Tag: Deep State

Tin foil and conspiracies

in April 1967, the CIA wrote a dispatch which coined the term “conspiracy theories” … and recommended methods for discrediting such theories. The dispatch was marked “psych” – short for “psychological operations” or disinformation – and “CS” for the CIA’s “Clandestine Services” unit.

Conspiracy Theorists USED TO Be Accepted As Normal

Democracy, the American Republic and free market capitalism were founded on conspiracy theories.

The Magna Carta, the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and other  founding Western documents were based on conspiracy theories. Greek democracy and free market capitalism were also based on conspiracy theories.

But those were the bad old days …Things have now changed.

The CIA Coined the Term Conspiracy Theorist In 1967

That all changed in the 1960s.

Specifically, in April 1967, the CIA wrote a dispatch which coined the term “conspiracy theories” … and recommended methods for discrediting such theories.  The dispatch was marked “psych” –  short for “psychological operations” or disinformation –  and “CS” for the CIA’s “Clandestine Services” unit.

The dispatch was produced in responses to a Freedom of Information Act request by the New York Times in 1976.

The dispatch states:

2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization.

***

The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.

3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the [conspiracy] question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:

a. To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors) , pointing out that the [official investigation of the relevant event] made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by …  propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.

***

4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:

a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider.

***

b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent–and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) …

***

c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc.

***

d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other.

***

f. As to charges that the Commission’s report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.

g. Such vague accusations as that “more than ten people have died mysteriously” can always be explained in some natural way ….

5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission’s Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.

Here are screenshots of part of the memo:

Summarizing the tactics which the CIA dispatch recommended:

  • Claim that it would be impossible for so many people would keep quiet about such a big conspiracy
  • Have people friendly to the CIA attack the claims, and point back to “official” reports
  • Claim that eyewitness testimony is unreliable
  • Claim that this is all old news, as “no significant new evidence has emerged”
  • Ignore conspiracy claims unless discussion about them is already too active
  • Claim that it’s irresponsible to speculate
  • Accuse theorists of being wedded to and infatuated with their theories
  • Accuse theorists of being politically motivated
  • Accuse theorists of having financial interests in promoting conspiracy theories

In other words, the CIA’s clandestine services unit created the arguments for attacking conspiracy theories as unreliable in the 1960s as part of its psychological warfare operations.

But Aren’t Conspiracy Theories – In Fact – Nuts?

Forget Western history and CIA dispatches … aren’t conspiracy theorists nutty?

In fact, conspiracies are so common that judges are trained to look at conspiracy allegations as just another legal claim to be disproven or proven based on the specific evidence:

Federal and all 50 state’s codes include specific statutes addressing conspiracy, and providing the punishment for people who commit conspiracies.

But let’s examine what the people trained to weigh evidence and reach conclusions think about “conspiracies”. Let’s look at what American judges think.

Searching Westlaw, one of the 2 primary legal research networks which attorneys and judges use to research the law, I searched for court decisions including the word “Conspiracy”. This is such a common term in lawsuits that it overwhelmed Westlaw.

Specifically, I got the following message:

“Your query has been intercepted because it may retrieve a large number of documents.”

From experience, I know that this means that there were potentially millions or many hundreds of thousands of cases which use the term. There were so many cases, that Westlaw could not even start processing the request.

So I searched again, using the phrase “Guilty of Conspiracy”. I hoped that this would not only narrow my search sufficiently that Westlaw could handle it, but would give me cases where the judge actually found the defendant guilty of a conspiracy. This pulled up exactly 10,000 cases — which is the maximum number of results which Westlaw can give at one time. In other words, there were more than 10,000 cases using the phrase “Guilty of Conspiracy” (maybe there’s a way to change my settings to get more than 10,000 results, but I haven’t found it yet).

Moreover, as any attorney can confirm, usually only appeal court decisions are published in the Westlaw database. In other words, trial court decisions are rarely published; the only decisions normally published are those of the courts which hear appeals of the trial. Because only a very small fraction of the cases which go to trial are appealed, this logically means that the number of guilty verdicts in conspiracy cases at trial must be much, much larger than 10,000.

Moreover, “Guilty of Conspiracy” is only one of many possible search phrases to use to find cases where the defendant was found guilty of a lawsuit for conspiracy. Searching on Google, I got 3,170,000 results (as of yesterday) under the term “Guilty of Conspiracy”, 669,000 results for the search term “Convictions for Conspiracy”, and 743,000 results for “Convicted for Conspiracy”.

Of course, many types of conspiracies are called other things altogether. For example, a long-accepted legal doctrine makes it illegal for two or more companies to conspire to fix prices, which is called “Price Fixing” (1,180,000 results).

Given the above, I would extrapolate that there have been hundreds of thousands of convictions for criminal or civil conspiracy in the United States.

Finally, many crimes go unreported or unsolved, and the perpetrators are never caught. Therefore, the actual number of conspiracies committed in the U.S. must be even higher.

In other words, conspiracies are committed all the time in the U.S., and many of the conspirators are caught and found guilty by American courts. Remember, Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme was a conspiracy theory.

Indeed, conspiracy is a very well-recognized crime in American law, taught to every first-year law school student as part of their basic curriculum. Telling a judge that someone has a “conspiracy theory” would be like telling him that someone is claiming that he trespassed on their property, or committed assault, or stole his car. It is a fundamental legal concept.

Obviously, many conspiracy allegations are false (if you see a judge at a dinner party, ask him to tell you some of the crazy conspiracy allegations which were made in his court). Obviously, people will either win or lose in court depending on whether or not they can prove their claim with the available evidence. But not all allegations of trespass, assault, or theft are true, either.

Proving a claim of conspiracy is no different from proving any other legal claim, and the mere label “conspiracy” is taken no less seriously by judges.

It’s not only Madoff. The heads of Enron were found guilty of conspiracy, as was the head of Adelphia. Numerous lower-level government officials have been found guilty of conspiracy.

Most good investigative reporters are conspiracy theorists, by the way.

And what about the NSA and the tech companies that have cooperated with them?

But Our Leaders Wouldn’t Do That

While people might admit that corporate executives and low-level government officials might have engaged in conspiracies – they may be strongly opposed to considering that the wealthiest or most powerful might possibly have done so.

But powerful insiders have long admitted to conspiracies. For example, Obama’s Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein, wrote:

Of course some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true. The Watergate hotel room used by Democratic National Committee was, in fact, bugged by Republican officials, operating at the behest of the White House. In the 1950s, the Central Intelligence Agency did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an effort to investigate the possibility of “mind control.” Operation Northwoods, a rumored plan by the Department of Defense to simulate acts of terrorism and to blame them on Cuba, really was proposed by high-level officials ….

But Someone Would Have Spilled the Beans

A common defense to people trying sidetrack investigations into potential conspiracies is to say that “someone would have spilled the beans” if there were really a conspiracy.

But famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg explains:

It is a commonplace that “you can’t keep secrets in Washington” or “in a democracy, no matter how sensitive the secret, you’re likely to read it the next day in the New York Times.” These truisms are flatly false. They are in fact cover stories, ways of flattering and misleading journalists and their readers, part of the process of keeping secrets well. Of course eventually many secrets do get out that wouldn’t in a fully totalitarian society. But the fact is that the overwhelming majority of secrets do not leak to the American public. This is true even when the information withheld is well known to an enemy and when it is clearly essential to the functioning of the congressional war power and to any democratic control of foreign policy. The reality unknown to the public and to most members of Congress and the press is that secrets that would be of the greatest import to many of them can be kept from them reliably for decades by the executive branch, even though they are known to thousands of insiders.

History proves Ellsberg right. For example:

  • One hundred and thirty thousand (130,000) people from the U.S., UK and Canada worked on the Manhattan Project. But it was kept secret for years
  • A BBC documentary shows that:

There was “a planned coup in the USA in 1933 by a group of right-wing American businessmen . . . . The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression”

Moreover, “the tycoons told General Butler the American people would accept the new government because they controlled all the newspapers.” Have you ever heard of this conspiracy before? It was certainly a very large one. And if the conspirators controlled the newspapers then, how much worse is it today with media consolidation?

  • 7 out of the 8 giant, money center banks went bankrupt in the 1980′s during the “Latin American Crisis”, and the government’s response was to cover up their insolvency. That’s a cover up lasting several decades
  • Banks have been involved in systematic criminal behavior, and have manipulated every single market
  • Governments have been covering up nuclear meltdowns for fifty years to protect the nuclear industry. Governments have colluded to cover up the severity of numerous other environmental accidents. For many years, Texas officials intentionally under-reported the amount of radiation in drinking water to avoid having to report violations
  • The government’s spying on Americans began before 9/11 But the public didn’t learn about it until many years later. Indeed, the the New York Times delayed the story so that it would not affect the outcome of the 2004 presidential election
  • The decision to launch the Iraq war was made before 9/11. Indeed, former CIA director George Tenet said that the White House wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and inserted “crap” in its justifications for invading Iraq. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill – who sat on the National Security Council – also says that Bush planned the Iraq war before 9/11. And top British officials say that the U.S. discussed Iraq regime change one month after Bush took office. Dick Cheney apparently even made Iraqi’s oil fields a national security priority before 9/11. And it has now been shown that a handful of people were responsible for willfully ignoring the evidence that Iraq lacked weapons of mass destruction. These facts have only been publicly disclosed recently. Indeed, Tom Brokaw said, “All wars are based on propaganda.” A concerted effort to produce propaganda is a conspiracy

The times that try men’s souls

Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.

The Senate opened only the third presidential impeachment trial in history, swearing in the chief justice of the United States, John G. Roberts Jr., as the presiding officer as senators took an oath to render “impartial justice.” Senators then signed a book signifying that they had taken the vow.

The Senate issued a formal summons for President Trump, informing him of the charges and inviting him to respond by Saturday evening. Senators set a series of deadlines for Mr. Trump’s team and the House managers, and adjourned the trial for a long weekend. Behind closed doors, Senator Mitch McConnell and his aides were working to finish a resolution that would establish the contours of the first phase of the trial.

Representative Adam B. Schiff, the lead House impeachment manager, read the articles of impeachment against Mr. Trump aloud in the Senate chamber, laying out the case against him.

So, after four plus years of political wrangling and infighting, will it get more real and down to Real Facts? It hasn’t so far and the chances are it is not likely to be much more that political Kabuki theater for the balance of the time it proceeds.

I am more inclined to see it as an attempt to put lipstick on a pig and try to justify the Deep State desire to successfully complete a soft coup.

To quote a patriot from 253 years ago;

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.

Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.”

-Thomas Paine: American Crisis

Who is that lady?

While Roberts is tasked with overseeing the proceedings from the Senate’s most prominent chair, it will be MacDonough hovering, omnipresent but essentially unseen, in the corner of the frame, offering guidance the entire time.

With the trail phase of the impeachment of President Trump about to begin there is a prominent, if currently unknown player about to take center stage. Her name is Elizabeth MacDonough and she is the Parliamentarian of the US Senate.

She and her aides have to advise Chief Justice John Roberts on how to run that trial and address a slew of arcane procedural questions that few — if any — had ever been asked. Their answers will influence how the historic event unfolds.

While Roberts is tasked with overseeing the proceedings from the Senate’s most prominent chair, it will be MacDonough hovering, omnipresent but essentially unseen, in the corner of the frame, offering guidance the entire time.

She and her team will be tasked with delivering to Roberts the daily program that he’ll use to guide the proceedings.

She will also be the one helping Roberts keep track of the clock as he calls on the people with assigned speaking roles — Trump’s White House and personal attorneys, Senate leaders and the House impeachment managers who will present the case for the Democrats.

Perhaps most importantly, though, MacDonough will be the one who must give the chief justice instant advice should he need to make any snap rulings or decisions that could influence the trajectory of the trial.

A powerful position filled by a career government employee.

History repeats-Modern elites and and Roman emporers

…a dark, reclusive man, but liked to have sex with anyone, male or female, old or young, even abusing newborn babies.

Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus, simply called Tiberius, was the Roman emperor during Jesus’ teenage years, and for several more years after His crucifixion (14-37 A.D.). He was not the biological son of the previous emperor Augustus (Octavian). He was the son of Augustus’ wife Livia, by her first husband, Tiberius Claudius Nero. Livia divorced Nero and married Octavian. Pliny the Elder called Tiberius “the gloomiest of men” and despite military victories as a young general, he seemed reluctant to rule.

He eventually did become Caesar (Augustus had no choice when both of his true sons died) and what we know of his 23-year rule comes primarily from a man named Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus. According to his historical work, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Tiberius was a dark, reclusive man, but liked to have sex with anyone, male or female, old or young, even abusing newborn babies. He swam naked with children who were trained to nibble at him like minnows, and after tiring of them, would have them thrown over a cliff.

According to Josephus, he “made death the penalty for the slightest offenses” and people would be killed for even speaking ill of him. One story from Suetonius relays a particularly cruel torture preventing urination:

“…he would trick men into loading themselves with copious droughts of wine, and then on a sudden tying up their private parts, would torment them at the same time by the torture of the cords and of the stoppage of their water.” Tiberius was a dark, reclusive man, but liked to have sex with anyone, male or female, old or young, even abusing newborn babies.

In was at Capri that the term “old goat” was coined because of his sexual deviance.

On retiring to Capri he devised a pleasure palace for his secret orgies: teams of wantons of both sexes, selected as experts in deviant intercourse and dubbed analists, copulated before him in triple unions to excite his flagging passions. Its bedrooms were furnished with the most salacious paintings and sculptures, as well as with an erotic library, in case a performer should need an illustration of what was required. Then in Capri’s woods and groves he arranged a number of nooks of lust where boys and girls got up as Pans and nymphs solicited outside bowers and grottoes: people openly called this “the old goat’s garden,” punning on the island’s name.

“But”, you might say, “that was in ancient Rome and not in our 21st. Century world.

Consider Jeffrey Epstein and the elite visitors to St James Island and Zorro ranch.

Some thoughts on flying too close to the ground.

The only question in this story now is who interfered with communications between the airport, the military, and the pilots, who went dark for a considerable length of time before the missiles were launched.

Shooting down of Ukrainian jet

Here is what I believe happened:

Two minutes after take off, the transponder, communications, and lights on the aircraft were shut off, most likely via remote.

It flew in this hacked configuration for approximately 4 minutes and 30 seconds before, in error, Iranian ground forces mistook it for a cruise missile and shot it down, with Iran’s top nuclear physicists aboard. Iran was expecting a war to break out, so the plane was sent out during a no fly order to get the most important people (and their families) out of Iran.

The only question in this story now is who interfered with communications between the airport, the military, and the pilots, who went dark for a considerable length of time before the missiles were launched. Approximately 1 minute after the first missile was launched, a second one was launched though the first one probably would have downed the plane despite it not being on fire. Eight minutes after take off, it crashed.

My guess is Israel’s Mossad is the one that hacked the plane and shut the transponder, lights and radios off to force it to fly completely dark, the way a cruise missile would. Israelis are the only ones celebrating.

As corrupt as Ukraine is, Iran SHOULD NOT turn over the black boxes until they have at least copied what is on the cockpit voice recorder. If whatever is reported to have come off that voice recorder does not mimic what I just said above, the wrong people will have “analyzed it”, you know, like how accurately American votes get counted.

Of War and dead terrorists

Ok, so let’s recap here. When useful, Soleimani was an ally.

It has been said that those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Here is today’s history American lesson: The 2001 uprising in Herat was a coordinated insurrection and uprising in the Afghan city of Herat as part of the United States war in Afghanistan. The city was captured on November 12 by Northern Alliance forces as well as Special Forces of the United States, the United Kingdom and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The U.S. Special Operations teams consisted of U.S. Army Rangers and Delta Force under the command of CENTCOM General Tommy Franks. Iranian forces consisted of agents of the Quds Force under the command of Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, commander of the IRGC, and Major General Qassem Soleimani, the commander of Iran’s Quds Force. The Northern Alliance faction consisted of over 5,000 militiamen under the command of Ismail Khan, a commander in the previous Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and former governor of Herat before the Taliban came into power in 1995.

Ok, so let’s recap here. When useful, Soleimani was an ally. If killing him the way he was killed after he did not serve the immediate agenda is the status quo for the U.S., then the entire world needs to take note of how the Deep State in control of the military mind works. Killing Soleimani, especially the way this happened, was VERY BAD for America’s future when cooperation of allies might be needed.

It’s ALIVE!

In today’s world, you cannot promise people absolute confidentiality. Why would you voluntarily give more of your personal information to a company that is owned by the parent company of Google

DNA testing is a booming global business enabled by the internet. Millions of people have sent samples of their saliva to commercial labs in hopes of learning something new about their personal health or heritage, primarily in the United States and Europe.

Industry giants Ancestry.com, 23andMe, MyHeritage and FamilyTreeDNA market their services online, share test results on websites, and even offer tutorials on how to search for relatives in phone directories, or share results in social media. They often also claim rights to your genetic data and sell access to their databases to big pharmaceutical and medtech companies. It’s part of a worrying trend of corporations to acquire personal data about people and act in their best interests, not yours.

The Pentagon has advised military members to avoid using take-home DNA kits because of concerns about “unintended security consequences and increased risk to the joint force and mission.

Some things to consider;
* DNA tests can’t be anonymous. Your DNA is an unique marker of your identity that could be mishandled no matter what.

* You will jeopardize the anonymity of family members. By putting your own DNA in the hands of companies your (known or unknown) relatives could be identifiable to others, possibly against their wishes.

  • A pair of socks is a better gift. You may be tempted by special offers around holidays such as one, offering 30% off genetic tests for Father’s Day. Consider that dad might not want to be part of a commercial science experiment.
  • You will become the product. Your genetic code is valuable. Once you opt in to sharing, you have no idea what company gets access to it, nor for what purpose.
  • Big pharma wants your DNA. 23andMe revealed a $300 million USD deal with pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline in 2018 that gives them access to aggregate customer data. Calico Life Sciences, a medtech company owned by Google’s parent company, Alphabet, is the primary research partner of Ancestry.com.
  • Genes can be hacked. Scientists have discovered how to store data and even animated GIFs in DNA, and even believe malware could be placed in DNA to compromise the security of computers holding databases. Still trust them?

Companies do what they can to strip away personal information from the genetic codes, but anyone who has been the victim of credit card fraud or identity theft know that anonymizing data is far from foolproof.

In today’s world, you cannot promise people absolute confidentiality. Why would you voluntarily give more of your personal information to a company that is owned by the parent company of Google, (Alphabet)?

Who owns the Mainstream Media?

Interesting find

Who owns Time Warner?

Warner Media, LLC is an American multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate owned by AT&T and headquartered in New York City.Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WarnerMedia

Who owns CNN?

CNN (Cable News Network) is an American news-based pay television channel owned by AT&T’s WarnerMedia. CNN was founded in 1980 by American media proprietor Ted Turner as a 24-hour cable news channel.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN

Who owns NBC?

a flagship property of NBCUniversal, a subsidiary of Comcast. The network is headquartered at 30 Rockefeller Plaza in New York City, with additional major offices near Los Angeles (at 10 Universal City Plaza), Chicago (at the NBC Tower) and Philadelphia (at the Comcast Technology Center). The network is one of the Big Three television networks. NBC is sometimes referred to as the “Peacock Network”, in reference to its stylized peacock logo, introduced in 1956 to promote the company’s innovations in early color broadcasting. It became the network’s official emblem in 1979.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC

Who owns ABC?

The American Broadcasting Company (ABC) is an American commercial broadcast radio and television network owned by the Disney Media Networks division of The Walt Disney Company. The network is headquartered in Burbank, California, on Riverside Drive, directly across the street from Walt Disney Studios and adjacent to the Roy E. Disney Animation …

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Company

Who owns CBS?

CBS Corporation was an American multinational media conglomerate with interests primarily in commercial broadcasting, publishing, and television production which was formed as the legal successor to the first incarnation of Viacom on January 1, 2006.Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS_Corporation

https://www.quora.com/Who-owns-ABC-NBC-and-CBS

Now…. Who owns AT&T?

https://stockzoa.com/ticker/t/

Who owns Disney?

https://www.reference.com/business-finance/owns-walt-disney-company-eff9d9a487a18f32

Steve Jobs widow and look at the Vanguard group.

Who owns Viacom?

2019Viacom is a publicly traded company, owned by shareholders. Controlling stock in the company is owned by a private company called National Amusements. The owners of 👉National Amusements are the Redstone family, led by Viacom founder Sumner Redstone…

National amusements. A name that keeps popping up.

https://www.quora.com/Who-owns-Viacom

Some history:

2010Viacom (post-2006) owns Paramount Pictures, and the Viacom Media Networks (formerly MTV Networks). CBS owns the 1971-2005 Viacom a.k.a CBS Corporation, which gives them the rights to the Paramount …

Ok, Who owns National Amusements?

National Amusements, Inc. is an American privately-owned theater company and mass media holding company based in Dedham, Massachusetts and incorporated in Maryland. It was the parent company of the first incarnation of Viacom, CBS Corporation and the second incarnation of Viacom that were split off in 2006; the two separated companies has been re-merged to form ViacomCBS in 2019. At the end of 2008, due to financial troubles, owners Sumner Redstone and Shari Redstone sold $400 million of nonvoting shares in National Amusements. In October 2009, the company sold almost $1 billion of its interest in the stock of CBS and Viacom and sold 35 theaters to Rave Motion Pictures. Today these theatres are owned by Cinemark, AMC, Alamo, or have closed. National Amusements now almost exclusively operates theaters in the Northeastern United States. The following year, National Amusements planned to sell $390 million of notes to refinance a large part of the company’s bank owed debt.Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Amusements

Generalissimo Franco is still dead, (Epstein, on the other hand)…

We’ll have to see where this particular rumor trail goes to.

So far it is only rumor but the story goes like this:

There is a fight going on between federal agencies and the DOJ, with some of the agencies claiming Epstein is not dead, and that he was taken from the prison alive. They came up with proof, including Epstein being removed from his cell and someone else being brought in on a wheelchair In combination with camera failures ALL OVER THE PRISON, not just the ones that were supposed to show the status of Epstein. Federal agents are rumored to be asking serious questions about this.

The bottom line: It was not Epstein on the gurney. The facial profile and ears did not match. The guy on the gurney looked similar but was not Epstein and there’s no way out of it. So even before this latest (rumored) blowout in the intelligence community, anyone who looked at the evidence and thought Epstein was dead had to be nuts, even mentally disabled people could conclude this fairly easily if they could tell the difference between the letter A and the letter C. That would leave believing Epstein was dead up to the total lunatics. They really blew it with that gurney pic.

We’ll have to see where this particular rumor trail goes to. Hopefully to a place where I’ll have a good laugh.

Oy Vey

Fifteen years ago, it was discovered that Israel had a spy system deeply integrated into the Washington DC land line phone system (the part that was supposed to be secure) and it was so complete Israel did not miss a single call .

The U.S. government concluded within the past two years that Israel was most likely behind the placement of cellphone surveillance devices that were found near the White House and other sensitive locations around Washington, according to three former senior U.S. officials with knowledge of the matter.

But unlike most other occasions when flagrant incidents of foreign spying have been discovered on American soil, the Trump administration did not rebuke the Israeli government, and there were no consequences for Israel’s behavior, one of the former officials said.

The miniature surveillance devices, colloquially known as “StingRays,” mimic regular cell towers to fool cellphones into giving them their locations and identity information. Formally called international mobile subscriber identity-catchers or IMSI-catchers, they also can capture the contents of calls and data use.

The devices were likely intended to spy on President Donald Trump, one of the former officials said, as well as his top aides and closest associates — though it’s not clear whether the Israeli efforts were successful.

Trump is reputed to be lax in observing White House security protocols. POLITICO reported in May 2018 that the president often used an insufficiently secured cellphone to communicate with friends and confidants. The New York Times subsequently reported in October 2018 that “Chinese spies are often listening” to Trump’s cellphone calls, prompting the president to slam the story as “so incorrect I do not have time here to correct it.” (A former official said Trump has had his cellphone hardened against intrusion.)

By then, as part of tests by the federal government, officials at the Department of Homeland Security had already discovered evidence of the surveillance devices around the nation’s capital, but weren’t able to attribute the devices to specific entities. The officials shared their findings with relevant federal agencies, according to a letter a top Department of Homeland Security official, Christopher Krebs, wrote in May 2018 to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

Based on a detailed forensic analysis, the FBI and other agencies working on the case felt confident that Israeli agents had placed the devices, according to the former officials, several of whom served in top intelligence and national security posts.

That analysis, one of the former officials said, is typically led by the FBI’s counterintelligence division and involves examining the devices so that they “tell you a little about their history, where the parts and pieces come from, how old are they, who had access to them, and that will help get you to what the origins are.” For these types of investigations, the bureau often leans on the National Security Agency and sometimes the CIA (DHS and the Secret Service played a supporting role in this specific investigation).

“It was pretty clear that the Israelis were responsible,” said a former senior intelligence official.

An Israeli Embassy spokesperson, Elad Strohmayer, denied that Israel placed the devices and said: “These allegations are absolute nonsense. Israel doesn’t conduct espionage operations in the United States, period.”

A senior Trump administration official said the administration doesn’t “comment on matters related to security or intelligence.” The FBI declined to comment, while DHS and the Secret Service didn’t respond to requests for comment.

After this story was published, Trump told reporters that he would find it “hard to believe” that the Israelis had placed the devices.

“I don’t think the Israelis were spying on us,” Trump said. “My relationship with Israel has been great…Anything is possible but I don’t believe it.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also denied after publication that Israel was behind the devices. “We have a directive, I have a directive: No intelligence work in the United States, no spies,” he said in a gaggle with reporters. “And it’s vigorously implemented, without any exception. It [the report] is a complete fabrication, a complete fabrication.”

But former officials with deep experience dealing with intelligence matters scoff at the Israeli claim — a pro forma denial Israeli officials are also known to make in private to skeptical U.S. counterparts.

One former senior intelligence official noted that after the FBI and other agencies concluded that the Israelis were most likely responsible for the devices, the Trump administration took no action to punish or even privately scold the Israeli government.

Fifteen years ago, it was discovered that Israel had a spy system deeply integrated into the Washington DC land line phone system (the part that was supposed to be secure) and it was so complete Israel did not miss a single call . . . . that got busted and ripped out.

Now Israel got busted again for putting in bogus cell phone listening devices to catch all cell conversations, especially in the white house.

My take on that is that Trump knows who did it and knew it would not be wise to stir a hornet’s nest so he let it slide. But Trump knows. Which likely means all we need to do is wait.