Piratage russe: A qui profite le crime ? (Cui bono: Warning, a Manchurian candidate can hide another)

Audaciter calomniare semper aliquid haeret (Calomniez audacieusement, il en restera toujours quelque chose.) Proverbe latin médiéval

Messieurs, disait un fameux délateur Aux courtisans de Philippe, son maître : Quelque grossier qu’un mensonge puisse être, Ne craignez rien, calomniez toujours. Quand l’accusé confondrait vos discours, La plaie est faite; et, quoiqu’il en guérisse, On en verra du moins la cicatrice. Rousseau

Calomnions, calomnions, il en restera toujours quelque chose.  Beaumarchais (Le Barbier de Séville)

I don’t think people want a lot of talk about change; I think they want someone with a real record, a doer not a talker. For legislators who don’t want to take a stand, there’s a third way to vote. Not yes, not no, but present, which is kind of like voting maybe. (…) A president can’t vote present; a president can’t pick or choose which challenges he or she will face. Hillary Clinton (Dec. 2007)

Ma propre ville de Chicago a compté parmi les villes à la politique locale la plus corrompue de l’histoire américaine, du népotisme institutionnalisé aux élections douteuses. Barack Obama (Nairobi, Kenya, août 2006)

C’est bon d’être à la maison. (…) Je suis arrivé à Chicago pour la première fois à l’âge de 20 ans, essayant toujours de comprendre qui j’étais; toujours à la recherche d’un but à ma vie. C’est dans les quartiers non loin d’ici que j’ai commencé à travailler avec des groupes religieux dans l’ombre des aciéries fermées. C’est dans ces rues où j’ai été témoin du pouvoir de la foi et de la dignité tranquille des travailleurs face à la lutte et à la perte. C’est là que j’ai appris que le changement ne se produit que lorsque des gens ordinaires s’impliquent, s’engagent et se rassemblent pour le demander.  (…) Si je vous avais dit il y a huit ans que l’Amérique inverserait une grande récession, redémarrerait notre industrie automobile et libérerait la plus longue période de création d’emplois de notre histoire … Si je vous avais dit que nous ouvririons un nouveau chapitre avec le peuple cubain, stopperions le programme nucléaire iranien sans tirer un coup de feu et que nous nous débarrasserions du cerveau du 11 septembre … Si je vous avais dit que nous aurions obtenu l’égalité du mariage et garanti le droit à l’assurance maladie pour 20 millions de nos concitoyens. Vous auriez pensé qu’on visait un peu trop haut. Mais c’est ce que nous avons fait. (…) par presque toutes les mesures, l’Amérique va mieux et est plus forte qu’avant. Dans dix jours, le monde sera témoin d’une caractéristique de notre démocratie: le transfert pacifique du pouvoir d’un président élu librement à un autre. J’ai confié au président élu Trump que mon administration assurerait la transition la plus harmonieuse possible, tout comme le président Bush l’avait fait pour moi. Parce que c’est à nous tous de nous assurer que notre gouvernement peut nous aider à relever les nombreux défis auxquels nous sommes encore confrontés. (…) Oui, nous pouvons le faire. Oui, nous l’avons fait. Barack Hussein Obama (Chicago, 10.01.2017)

As his second marriage to Sexton collapsed in 1998, Sexton filed an order of protection against him, public records show. Hull won’t talk about the divorce in detail, saying only that it was « contentious » and that he and Sexton are friends. The Chicago Tribune (15.02.04)

Though Obama, the son of a Kenyan immigrant, lagged in polls as late as mid-February, he surged to the front of the pack in recent weeks after he began airing television commercials and the black community rallied behind him. He also was the beneficiary of the most inglorious campaign implosion in Illinois political history, when multimillionaire Blair Hull plummeted from front-runner status amid revelations that an ex-wife had alleged in divorce papers that he had physically and verbally abused her. After spending more than $29 million of his own money, Hull, a former securities trader, finished third, garnering about 10 percent of the vote. (…) Obama ascended to front-runner status in early March as Hull’s candidacy went up in flames amid the divorce revelations, as well as Hull’s acknowledgment that he had used cocaine in the 1980s and had been evaluated for alcohol abuse. The Chicago Tribune (17.03.04)

Axelrod is known for operating in this gray area, part idealist, part hired muscle. It is difficult to discuss Axelrod in certain circles in Chicago without the matter of the Blair Hull divorce papers coming up. As the 2004 Senate primary neared, it was clear that it was a contest between two people: the millionaire liberal, Hull, who was leading in the polls, and Obama, who had built an impressive grass-roots campaign. About a month before the vote, The Chicago Tribune revealed, near the bottom of a long profile of Hull, that during a divorce proceeding, Hull’s second wife filed for an order of protection. In the following few days, the matter erupted into a full-fledged scandal that ended up destroying the Hull campaign and handing Obama an easy primary victory. The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had  »worked aggressively behind the scenes » to push the story. But there are those in Chicago who believe that Axelrod had an even more significant role — that he leaked the initial story. They note that before signing on with Obama, Axelrod interviewed with Hull. They also point out that Obama’s TV ad campaign started at almost the same time. The NYT (01.04.07)

After an unsuccessful campaign for Congress in 2000, Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama faced serious financial pressure: numerous debts, limited cash and a law practice he had neglected for a year. Help arrived in early 2001 from a significant new legal client — a longtime political supporter. Chicago entrepreneur Robert Blackwell Jr. paid Obama an $8,000-a-month retainer to give legal advice to his growing technology firm, Electronic Knowledge Interchange. It allowed Obama to supplement his $58,000 part-time state Senate salary for over a year with regular payments from Blackwell’s firm that eventually totaled $112,000. A few months after receiving his final payment from EKI, Obama sent a request on state Senate letterhead urging Illinois officials to provide a $50,000 tourism promotion grant to another Blackwell company, Killerspin. Killerspin specializes in table tennis, running tournaments nationwide and selling its own line of equipment and apparel and DVD recordings of the competitions. With support from Obama, other state officials and an Obama aide who went to work part time for Killerspin, the company eventually obtained $320,000 in state grants between 2002 and 2004 to subsidize its tournaments. Obama’s staff said the senator advocated only for the first year’s grant — which ended up being $20,000, not $50,000. The day after Obama wrote his letter urging the awarding of the state funds, Obama’s U.S. Senate campaign received a $1,000 donation from Blackwell. (…) Business relationships between lawmakers and people with government interests are not illegal or uncommon in Illinois or other states with a part-time Legislature, where lawmakers supplement their state salaries with income from the private sector. But Obama portrays himself as a lawmaker dedicated to transparency and sensitive to even the appearance of a conflict of interest. (…) In his book « The Audacity of Hope, » Obama tells how his finances had deteriorated to such a point that his credit card was initially rejected when he tried to rent a car at the 2000 Democratic convention in Los Angeles. He said he had originally planned to dedicate that summer « to catching up on work at the law practice that I’d left unattended during the campaign (a neglect that had left me more or less broke). » Six months later Blackwell hired Obama to serve as general counsel for his tech company, EKI, which had been launched a few years earlier. The monthly retainer paid by EKI was sent to the law firm that Obama was affiliated with at the time, currently known as Miner, Barnhill & Galland, where he worked part time when he wasn’t tending to legislative duties. The business arrived at an especially fortuitous time because, as the law firm’s senior partner, Judson Miner, put it, « it was a very dry period here, » meaning that the ebb and flow of cases left little work for Obama and cash was tight. The entire EKI retainer went to Obama, who was considered « of counsel » to the firm, according to details provided to The Times by the Obama campaign and confirmed by Miner. Blackwell said he had no knowledge of Obama’s finances and hired Obama solely based on his abilities. « His personal financial situation was not and is not my concern, » Blackwell said. « I hired Barack because he is a brilliant person and a lawyer with great insight and judgment. » Obama’s tax returns show that he made no money from his law practice in 2000, the year of his unsuccessful run for a congressional seat. But that changed in 2001, when Obama reported $98,158 income for providing legal services. Of that, $80,000 was from Blackwell’s company. In 2002, the state senator reported $34,491 from legal services and speeches. Of that, $32,000 came from the EKI legal assignment, which ended in April 2002 by mutual agreement, as Obama ceased the practice of law and looked ahead to the possibility of running for the U.S. Senate. (…) Illinois ethics disclosure forms are designed to reveal possible financial conflicts by lawmakers. On disclosure forms for 2001 and 2002, Obama did not specify that EKI provided him with the bulk of the private-sector compensation he received. As was his custom, he attached a multi-page list of all the law firm’s clients, which included EKI among hundreds. Illinois law does not require more specific disclosure. Stanley Brand, a Washington lawyer who counsels members of Congress and others on ethics rules, said he would have advised a lawmaker in Obama’s circumstances to separately disclose such a singularly important client and not simply include it on a list of hundreds of firm clients, even if the law does not explicitly require it. « I would say you should disclose that to protect and insulate yourself against the charge that you are concealing it, » Brand said. LA Times

One lesson, however, has not fully sunk in and awaits final elucidation in the 2012 election: that of the Chicago style of Barack Obama’s politicking. In 2008 few of the true believers accepted that, in his first political race, in 1996, Barack Obama sued successfully to remove his opponents from the ballot. Or that in his race for the US Senate eight years later, sealed divorced records for both his primary- and general-election opponents were mysteriously leaked by unnamed Chicagoans, leading to the implosions of both candidates’ campaigns. Or that Obama was the first presidential candidate in the history of public campaign financing to reject it, or that he was also the largest recipient of cash from Wall Street in general, and from BP and Goldman Sachs in particular. Or that Obama was the first presidential candidate in recent memory not to disclose either undergraduate records or even partial medical. Or that remarks like “typical white person,” the clingers speech, and the spread-the-wealth quip would soon prove to be characteristic rather than anomalous. Few American presidents have dashed so many popular, deeply embedded illusions as has Barack Obama. And for that, we owe him a strange sort of thanks. Victor Davis Hanson

Selon le professeur Dick Simpson, chef du département de science politique de l’université d’Illinois, «c’est à la fin du XIXe siècle et au début du XXe que le système prend racine». L’arrivée de larges populations immigrées peinant à faire leur chemin à Chicago pousse les politiciens à «mobiliser le vote des communautés en échange d’avantages substantiels». Dans les années 1930, le Parti démocrate assoit peu à peu sa domination grâce à cette politique «raciale». Le système va se solidifier sous le règne de Richard J. Daley, grande figure qui régnera sur la ville pendant 21 ans. Aujourd’hui, c’est son fils Richard M. Daley qui est aux affaires depuis 18 ans et qui «perpétue le pouvoir du Parti démocrate à Chicago, en accordant emplois d’État, faveurs et contrats, en échange de soutiens politiques et financiers», raconte John McCormick. «Si on vous donne un permis de construction, vous êtes censés “payer en retour”», explique-t-il. «Cela s’appelle payer pour jouer», résume John Kass, un autre éditorialiste. Les initiés affirment que Rod Blagojevich ne serait jamais devenu gouverneur s’il n’avait croisé le chemin de sa future femme, Patricia Mell, fille de Dick Mell, un conseiller municipal très influent, considéré comme un rouage essentiel de la machine. (…) Dans ce contexte local plus que trouble, Peraica affirme que la montée au firmament d’Obama n’a pu se faire «par miracle».«Il a été aidé par la machine qui l’a adoubé, il est cerné par cette machine qui produit de la corruption et le risque existe qu’elle monte de Chicago vers Washington», va-t-il même jusqu’à prédire. Le conseiller régional républicain cite notamment le nom d’Emil Jones, l’un des piliers du Parti démocrate de l’Illinois, qui a apporté son soutien à Obama lors de son élection au Sénat en 2004. Il évoque aussi les connexions du président élu avec Anthony Rezko, cet homme d’affaires véreux, proche de Blagojevich et condamné pour corruption, qui fut aussi le principal responsable de la levée de fonds privés pour le compte d’Obama pendant sa course au siège de sénateur et qui l’aida à acheter sa maison à Chicago. «La presse a protégé Barack Obama comme un petit bébé. Elle n’a pas sorti les histoires liées à ses liens avec Rezko», s’indigne Peraica, qui cite toutefois un article du Los Angeles Times faisant état d’une affaire de financement d’un tournoi international de ping-pong qui aurait éclaboussé le président élu. (…) Pour la plupart des commentateurs, Barack Obama a su naviguer à travers la politique locale «sans se compromettre. Le Figaro

La condamnation de M. Blagojevich met une fois de plus la lumière sur la scène politique corrompue de l’Etat dont la plus grande ville est Chicago. Cinq des neuf gouverneurs précédents de l’Illinois ont été accusés ou arrêtés pour fraude ou corruption. Le prédécesseur de M. Blagojevich, le républicain George Ryan, purge actuellement une peine de six ans et demi de prison pour fraude et racket. M. Blagojevich, qui devra se présenter à la prison le 16 février et verser des amendes de près de 22 000 dollars, détient le triste record de la peine la plus lourde jamais infligée à un ex-gouverneur de l’Illinois. Ses avocats ont imploré le juge de ne pas chercher à faire un exemple avec leur client, notant que ce dernier n’avait pas amassé d’enrichissement personnel et avait seulement tenté d’obtenir des fonds de campagne ainsi que des postes bien rémunérés. En plein scandale, M. Blagojevich était passé outre aux appels à la démission venus de son propre parti et avait nommé procédé à la nomination d’un sénateur avant d’être destitué. Mais le scandale a porté un coup à la réputation des démocrates dans l’Illinois et c’est un républicain qui a été élu l’an dernier pour occuper l’ancien siège de M. Obama. AFP (08.12.11)

Dès qu’un organisateur entre dans une communauté, il ne vit, rêve, mange, respire et dort qu’une chose, et c’est d’établir la base politique de masse de ce qu’il appelle l’armée. Saul Alinsky (mentor politique d’Obama)

On se retrouve avec deux conclusions: 1) un président très inexpérimenté a découvert que toute la rhétorique de campagne facile et manichéenne de 2008 n’est pas facilement traduisible en gouvernance réelle. 2) Obama est engagé dans une course contre la montre pour imposer de force un ordre du jour plutôt radical et diviseur à un pays de centre-droit avant que celui-ci ne se réveille et que ses sondages atteignent le seuil fatidique des 40%. Autrement dit, il y a deux options possibles: Ou bien le pays bascule plus à gauche en quatre ans qu’il ne l’a fait en cinquante ou Obama entraine dans sa chute le Congrès démocrate et la notion même de gouvernance de gauche responsable, laissant ainsi derrière lui un bilan à la Carter. Victor Davis Hanson

Bientôt, M. Obama aura ses propres La Mecque et Téhéran à traiter, peut-être à Jérusalem et au Caire. Il ferait bien de jeter un œil au bilan de son co-lauréat au prix Nobel de la paix, comme démonstration de la manière dont les motifs les plus purs peuvent entrainer les résultats les plus désastreux. Bret Stephens

C’est ma dernière élection. Après mon élection, j’aurai plus de flexibilité. Obama (à Medvedev, 27.03.12)

Dans le milieu du renseignement, nous dirions que M. Trump a été recruté comme un agent russe qui s’ignore. Michael Morell (ancien directeur de la CIA)

Republicans, independents, swing voters and GOP members of the House and Senate who are staking their reelection campaigns on their support for Trump to be president and commander in chief should thoughtfully reflect on the recent op-ed in The New York Times by former acting CIA Director Michael Morell. The op-ed is titled “I ran the CIA. Now I’m endorsing Hillary Clinton.” Morell, who has spent decades protecting our security in the intelligence business, offered high praise for the Democratic nominee and former secretary of State based on his years of working closely with her in the high councils of government. But Morell went even further than praising and endorsing Clinton. In one of the most extraordinary and unprecedented statements in the history of presidential politics, which powerfully supports the case that every Republican running for office should unequivocally state that they will refuse to vote for Trump or face potentially catastrophic consequences at the polls, Morell wrote: “In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.” This brings to mind the novel and motion picture “The Manchurian Candidate,” which about an American who was captured during the Korean War and brainwashed to unwittingly carry out orders to advance the interests of communists against America. I offer no suggestion about Trump’s motives in repeatedly saying things, and advocating positions, that are so destructive to American national security interests, though Trump owes the American people full and immediate disclosure of his tax returns for them to determine what, if any, business interests or debt may exist with Russian or other hostile foreign sources. Whatever Trump’s motivation, Morell is right in suggesting the billionaire nominee is at the least acting as an “unwitting agent” who often advances the interests of foreign actors hostile to America. Most intelligence experts believe the email leaks attacking Hillary Clinton at the time of the Democratic National Convention were originally obtained through espionage by Russian intelligence services engaging in cyberwar against America, and then shared with WikiLeaks by Russian sources engaged in an infowar against America. Do Republicans running for the House and Senate in 2016 want to be aligned with a Russian strongman and his intelligence services engaging in covert action against America for the presumed purpose of electing Putin’s preferred candidate? Do they believe Trump when he says he was only kidding when he publicly supported these espionage practices and called for them to be escalated? Do Republicans running in 2016 believe that America should have a commander in chief who has harshly criticized NATO and stated that if Russia invades the Baltic states, Eastern Europe states such as Poland, or Western Europe he is not committed to defending our allies against this aggression? Do Republicans running in 2016 support a commander in chief who has endorsed Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, appeared to endorse Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and falsely stated that Russia “is not in Ukraine”? (…) I do not question Donald Trump’s patriotism. But for whatever reason Trump advocates policies, again and again, that would help America’s adversaries like Russia and enemies like ISIS and make him, in Morell’s powerful words, “an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.” In “The Manchurian Candidate,” our enemies sought to influence our politics at the highest level. What troubles a growing number of Republicans in Congress, and so many Republican and Democratic national security leaders, is that in 2016 life imitates art, aided and abetted by what appears to be a Russian covert action designed to elect the next American president. Brent Budowsky

A former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence tells Mother Jones that in recent months he provided the bureau with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump—and that the FBI requested more information from him. « This is something of huge significance, way above party politics, » the former intelligence officer says. « I think [Trump’s] own party should be aware of this stuff as well. » Does this mean the FBI is investigating whether Russian intelligence has attempted to develop a secret relationship with Trump or cultivate him as an asset? Was the former intelligence officer and his material deemed credible or not? An FBI spokeswoman says, « Normally, we don’t talk about whether we are investigating anything. » But a senior US government official not involved in this case but familiar with the former spy tells Mother Jones that he has been a credible source with a proven record of providing reliable, sensitive, and important information to the US government. In June, the former Western intelligence officer—who spent almost two decades on Russian intelligence matters and who now works with a US firm that gathers information on Russia for corporate clients—was assigned the task of researching Trump’s dealings in Russia and elsewhere, according to the former spy and his associates in this American firm. This was for an opposition research project originally financed by a Republican client critical of the celebrity mogul. (Before the former spy was retained, the project’s financing switched to a client allied with Democrats.) « It started off as a fairly general inquiry, » says the former spook, who asks not to be identified. But when he dug into Trump, he notes, he came across troubling information indicating connections between Trump and the Russian government. According to his sources, he says, « there was an established exchange of information between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin of mutual benefit. » This was, the former spy remarks, « an extraordinary situation. » He regularly consults with US government agencies on Russian matters, and near the start of July on his own initiative—without the permission of the US company that hired him—he sent a report he had written for that firm to a contact at the FBI, according to the former intelligence officer and his American associates, who asked not to be identified. (He declines to identify the FBI contact.) The former spy says he concluded that the information he had collected on Trump was « sufficiently serious » to share with the FBI. Mother Jones has reviewed that report and other memos this former spy wrote. The first memo, based on the former intelligence officer’s conversations with Russian sources, noted, « Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance. » It maintained that Trump « and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals. » It claimed that Russian intelligence had « compromised » Trump during his visits to Moscow and could « blackmail him. » It also reported that Russian intelligence had compiled a dossier on Hillary Clinton based on « bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls. » The former intelligence officer says the response from the FBI was « shock and horror. » The FBI, after receiving the first memo, did not immediately request additional material, according to the former intelligence officer and his American associates. Yet in August, they say, the FBI asked him for all information in his possession and for him to explain how the material had been gathered and to identify his sources. The former spy forwarded to the bureau several memos—some of which referred to members of Trump’s inner circle. After that point, he continued to share information with the FBI. « It’s quite clear there was or is a pretty substantial inquiry going on, » he says. « This is something of huge significance, way above party politics, » the former intelligence officer comments. « I think [Trump’s] own party should be aware of this stuff as well. » Mother Jones (Oct 31, 2016)

A quelques jours de l’intronisation d’un multimilliardaire de l’immobilier qui a gagné seul contre tous, Hollywood entre en Résistance. Le scud lancé par Meryl Streep en direction de Donald Trump à la soirée des Golden Globes, traduit fidèlement la posture de la grande majorité des stars américaines, depuis le début de la campagne présidentielle. Il suffit d’évoquer notamment les insultes de Robert de Niro, traitant carrément le futur leader des USA de chien et de porc, entre autres amabilités. L’immense interprète qu’est Meryl Streep a dénoncé, sans jamais le nommer, la violence de celui qui se serait moqué d’un journaliste handicapé, version qui, depuis longtemps, a été catégoriquement contestée par Trump, que l’on sait pourtant capable d’excès en tout genre. Mais c’est ici le mot «violence» qui interpelle. Aux Oscars comme au Grammy Awards, dans toutes ces cérémonies où les millionnaires du grand et du petit écran se coagulent et se congratulent dans une autosatisfaction permanente, on n’a jamais entendu une seule vedette dénoncer – à l’exception, évidemment, de l’après 11 septembre 2001 – les attentats de Paris et de Bruxelles, du Texas et de Floride, de Madrid et de Londres, de Jérusalem et d’Ankara, les ethnocides de communautés entières et les mille et une manières de se débarrasser des homosexuels, des femmes et des apostats, dans un certain nombre de pays de l’hémisphère Sud. Pour les étoiles filantes du Camp du Bien, les évidentes vulgarités de Trump sont beaucoup plus insupportables que la manière dont on assaisonne féministes et gays, athées et libres penseurs, à quelques milliers de kilomètres de leurs somptueuses villas super-protégées de Beverly Hills. Cependant, imperceptiblement mais sûrement, quelque chose est en train de changer. Face à la bonne conscience des privilégiés portant leur humanité en sautoir, le plouc chef de chantier Trump, à coups de tweets et de rendez-vous pris à toute vitesse, modifie d’ores et déjà le paysage. Il ne se passe pas de jour sans que telle compagnie automobile annonce qu’elle crée une usine dans le Michigan ; tel fabricant d’ordinateurs relocalise ses ateliers dans le Middle West, et l’un de nos multimilliardaires, Bernard Arnault, vient de s’engager, dans le hall de la Trump Tower, à créer des milliers d’emplois supplémentaires aux Etats-Unis. Et cela, avant même l’investiture officielle du candidat Républicain, sur la victoire duquel, rappelons-le quand même, personne ne pariait un centime il y a moins d’un an. Tout se passe comme si nous assistons à la fin du «soft power» pratiqué, avec l’insuccès que l’on sait, par Barack Obama. La difficulté du temps présent appelle, qu’on le déplore ou que l’on s’en réjouisse, à un volontarisme vigilant et à un réarmement lucide que les princes qui nous gouvernent avaient totalement oubliés, de part et d’autre de l’Atlantique. Si Hollywood pourra continuer à être «peace and love» en toute tranquillité, elle le devra à des hommes et à des femmes qui sauront faire comprendre aux totalitaires et aux intégristes de tous bords, qu’au-delà de telle limite, leur ticket ne sera jamais plus valable. Ironie du sort: ce sera peut-être grâce à Trump que Meryl Streep et les autres pourront pratiquer, en toute sécurité, leur non-violence considérée comme un des beaux-arts. André Bercoff

Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and Central Eurasia, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the West who wish to reveal illegal or immoral behavior in their own governments and corporations. Julian Assange (2006)

In Russia, there are many vibrant publications, online blogs, and Kremlin critics such as [Alexey] Navalny are part of that spectrum. There are also newspapers like « Novaya Gazeta », in which different parts of society in Moscow are permitted to critique each other and it is tolerated, generally, because it isn’t a big TV channel that might have a mass popular effect, its audience is educated people in Moscow. So my interpretation is that in Russia there are competitors to WikiLeaks, and no WikiLeaks staff speak Russian, so for a strong culture which has its own language, you have to be seen as a local player. WikiLeaks is a predominantly English-speaking organisation with a website predominantly in English. We have published more than 800,000 documents about or referencing Russia and president Putin, so we do have quite a bit of coverage, but the majority of our publications come from Western sources, though not always. For example, we have published more than 2 million documents from Syria, including Bashar al-Assad personally. Sometimes we make a publication about a country and they will see WikiLeaks as a player within that country, like with Timor East and Kenya. The real determinant is how distant that culture is from English. Chinese culture is quite far away ». (…) “Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and Central Eurasia, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the West who wish to reveal illegal or immoral behavior in their own governments and corporations.(…) We have published some things in Chinese. It is necessary to be seen as a local player and to adapt the language to the local culture« . Julian Assange (2016)

It was not the quantity of Mr. Snowden’s theft but the quality that was most telling. Mr. Snowden’s theft put documents at risk that could reveal the NSA’s Level 3 tool kit—a reference to documents containing the NSA’s most-important sources and methods. Since the agency was created in 1952, Russia and other adversary nations had been trying to penetrate its Level-3 secrets without great success. Yet it was precisely these secrets that Mr. Snowden changed jobs to steal. In an interview in Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post on June 15, 2013, he said he sought to work on a Booz Allen contract at the CIA, even at a cut in pay, because it gave him access to secret lists of computers that the NSA was tapping into around the world. He evidently succeeded. In a 2014 interview with Vanity Fair, Richard Ledgett, the NSA executive who headed the damage-assessment team, described one lengthy document taken by Mr. Snowden that, if it fell into the wrong hands, would provide a “road map” to what targets abroad the NSA was, and was not, covering. It contained the requests made by the 17 U.S. services in the so-called Intelligence Community for NSA interceptions abroad. On June 23, less than two weeks after Mr. Snowden released the video that helped present his narrative, he left Hong Kong and flew to Moscow, where he received protection by the Russian government. In much of the media coverage that followed, the ultimate destination of these stolen secrets was fogged over—if not totally obscured from the public—by the unverified claims that Mr. Snowden was spoon feeding to handpicked journalists. In his narrative, Mr. Snowden always claims that he was a conscientious “whistleblower” who turned over all the stolen NSA material to journalists in Hong Kong. He has insisted he had no intention of defecting to Russia but was on his way to Latin America when he was trapped in Russia by the U.S. government in an attempt to demonize him. The transfer of state secrets from Mr. Snowden to Russia did not occur in a vacuum. The intelligence war did not end with the termination of the Cold War; it shifted to cyberspace. Even if Russia could not match the NSA’s state-of-the-art sensors, computers and productive partnerships with the cipher services of Britain, Israel, Germany and other allies, it could nullify the U.S. agency’s edge by obtaining its sources and methods from even a single contractor with access to Level 3 documents. Russian intelligence uses a single umbrella term to cover anyone who delivers it secret intelligence. Whether a person acted out of idealistic motives, sold information for money or remained clueless of the role he or she played in the transfer of secrets—the provider of secret data is considered an “espionage source.” By any measure, it is a job description that fits Mr. Snowden. Wall Street Journal

Une enquête choc sur l’ancien employé de la NSA soutient qu’Edward Snowden a volé surtout des documents portant sur des secrets militaires et qu’il a collaboré avec le renseignement russe. (…) il prétend que Snowden se serait fait embaucher intentionnellement par la société Booz Allen Hamilton, afin de se retrouver au contact de documents secrets de la NSA. Sous-entendu: il avait l’intention dès le départ d’intercepter des informations critiques. (…) II trouve également louche que l’informaticien se soit enfui avec son larcin seulement six semaines après avoir pris ses fonctions. Par ailleurs, Epstein souligne que la majeure partie des 1,5 million de documents subtilisés ne concernaient pas les pratiques abusives des services de renseignements américains. (…) Mais Snowden aurait en fait surtout récupéré des détails précieux sur l’organisation et les méthodes de la NSA mettant en péril les intérêts et la défense du pays contre le terrorisme et des Etats rivaux. Des informations de niveau 3 encore jamais dérobées par des espions étrangers depuis la guerre froide. C’est en tous cas ce qu’en disent les militaires qui ont examiné le vol de Snowden à la demande du Pentagone. La démonstration est encore plus troublante concernant la façon dont Snowden a trouvé refuge en Russie, même si elle repose souvent sur des sources de seconde main comme des articles de presse et des reportages. Le jeune homme prétend avoir fui Hong-Kong pour rejoindre l’Amérique latine. Mais les Etats-Unis auraient révoqué son passeport, alors qu’il était en plein vol, le contraignant à trouver refuge en Russie. Faux rétorque le journaliste, les Etats-Unis auraient annulé ses papiers alors qu’il se trouvait encore à Hong-Kong. Snowden aurait donc su dès le départ qu’il se rendait en Russie. Etant donné que le jeune homme se retrouvait sans passeport valide, ni visa russe, la compagnie Aeroflot, à bord de laquelle il a voyagé, était forcément complice de sa fuite, avance l’enquêteur. Cette main tendue d’Aeroflot aurait été confirmée par l’avocat de Snowden dès 2013. Mais Epstein va plus loin en affirmant que toute l’opération d’exfiltration a été pilotée par le gouvernement russe avec l’accord de Poutine en personne. Une équipe des opérations spéciales l’aurait même accueilli à l’arrivée de l’avion, tandis que Sarah Harrison, la porte-parole de Wikileaks – site qu’on dit proche des intérêts russes depuis la publication des documents de la Convention démocrate américaine – aurait été dépêchée pour escorter l’analyste jusqu’en Russie et lui acheter de faux billets d’avion pour brouiller les pistes. Enfin, Edward Snowden avait affirmé avoir détruit ses documents en arrivant à Moscou et être resté à distance des services de renseignements russes. Là encore, Epstein prétend le contraire en s’appuyant sur le témoignage direct d’un parlementaire et d’un avocat russe, tous deux proches du Kremlin. Ils affirment que Snowden avait encore en sa possession des données secrètes et qu’elles lui ont servi de monnaie d’échange avec la Russie. Ce qui expliquerait pourquoi des informations ont continué à fuiter après l’arrivée de Snowden à Moscou comme la révélation embarrassante sur le téléphone de la chancelière allemande Angela Merkel qui était surveillé par la NSA. Epstein semble enfin convaincu que Snowden continue de partager ses informations avec la Russie. BFMTV

Et que sur fond, après le retrait américain précipité de la région que l’on sait,  d’un Moyen-Orient à feu et à sang …

Et,  entre arrivée massive de prétendus réfugiés et retour annoncé de milliers de terroristes aguerris, d’une Europe plus que jamais fragilisée …

S’accumulent, entre mise au pilori d’Israël et appui explicite de l’hégémonisme iranien, les dossiers et les menaces potentiellement encore plus explosifs …

Et qu’entre accusations de « candidat mandchourien » et avant les révélations annoncées sans la moindre preuve les plus compromettantes …

Via nul doute les canaux habituels de celui qui explique tranquillement l’étrange exclusivité américaine de ses révélations par la trop grand liberté de Moscou et la trop grande distance de Pékin …

Se multiplient, entre Maison Blanche, Hollywood et leur claques médiatiques respectives, les doutes sur la légitimité de l’élection …

Du nouveau président que, contre tous les pronostics et les imprécations de leurs élites, se sont choisis les Américains …

Devinez qui du haut d’une des cotes les plus élevées pour un président américain sortant …

Mais du véritable champ de ruines – du jamais-vu depuis la Seconde Guerre mondiale: quelque 1042 sièges de parlementaire ou postes de gouverneur perdus – qu’il laisse à son propre parti …

Est sur le point d’ajouter entre blâme de son prédécesseur au début et de son successeur à la fin …

Un énième hold up parfait à la longue liste de ceux qui l’ont amené là où il est  ?

Les Russes détiendraient des informations compromettantes sur Trump
Philippe Gélie
Le Figaro
11/01/2017

Selon CNN, les responsables du renseignement américain auraient informé Donald Trump dans un rapport confidentiel que les agents du Kremlin sont en possession d’informations personnelles et financières à son sujet susceptibles de le discréditer.

De notre correspondant à Washington,

Lorsqu’ils lui ont présenté vendredi dernier leur rapport confidentiel sur les interférences russes dans la campagne présidentielle, les responsables du renseignement américain auraient informé Donald Trump que les agents du Kremlin possédaient des «informations compromettantes, personnelles et financières» à son sujet, affirme CNN. L’assertion figurerait dans un addendum de deux pages remis parallèlement à Barack Obama.

Cette allégation proviendrait d’un ancien agent du MI6 britannique, jugé crédible en raison de ses «vastes réseaux» de contacts à travers l’Europe. Celui-ci s’en serait ouvert auprès du FBI dès l’été. La police fédérale aurait attendu de vérifier la fiabilité de ses sources pour inclure l’information dans le rapport sur les piratages russes. Les agences américaines n’auraient pas, à ce stade, vérifié la substance de l’addendum de manière indépendante.

Un ex-ambassadeur britannique aurait cependant eu lui aussi accès aux mêmes informations, par d’autres voies. Il les aurait transmises directement au sénateur John McCain, président de la Commission de la défense du Sénat, qui s’en serait ouvert auprès du directeur du FBI, James Comey, cosignataire du rapport.

Une activité informatique suspecte identifiée

CNN affirme également que, selon l’addendum secret, des personnes liées à Donald Trump auraient communiqué régulièrement avec des proches du Kremlin durant la campagne. Des experts du piratage informatique avaient déjà identifié une activité suspecte entre un serveur du groupe Trump et une adresse e-mail russe fonctionnant en circuit fermé.

Pour les responsables du renseignement, le fait que les Russes n’aient pas diffusé les éléments «compromettants» en leur possession confirmerait leur analyse selon laquelle le Kremlin a tenté de favoriser l’élection de Donald Trump au détriment de Hillary Clinton.

Le président élu ne manquera pas d’être interrogé sur ces nouveaux éléments lors de la conférence de presse qu’il doit tenir ce mercredi, la première du genre depuis juillet. Il a jusqu’ici mis en doute ou minimisé la responsabilité de la Russie dans les piratages, soucieux que rien ne puisse entamer la légitimité de sa victoire.

Si elles sont avérées, ces révélations ne manqueront pas de relancer les soupçons sur les raisons du penchant prorusse de Trump. De nombreux démocrates, mais aussi d’importants élus républicains comme John McCain, le soupçonnent à mots couverts d’être une «marionnette» de Moscou. À l’été, Michael Morell, ancien directeur de la CIA, l’avait quasiment accusé dans le New York Times d’être un «candidat mandchourien»: «Dans le milieu du renseignement, nous dirions que M. Trump a été recruté comme un agent russe qui s’ignore».

Voir aussi:

Brent Budowsky: Donald Trump, a real-life Manchurian candidate
Brent Budowsky
The Hill
08/09/16

With Republicans facing the growing prospect of a landslide defeat that could return control of the Senate and potentially the House to Democrats, 50 leading GOP national security figures announced on Monday that they refuse to vote for Donald Trump because they consider him a danger to American national security.

For many months I have written in The Hill that Trump, now the GOP nominee, has a strange and disquieting habit of offering sympathy and praise to foreign dictators who wish America ill. He has favorably tweeted the words of Benito Mussolini, the Italian fascist from darker days. He has had kind words for Kim Jong Il, the mass murdering dictator of North Korea. And the words of mutual praise exchanged between Trump and former KGB officer and Russian strongman Vladimir Putin will someday be legendary in the history of presidential politics.

Republicans, independents, swing voters and GOP members of the House and Senate who are staking their reelection campaigns on their support for Trump to be president and commander in chief should thoughtfully reflect on the recent op-ed in The New York Times by former acting CIA Director Michael Morell. The op-ed is titled “I ran the CIA. Now I’m endorsing Hillary Clinton.” Morell, who has spent decades protecting our security in the intelligence business, offered high praise for the Democratic nominee and former secretary of State based on his years of working closely with her in the high councils of government. But Morell went even further than praising and endorsing Clinton.

In one of the most extraordinary and unprecedented statements in the history of presidential politics, which powerfully supports the case that every Republican running for office should unequivocally state that they will refuse to vote for Trump or face potentially catastrophic consequences at the polls, Morell wrote: “In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”

This brings to mind the novel and motion picture “The Manchurian Candidate,” which about an American who was captured during the Korean War and brainwashed to unwittingly carry out orders to advance the interests of communists against America.

I offer no suggestion about Trump’s motives in repeatedly saying things, and advocating positions, that are so destructive to American national security interests, though Trump owes the American people full and immediate disclosure of his tax returns for them to determine what, if any, business interests or debt may exist with Russian or other hostile foreign sources.

Whatever Trump’s motivation, Morell is right in suggesting the billionaire nominee is at the least acting as an “unwitting agent” who often advances the interests of foreign actors hostile to America.

Most intelligence experts believe the email leaks attacking Hillary Clinton at the time of the Democratic National Convention were originally obtained through espionage by Russian intelligence services engaging in cyberwar against America, and then shared with WikiLeaks by Russian sources engaged in an infowar against America.

Do Republicans running for the House and Senate in 2016 want to be aligned with a Russian strongman and his intelligence services engaging in covert action against America for the presumed purpose of electing Putin’s preferred candidate? Do they believe Trump when he says he was only kidding when he publicly supported these espionage practices and called for them to be escalated?

Do Republicans running in 2016 believe that America should have a commander in chief who has harshly criticized NATO and stated that if Russia invades the Baltic states, Eastern Europe states such as Poland, or Western Europe he is not committed to defending our allies against this aggression?

Do Republicans running in 2016 support a commander in chief who has endorsed Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, appeared to endorse Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and falsely stated that Russia “is not in Ukraine”?

Do Republicans running in 2016 favor a commander in chief who disdains heroic American POWs by saying he prefers troops who were never captured, and says he would order American troops to commit torture in violation of the Geneva Conventions and international law?

Do Republicans running in 2016 favor a president who campaigns for a ban on immigration of Muslims so extreme that a long list of experts, including retired Gen. and former CIA Director David Petraeus, correctly argue it would help ISIS and other terror groups that seek to kill us?

Do Republicans running in 2016 realize that Trump’s proposal to build a wall on our borders similar to the Berlin Wall erected by the Soviets, coupled with his defamation of immigrants as rapists and murderers, would not only alienate Hispanic voters for a generation but provide a major boost to anti-American extremists across Latin America more successfully than any words Fidel Castro could say today?

I do not question Donald Trump’s patriotism. But for whatever reason Trump advocates policies, again and again, that would help America’s adversaries like Russia and enemies like ISIS and make him, in Morell’s powerful words, “an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”

In “The Manchurian Candidate,” our enemies sought to influence our politics at the highest level. What troubles a growing number of Republicans in Congress, and so many Republican and Democratic national security leaders, is that in 2016 life imitates art, aided and abetted by what appears to be a Russian covert action designed to elect the next American president.

Budowsky was an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas) and Rep. Bill Alexander (D-Ark.), then chief deputy majority whip of the House. He holds an LL.M. in international financial law from the London School of Economics

Voir également:

I Ran the C.I.A. Now I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton

Une enquête choc sur l’ancien employé de la NSA soutient qu’Edward Snowden a volé surtout des documents portant sur des secrets militaires et qu’il a collaboré avec le renseignement russe.