ISIS And The Russia Hoax

While we await IG reports, Congressional testimony, the empaneling of Grand Juries, indictments to handed down, and all that stuff ...

The other day I wrote in a comment:

My view is that what led the Deep State to regard Michael Flynn as "an existential threat," was the report he did at DIA which called out Obama for basically creating ISIS. The reason that posed an existential threat to the Deep State was because ISIS was part of a broader strategy. To have examined that more closely would have dragged in much, much more. So, despite his more or less conventional views in other areas, Flynn had to be neutered. 

The same applies to Trump. Trump was too open to "revisionist" or "non-orthodox" foreign policy views that conflicted with the established Deep State policy. This is why he was perceived as such a threat. In fact, Trump's revisionism probably was viewed as running far deeper than Flynn's. 

As things stand, I would rate Trump's success in furthering his views against the Deep State as only moderate to this point, largely because he's had his hands full fighting off Team Mueller and GOP Deep Staters.

Today Zerohedge has an interview - article that I highly recommend: How CIA & Allies Helped Jihadists In Syria: French Covert Ops Expert Exposes New Details. Here's the short intro that will give you the overview, but the article is rich in detail (some of which I'll include):

Maxime Chaix has written a shocker of a book in which he reveals insightful information on the support which several Western intelligence services provided to jihadist militias in Syria, starting with the CIA. His investigation reveals a multi-faceted state scandal and points out the murky game played by the Western powers and their Middle Eastern allies in the Levant.

So, in other words, at the heart of this book (La guerre de l’ombre en Syrie - The Shadow War in Syria) is the Clinton/Obama policy in the wake of the Iraq War and the "Arab Spring". That would be the policy that Flynn criticized when he was at DIA and whose criticism Trump adopted. Does that give you some idea of why the Deep State regarded both Flynn and Trump as "existential threats," and why the combination of the two in the White House increased that threat exponentially? Here's how the interview begins (but do yourself a favor and read the whole thing):

Emmanuel Razavi: First of all, please refresh our memories about what operation Timber Sycamore is. 

Maxime Chaix: Timber Sycamore is the codename of a covert operation officially authorized by Obama in June 2013 to train and equip the anti-Assad rebellion, but which actually started in October 2011, when the CIA was operating via Britain’s MI6 to avoid having to notify Congress that it was arming the rebels in Syria. Originally, the CIA and MI6 (the British foreign intelligence service) set up a rebel arms supply network in Syria from Libya — a plan that involved the Saudi, Qatari and Turkish intelligence services. 

In 2012, probably in spring, Obama reluctantly signed a top-secret executive order, of which little is known other than that it authorized the CIA to provide “non-lethal support” to the rebels in Syria. In concrete terms, then, what the CIA did was to link up its Qatari and Saudi allies with a number of arms manufacturers in the Balkans (Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Croatia, etc.). With the backing of NATO, which controls arms exports from the Balkans via EUFOR, Qatari and Saudi secret services began buying up weapons and ammunition from these countries to illegally equip anti-Assad rebels. 

A few months later, in October 2012, the New York Times revealed that this vast CIA-sponsored arms trafficking was mainly going to support jihadist groups in Syria, while arms exports by air were growing, with weapons being injected into Syrian territory from “operation rooms” in Turkey and Jordan, through the FSA (“Free Syria Army”) and local arms traffickers. 

Finally, it turned out that these “operation rooms” were cobbled together by fifteen Western and Middle Eastern intelligence services, including the DGSE (French foreign intelligence service) and MI6, although the we do not yet know exactly what role these various agencies played in this secret war. What is clear — and what I demonstrate in my book with irrefutable evidence —is that tens of thousands of tons of weapons and millions of rounds of ammunition were brought into the Syrian theater of war by this operation. It is also proven that these armaments mostly went to equip jihadist groups, including the terrorist militia which proclaimed itself “Islamic State” in June 2014. 

Ultimately, Donald Trump decided to phase out this operation in early summer 2017. This was a major setback for the CIA, as the US President was thereby conceding the defeat of the United States and its partners in the war against Syria and its Russian, Iranian and Lebanese allies.

Notice the overlap with the Russia Hoax operation, both in terms of dates as well as the players who were involved. Notice the close cooperation of the CIA and British intelligence, and recall all the talk there's been of John Brennan at the CIA with Robert Hannigan at GCHQ re the Russia Hoax. Coincidence? I don't think so.

I suppose there are any number of reasons why Flynn and Trump were unacceptable to the Deep State and the DC Establishment generally. Nevertheless, if you're looking for a reason why the Deep State would take the remarkable step, after failing to stop Trump's election, of actually initiating a "soft coup" against a duly elected president--this would be it. Yes, it was a big step for the US Intel Community to move from illegal covert ops overseas (CIA) to illegal covert ops on the domestic front (FBI). Fortunately--or so they thought at the time--our Brit "allies" were there to provide cover and crucial coordination. Desperate times call for desperate measures--right?

The question is, what will be done to prevent this from happening again? Can such measures be taken without bi-partisan agreement? Sadly, past bi-partisan efforts to bring the Deep State under some sort of control have proven unsuccessful.

ADDENDUM: I just listened to Joe DiGenova from the 18th. He flatly stated that there was no doubt whatsoever that, within 60 days of the authorization of the Special Counsel, Mueller knew that there was no collusion case and that to keep the op going he'd need to go with obstruction. Rosenstein knew that, too. Of course, that doesn't mean they would stop trying to manufacture some "evidence" of "collusion," only that the realities of the situation were such that that was not an outcome that could be relied upon. My point in citing DiGenova is simply this: the Deep State needed the op had to continue. That's also why I've stated that Mueller's deepest loyalty was not to the FBI as an institution, but rather to the Deep State of which he had become a member. The question is--to what extent will Barr be able to take on the Deep State. There's no one better qualified to do so, but does he have the necessary power base?