dec. 29, 2016.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Rather than redact Flynn’s name as \u00ab\u00a0minimization\u00a0\u00bb procedures usually require for an American citizen who is inadvertently picked up on an intelligence wiretap, the transcript was given to the FBI which then tested Flynn’s memory of the conversation and found it wanting.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The Flynn case should be of particular concern to civil libertarians because it shows how NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden’s warning of a \u00ab\u00a0turnkey tyranny\u00a0\u00bb could work, with the Surveillance State monitoring phone calls and then finding flimsy legal excuses to justify an FBI probe – in Flynn’s case the never-tested-in-court 1799 Logan Act was used – and then manufacturing the crime of lying to the FBI if a person’s memory doesn’t match with the NSA transcript.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n For Flynn, who was on vacation in the Dominican Republic when Kislyak called and thus didn’t have his usual support network with him, the immediate penalty for lacking total recall of the conversation was to lose his job. But there is still pressure for him to be prosecuted.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Similar demands have come from Democrats who want Attorney General Jeff Sessions to resign and face prosecution for perjury over his clumsy answer to a question about the Trump campaign’s possible collusion with Russia to which Sessions claimed he had not met with Russians (although it turned out he had two conversations with Kislyak, one a group meeting with several ambassadors at the Republican National Convention and the other in his Capitol Hill office with aides present.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Again, there is no evidence that Sessions conspired with Kislyak on any plans to have the Russians undercut Hillary Clinton’s campaign, an unlikely possibility in either of the two settings. But Sessions is under fire for lying about the seemingly innocuous meetings – and there are demands that the Sessions-Kislyak contacts be investigated, too. In this Russia case, the absence of evidence appears not to be evidence for the absence of a special prosecutor.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n On \u00ab\u00a0Meet the Press\u00a0\u00bb<\/a> on Sunday, President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper also said he was unaware of evidence that the Trump campaign had colluded with the Russians.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Moderator Chuck Todd asked, \u00ab\u00a0Does intelligence exist that can definitively answer the following question, whether there were improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials?\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Clapper: \u00ab\u00a0We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, ‘our,’ that’s N.S.A., F.B.I. and C.I.A., with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Todd: \u00ab\u00a0I understand that. But does it exist?\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Clapper: \u00ab\u00a0Not to my knowledge. … at the time [of the report in early January], we had no evidence of such collusion.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n In many ways, what is happening now to Trump reminds me of the situation in 1992-93 at the start of Bill Clinton’s presidency when Republicans were furious that they had lost the White House after 12 years of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. They considered Clinton an unworthy interloper and sought to cripple his presidency from the outset by pursuing one investigation after another.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n During the campaign, President Bush and his team even suggested<\/a> that the Arkansas governor may have been a KGB mole because of a student trip to Moscow in 1970. The idea was to portray the trip to the Soviet Union as prima facie evidence of Clinton’s disloyalty even though there was no evidence of any wrongdoing by Clinton.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Back then, Bill Clinton countered that smear by accusing the elder President Bush of stooping to the tactics of Sen. Joe McCarthy, the infamous Red-baiter from the 1950s. But today’s Democrats apparently feel little shame in whipping up an anti-Russian hysteria and then using it to discredit Trump, who – like Bill Clinton in 1992 – is being forced to fend off vague accusations that he is some kind of Manchurian candidate.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n However, unlike Bill Clinton who seemed able to \u00ab\u00a0compartmentalize\u00a0\u00bb between governing as president and sparring with Republicans over their unending accusations, Trump lashed out in a flurry of Twitter messages accusing President Obama of wiretapping phones at Trump Tower.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory,\u00a0\u00bb Trump said<\/a>. \u00ab\u00a0Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!\u00a0\u00bb Trump added<\/a>: \u00ab\u00a0This is Nixon\/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n In making this extraordinary charge against his predecessor, Trump offered no evidence to back it up, leaving the impression that he may have gleaned this information from the right-wing Breitbart News web site which published an article summarizing claims by conservative radio talk show hosts. Trump and White House officials then called for an investigation into Obama’s alleged wiretapping.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Obama’s spokesman Kevin Lewis responded with a statement of dubious veracity, saying: \u00ab\u00a0neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.\u00a0\u00bb However, Obama did more than surveil at least one U.S. citizen; he had an American Al Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki not just put under surveillance but killed by a drone attack in 2011 in Yemen.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Reacting to all these crazy exchanges, a Wall Street Journal editorial even managed to make some sense. Entitled \u00ab\u00a0Washington Goes Nuts,\u00a0\u00bb the editorial said:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u00ab\u00a0What the country desperately needs are some grown-ups to intervene, discover the facts, and then lay them out to the American people,\u00a0\u00bb both regarding any untoward contacts between Russian officials and Trump’s advisers and whether the Obama administration crossed any lines in its zeal to nail Trump’s team over Russia.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The Journal’s editors expressed hopes the congressional intelligence committees could step up and perform this function. But the problem with the Journal’s idea is that it will be hard, if not impossible, to find the requisite \u00ab\u00a0adults\u00a0\u00bb in Official Washington where traditional standards of evidence and fair play have long since disappeared.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Être antiSyst\u00e8me ou ne pas \u00eatre ? Nul ne pourra dire que nous n’ayons jamais manqu\u00e9 au devoir du \u00e0 Robert Parry, \u00e0 chaque fois que nous l’avons cit\u00e9, c’est-\u00e0-dire de mettre en \u00e9vidence ses qualit\u00e9s \u00e0 la fois professionnelles d’enqu\u00eateur et de commentateur, \u00e0 la fois \u00e9tiques d’homme ind\u00e9pendant que nous classerions volont\u00e9 dans… <\/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":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[12611,934,6944,5905,4464,6427,7618,2730,2639,12852],"class_list":["post-77133","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ouverture-libre","tag-antirussisme","tag-clinton","tag-greenwald","tag-liberaux","tag-parry","tag-preuves","tag-progressistes","tag-russie","tag-trump","tag-watergate-2-0"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77133","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=77133"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77133\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=77133"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=77133"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=77133"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
\n
dedefensa.org<\/em><\/h4>\n<\/p>\n
Official Washington Tips into Madness<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
Opening Salvos<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n
Bill Clinton Echoes<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n
Robert Parry<\/h4><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"