Join us at 2:00 pm eastern for our weekly Friday Webcast, with your host Matthew Ogden and special guest, EIR’s Will Wertz.
MATTHEW OGDEN: Good afternoon. It’s September 29, 2017. My name is Matthew Ogden, and you’re joining us for our LaRouche PAC webcast. I’m joined in the studio today by William Wertz from Executive Intelligence Review. We are going to be discussing the new break-out special investigative report that has been released; the special dossier which is under the title “Robert Mueller Is an Amoral Legal Assassin; He Will Do His Job if You Let Him!” I’m going to display on the screen here the cover page from this report [Fig. 1]. As you can see here, this is available now; it’s been circulated now already for over a day. It’s already in the hands of people across the United States, and you can access it at the following website: lpac.co/ytdos. The report is divided into three sections, and it follows the thread of the character of Robert Mueller through three of the most notorious crimes of the last 30 years. First you have the frame-up and the legal prosecution of Lyndon LaRouche — the LaRouche case; second you have the aggressive deception of the American people concerning the truth of the events of 9/11, which was used to then launch a series of regime-change wars; and third, you have the ongoing coup against the sitting President of the United States as we speak. And you will see, hopefully over the course of this show — and what we encourage you to do is to read the dossier in full — the thread of Robert Mueller can be traced all the way through these crucial historic inflection points. If you pull that thread, you will unravel this entire apparatus, this entire operation.
So, I’m joined here by Will today to present some of the report in a summary form and to guide you through what its contents are, and to give a little bit of reflection of each of these three crucial nodal points that are covered in detail in this report. And hopefully to entice you and encourage you to read and study this report in detail. I’m going to go ahead and let Will begin, and we’ll have some material that we can use on the screen during the course of this, but we’re going to walk you through some of the contents of this report.
WILLIAM WERTZ: Thank you, Matt. The beauty of this report — which is something which must be acted on immediately to save this republic and the Presidency and to move the world into a New Paradigm, as defined by the One Belt, One Road policy of the Chinese which has been adopted by many countries throughout the world, including Russia, and which the United States has been invited to join — is that it locates this attack on President Trump and the U.S. Presidency over a longer period of time; in which the fundamental issue is whether the world remains under the domination of a bankrupt financial imperial system controlled by the British, or whether we move into a New Paradigm based upon a principle of peace through economic development. That’s the fundamental issue. This is something which Lyndon LaRouche has fought for for decades. Back in 1971, August 15, he very clearly posed the alternatives before humanity and also for this country, as Nixon announced phase one, phase two, and the dismemberment of the Bretton Woods system which Roosevelt had put into place after World War II. What he said at that time was, we have an alternative; the alternative is to go with a policy of economic development on a global scale, or we will be faced with an effort to impose a Schachtian fascist economic policy which would result in massive deaths throughout the globe. By “Schachtian” I’m referring to Hjalmar Schacht, the finance minister under Adolf Hitler, who was put into power by people such as John Foster Dulles and the British.
Now, what LaRouche did in the 1970s, following that assessment was that he put forward any number of absolutely crucial development programs. In 1975, he advocated the creation of an International Development Bank. He later called for the creation of a national bank in the United States along the lines of Alexander Hamilton’s First National Bank. He put forward development programs for the Pacific and Indian Oceans Basin area. He put forward a program called Operation Juárez for the development of Mexico and as a model for North-South relations through the exchange of Mexican oil for U.S. technology. He later would put forward programs for the Eurasian Land-Bridge in collaboration with his wife Helga Zepp-LaRouche, which later became the World Land-Bridge. The British were absolutely opposed to this policy — absolutely. What we will see is that this has been a fight throughout the period of the 1970s and ’80s through the period of 9/11, and into today’s attack on the Trump Presidency. It’s been a battle between the British Empire, which has intervened in the United States, to prevent the United States from moving in this direction as Lyndon LaRouche has attempted to steer it; and is on the verge of steering it today, which is why the British are so fearful.
Back in the 1980s, Lyndon LaRouche had played a crucial role in shaping the incoming Reagan administration. He was the author of the Strategic Defense Initiative, which Reagan later announced in March of 1983. He also was an opponent of the British in the Malvinas War, and called for the implementation of the Monroe Doctrine against the British colonial policy there. As a result, in 1982 he met with Indira Gandhi; he and his wife met with Indira Gandhi in April of 1982 to discuss the development of the Indian subcontinent and the Pacific Basin. He met in May of 1982 with José López Portillo to discuss Operation Juárez. In response to this, what you had was in August 1982, a letter from Henry Kissinger to FBI Director William Webster, calling for an investigation of Lyndon LaRouche for alleged harassment of Kissinger for being a British agent. There was also then a letter sent by the British government on August 27, 1982, to the FBI; calling for an investigation of Lyndon LaRouche and his association. On September 24, 1982, the FBI in the person of counterintelligence chief James Noland, wrote a response to the British.
OGDEN: We actually have a FOIA release of that FBI memo itself, which we’re going to put on the screen [Fig.2]. You can see for yourself the following quote that Will’s going to read.
WERTZ: So what this says is, this is from James Noland to the British government: “We would like to reiterate our conclusion that while many of the harassment activities of the NCLC” — which was the organization of Lyndon LaRouche — “and the themes promoted by NCLC publications, such as EIR are often propitious to Soviet disinformation and propaganda interests, there is no direct evidence that the Soviets are directing or funding LaRouche or his organization. It is entirely plausible, however, that the Soviets have developed or may be developing sources within the NCLC who are in a position to interject Soviet-inspired views into NCLC activities and publications. It is likely that the Soviets will attempt to capitalize on or exploit NCLC sentiments that are parallel to or promote Soviet foreign policy objectives.”
Then he concludes, “For your information, under the domestic security guidelines set forth by the Attorney General, the FBI does not have an active investigation of Lyndon LaRouche or the NCLC.”
Now, does this remind you of the intervention on the part of the Government Communications Headquarters — the GCHQ — of Britain, or MI6’s Christopher Steele in attempting to get an investigation going of the current President of the United States, Donald Trump, for alleged collusion with the Russians?
Despite that, what happened on January 12, 1983, is that the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board demanded an investigation by the FBI. Robert Mueller enters the picture in 1982. He joined the staff of U.S. Attorney William Weld in Boston in 1982. Following the 1984 elections, Weld launched an investigation of LaRouche; and in 1986, Mueller succeeded Weld when Weld was appointed by George Bush — actually Ronald Reagan was President, but under the influence of George Bush, Sr. — to head the Criminal Division of the DOJ. Then Mueller brought in one John Markham to carry out the prosecution of Lyndon LaRouche, which began in Boston. Following a raid conducted in Leesburg, Virginia at LaRouche headquarters on October 6, 1986, in which there was a threat and actually a plan to attempt to stage an assassination of Lyndon LaRouche. That attempt was thwarted, but the prosecution continued through the late 1980s.
This prosecution was typical of Mueller’s corruption. For instance, in Boston itself, the prosecution ended in a mistrial after government misconduct had been brought to light. The jury, when they polled themselves afterwards, having only heard the complete prosecution case, unanimously said that they would have voted for acquittal. The judge in that case made the following statement: He said that the government had “engaged in systematic and institutional prosecutorial misconduct”; this is Robert Mueller. The case was then shifted to Virginia, and what they did there was that they had a judge in the so-called “Rocket Docket” who made it impossible for the defendants to raise the fact that the government had illegally put companies associated with LaRouche into involuntary bankruptcy. That was a very significant factor in undermining the defense in that case. After the case had resulted in convictions, the bankruptcy judge, Martin Bostetter, ruled that the bankruptcy was a “constructive fraud on the court.”
Ramsey Clark was the attorney for Lyndon LaRouche in the appeal.
OGDEN: Let’s put this quote on the screen, too; we have Ramsey Clark’s quote [Fig. 3].
WERTZ: What Ramsey Clark said was that “The LaRouche case represents a broader range of deliberate cunning and systemic misconduct over a longer period of time using the power of the Federal government, than any other prosecution by the U.S. Government in my time and to my knowledge.” Later in another spin-off case in New York State, New York State Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Crane said, “The actions of the Federal prosecutors raise an inference of a conspiracy to lay low these defendants at any cost.” This is not just one judge. We’re talking about at least two judges, a bankruptcy judge, and the former Attorney General of the United States Ramsey Clark, who effectively denounced this so-called honest Robert Mueller for conducting one of the most incredible corrupt prosecutions in U.S. history.
If we look forward to the 9/11 period, Lyndon LaRouche wrongly imprisoned by this apparatus which was launched by the British and carried forward by the Bush administration. Bush was President at the time of the trial and the sentencing. LaRouche was out of prison and continued his fight for a policy of economic development; calling for a New Bretton Woods system to replace the system which had been abandoned by Nixon in 1971. He was working, as he had in the earlier period, on negotiating in the early 1980s with the Soviets for the National Security Council of the United States under Reagan for the SDI. He continued those discussions with the Russians, this time around a New Bretton Woods conception under President Clinton. Clinton himself, before the impeachment proceedings were launched against him, called for a new financial architecture at a speech before the CFR [Council on Foreign Relations] in New York, along the lines of what LaRouche had advocated.
LaRouche was also at the end of the 1990s, he was warning about the campaign to create an Arc of Crisis around Russia — no longer the Soviet Union, but Russia. He produced a video called “Storm Over Asia” in which he developed precisely how this operation was being run against Russia. Then in January of 2001, he warned that there could be some sort of terrorist action in the United States such as a Reichstag Fire [which brought Hitler into power], which could be engineered under the Bush administration. That’s precisely what occurred on September 11, 2001.
Again, what do we have here? Mueller assumed office as FBI Director on September 4, 2001, just days before 9/11. What he did from that point on, was to carry out what Senator Bob Graham, who headed up the Congressional investigation of 9/11, has described as “aggressive deception.”
OGDEN: Here’s a clip from a press conference that Bob Graham did a little bit over a year ago at the National Press Club, where he discusses the role that the FBI played in stonewalling the Congressional investigation into 9/11; both in terms of the details regarding San Diego — that’s what was contained in the 28 pages — but also in an even bigger case of cover-up, the details of the cell that was located in Sarasota, Florida. So you’ll hear Bob Graham talk about what he called “beyond a cover-up, but an aggressive deception campaign against the American people.”
SEN. BOB GRAHAM : It appeared as if the FBI was moving from a cover-up which I considered to be a passive withholding of information, to aggressive deception in the case of Sarasota — which is one of several examples. They rewrote the narrative; they said we’ve finished the investigation, and we have found no connections. When in their own files, written by their own special agent who was from the Tampa office, incidentally, they had contrary information. They then, and have continued, to withhold that information, other than the 80,000 pages from the public. I consider to justify the categorization of being aggressive deception.
OGDEN: Then later in the same press conference, which you can watch in full there — it’s lpac.co/graham-press-conference. But later in the same press conference, he talked about how the Deputy Director of the FBI actually detained him and his wife at Dulles Airport, and warned them to stop pursuing the truth about what was contained in these documents about the Saudi connections to 9/11. So, here’s a short clip where he talks about that warning from the FBI to him and his wife.
GRAHAM : The question is raised, “Why are you doing this? Fifteen years later, what difference does this make? Get a life.” I was told that by the Deputy Director of the FBI.
FEMALE REPORTER: Just one follow-up. You were pretty much harassed by the FBI when you tried to go further in your inquiries. Since you went public, have you heard of anybody else who had that kind of treatment from the FBI?
GRAHAM: No. This was a situation which occurred in 2011 as all this information about Sarasota was starting to come out. My wife and I flew up from Miami to Dulles to have Thanksgiving with our daughter who lives in Great Falls. We were met at the airport by two FBI agents. They said that an official of the FBI wants to talk with you about the Sarasota situation. Well, I was encouraged; feeling that maybe some of the questions that we’d been asking were now going to be answered. So, we drove with the two agents to the office at Dulles which the FBI has. My wife was put in one room, and she was given as entertainment the FBI training manual. If you want to know some arcane aspects of FBI training, she’s fully prepared. I was taken into another room, with the Deputy Director of the FBI, a young female FBI agent, and a middle-aged lawyer from the Department of Justice. Essentially, the message was, we’ve done this complete investigation; everything that’s known is known, and you need to get a life. I pointed out what he didn’t know was that I had actually read two of the investigative reports by their agent, which contradicted what they had said publicly and what he had just said to me privately. He said, “Oh, you don’t understand. One, that wasn’t a very good agent.” Well, the idea that has there been an investigation by the FBI in its history that was as important to the American people as full knowledge as 9/11? And the very fact that they would say they had sent as an investigation into what I think was an important component of the total picture, someone that they declare to be less than a fully capable person was itself revelatory. And then he proceeded to say, “And we have other information that puts what you read in context. And you will see that in fact what we have said is true.” So, I said “Fine. Could I see the information that will put it into context?” And he pointed to the young female agent, and directed her to assemble the files. We arranged a time to meet at the FBI office for the District of Columbia.
So, a few days later, I showed up for our meeting, prepared to read these files. The Deputy Director was there, and he said the meeting is cancelled and we’re not going to reschedule. And, since I knew who the agent was who had been described as less than competent; and I had called him to try to have a telephone conversation, and he said “I know you’ve been calling Agent ‘X’. Stop calling him, because I’ve told him to not take your calls.” That was the last of any official character meeting that I had with the FBI. [END VIDEO]
OGDEN: There are more details concerning Mueller’s direct involvement in this kind of stonewalling around the Congressional inquiry into 9/11; telling Bob Graham and his other investigators not to fly out to interview one of the known personalities in San Diego. They disobeyed those orders and did it anyhow. But just parenthetically, immediately after this press conference that Bob Graham did in Washington D.C. at the National Press Club, a fight erupted around the so-called JASTA bill — Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism — which would allow the 9/11 families to sue Saudi Arabia for their role in financing and coordinating the 9/11 attacks. Yesterday just happens to be the one-year anniversary of the major victory — you can see on the screen here [Fig. 4] — of the Senate override of Obama’s veto of this JASTA bill, which was absolutely dramatic. This was a rally in front of the White House [Fig. 5] of 9/11 families and activists, asking the Congress to override Obama’s veto; and then next [Fig. 6], this is an article in one of the Capitol Hill newspapers. “Senate Poised To Override Obama Veto.” Then this is the final picture [Fig. 7], this was actually in the cloakroom immediately after the Senate cast their votes. The cloakroom of the U.S. Senate. I had the pleasure to actually be there in the gallery with the 9/11 families when the U.S. Senate overrode Obama’s veto of the JASTA bill. That was the CNN coverage. This was obviously a major victory, parenthetically. But it’s part of the story, and the role that Bob Graham had to play in going directly head-to-head with the FBI and others in the Executive Branch who were trying to cover up and protect the Saudis in the 9/11 case.
WERTZ: Now, there are, along with the statement from James Noland that I read earlier, in response to the British government’s request back in 1982 for an investigation of Lyndon LaRouche, there were two other attachments which were declassified. The one basically was an attack upon LaRouche for having opposed in what they called the Falkland Islands, but which is the Malvinas Islands. LaRouche did that from the standpoint of the Monroe Doctrine. The second was they objected to the LaRouche Movement revealing that the policy of the British was to promote the Muslim Brotherhood. If we look at the period after 9/11, in which Robert Mueller is carrying out this “aggressive deception” as Senator Graham puts it, to cover up the role of the Saudis. When you’re talking about the Saudis, you’re talking about a satrap of the British; that’s what you’re talking about in this situation.
What follows 9/11? Regime-change wars. What follows 9/11 immediately is Tony Blair’s sexed up dossier claiming that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction; which, as it turns out, he did not have. And which the British undoubtedly knew he did not have. Once again, British intervention. And after the invasion of Iraq, you had the effective creation of ISIS; you had then under Obama, continued regime-change policies under the name of the Arab Spring, which was just a policy of bringing the Muslim Brotherhood to power in such locations as Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Syria. As Lyndon LaRouche said after the assassination of Qaddafi, the reason they assassinated him was that they were in a hurry to move into Syria, as part of what he had earlier described as the “Storm Over Asia”; an effort to encircle Russia and to ensure that a New Paradigm does not emerge.
A critical point in this narrative really is in the period of 2013-14. I should just say, Mueller stepped aside as FBI Director on September 4, 2013; and as you know, he was replaced by James Comey. James Comey, it should be remembered, was the Deputy Attorney General under Mueller from December 2003 until August 2005.
In the year 2013, President Xi of China went to Kazakhstan, and he announced the Chinese commitment to the Silk Road; a policy which had been advocated for a significant period of time by Lyndon LaRouche and his wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, who is well known today as the Silk Road Lady. The Chinese have an immediate appreciation of the role that she has played in advocating this policy.
In the next year, you have the Ukraine coup — February 2014; orchestrated by Obama and by the British and the French, among others. But the basic idea here was, again, encirclement of Russia, in this case with a bunch of Nazis, which is what the Maidan consisted of.
On July 16, 2014, as the dossier that Barbara Boyd has authored on Mueller indicates, you had the BRICS organization meeting in Brazil, and what they formed was the New Development Bank. Remember, LaRouche had called for an International Development Bank, back in 1975: This whole policy that LaRouche had advocated over these decades, at that point was in the process of coming into existence, and it was at point, particularly following the coup in Ukraine, that the operation against associates of Trump’s began, that is, even before he announced for President. We now know, that contrary to the lies of James Comey and [then Director of National Intelligence] James Clapper, there was wiretapping of associates of President Trump. We know for a fact that the dossier indicates that Paul Manafort, who became Trump’s campaign manager when he announced for President, was wiretapped beginning in the year 2014; and this continued through 2016. It was discontinued for a certain period of time, and then resumed into 2017 before Obama left office, including a time period in which it was known that Manafort, even though he was no longer campaign manager, was speaking to President Trump. Manafort had a residence in the Trump Tower all of this time.
Why was he targetted, initially? Well, because he had provided advisory services to the Yanukovych government [in Ukraine] — this was a duly elected government, which was overthrown unconstitutionally in 2014, by Nazis. So, of course, that becomes grounds for investigating somebody whose client was overthrown by a bunch of Nazis, by the Obama administration!
The investigation begins there.
Also, in 2014, Michael Flynn was fired by Obama — why? Because he had opposed the Obama Arab Spring policy, which gave rise to ISIS, Michael Flynn said at the time. So you can imagine that it is perhaps the case that surveillance of Michael Flynn began at that time as well.
Now, what the dossier on Mueller goes through is that Mueller should be removed as Special Counsel, and there should be an actual Special Counsel who investigates the crimes which Mueller aggressively deceiving the American people about, in his investigation of President Trump. And I would also point out, think of the statements by various judges about the corrupt investigation and witch hunt directed at Lyndon LaRouche — well, on June 15, 2017, Trump wrote: “You are witnessing the single greatest witch hunt in American political history.” And I would say that, the precursor for this was the unprecedented witch hunt against Lyndon LaRouche, but that President Trump is effectively getting the same treatment as Lyndon LaRouche did then, from the same sources, from the British.
Now, there are seven areas, that should be investigated — ,
OGDEN: We can put this on the screen here. We have the list of the seven actual crimes.
WERTZ: First, instigation of a coup against the United States by a foreign power.
So, although the charge is that President Trump, or his associates, colluded with the Russians, the fact of the matter is, that all the evidence shows that this entire operation has been concocted by the British, and been carried out by stooges in the intelligence community under President Obama; who was particularly happy every time he visited Buckingham Palace.
Now what do we have as evidence? Well, the Guardian reports that as early as 2015, shortly after he announced for President, that the British began to surveille Trump and his associates. And according to the public account — and this cannot be taken at face value; this investigation of Trump may have started earlier. The communications between the British and [then CIA Director] Brennan or others in the U.S. intelligence community, could have occurred before 2016. The report in the Guardian says that sometime in the summer, Hannigan of the Government Communications Headquarters, the GCHQ, which is the equivalent of our NSA, spoke with Brennan about allegations that Trump was being influenced by the Russians or working with the Russians.
But the point is, it was the GCHQ which was directly involved — according to public accounts in the Guardian, in prompting Brennan to create a six-intelligence agency taskforce to investigate Trump, during the Presidential campaign!
And I think the only other case of this kind of thing, was what happened to Lyndon LaRouche, because Lyndon LaRouche was running for President, back in 1988, and the investigation of him was launched while he was a Presidential candidate in the United States, and — really, actually, an indictment during the Presidential campaign, which is completely unprecedented.
Additionally, you have the Christopher Steele dossier: Christopher Steele is allegedly an “ex” MI6 agent. He headed up the MI6 Russian desk in Moscow, until 2009. In 2009, he left that position and formed Orbis Business at the same time period Fusion GPS, a U.S. company which was involved in commissioning Steele’s dossier, was also created. And these two companies were working together since at least 2010 when they signed a confidentiality agreement between them as a shield for revealing what was actually going on.
So you have the circulation of the Christopher Steele dossier — and they didn’t just produce this for Hillary Clinton. They were briefing the press! They were giving direct briefings to the press; they were giving it to John McCain who then gave it to Comey, and so forth. They were actively circulating this unverified, so-called “intelligence” against Donald Trump, who was a candidate for President, then became President.
And it’s very important to understand that Christopher Steele, it’s public record that he worked with the FBI’s Eurasian Organized Crime Unit in New York City, from at least 2010. The former head of the FBI’s Eurasian Organized Crime Unit in New York City is none other than Andrew McCabe; who for a while, after Comey was fired, was Acting Director of the FBI, and is still Deputy Director of the FBI. And it’s believed that McCabe was the person who was working closely with Christopher Steele. It came to light, for instance, that the FBI actually offered to pay Steele $50,000 to continue with his research, although the FBI’s been stonewalling on the details on that.
So what you have here is completely a British operation directed at Trump and his associates; and I’ll get to this in terms of the wiretapping.
And it’s also believed that the Christopher Steele dossier provided the roadmap for the FBI’s investigation, and also may have been used for getting ,” FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] surveillance authorization directed at people such as Manafort.
Second crime is false reporting of a crime: And that’s precisely what has occurred in the case of the allegation that the Russians hacked Podesta and the DNC. It has been documented thoroughly by numerous sources that this was a leak by an insider, and not a hack by the Russians. The most definitive proof of this is the memorandum put forward by the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). And these are top-notch former NSA, former CIA agents such as William Binney and Ray McGovern. They prove forensically that it could not have been a hack over the internet; it had to be a leak onto some sort of memory device, because of the speed involved [in the data transfer].
This has been submitted to Mueller; he’s done nothing on it. It’s been submitted to the President with the idea that he should ask Pompeo of the CIA to get to the bottom of this. We don’t know if anything’s been done along these lines.
They also show that at least the Guccifer 2.0 claimed hacking, attributed falsely to the Russians, when in fact there was cutting and pasting to put the Russian language on the alleged hack trail. This is something which the CIA has the capability to do under Brennan; it’s called the Marble Framework. Assange of WikiLeaks has denied that this came from the Russian government. He recently met with Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, and said that he was willing to provide testimony which would definitely establish that this was not a hack and that it was not given to him by the Russians. Rohrabacher (R-CA) has been trying to meet with Trump in order to present this evidence, but it’s been blocked, according to him, by the staff at the White House.
Craig Murray, a U.K. former ambassador to Uzbekistan, has said it was a leak and he knows it personally, because he met with a person that he said was the leaker.
Seymour Hersh was taped in a discussion, without his knowing he was being recorded, and he indicated that he had sources who indicated that Seth Rich, a DNC computer technician, may have been the person who carried out the leak.
So all of this information is not being taken into account, in continuing with the narrative that this was a Russian hack, and you’re supposed to believe that.
Then you have the third crime, which is an attempt at entrapment of Donald Trump, Jr., Manafort, and Jared Kushner, among others, in a Trump Tower meeting. The British hand is all over this: The person who set up the meeting and sent the emails to Donald Trump, Jr., which misrepresented the purpose of the meeting, was one Ron Goldstone, a British national. It should also be pointed out that one William Browder, who testified before Congress, in this case against Fusion GPS, because they were lobbying against the Magnitsky Act, which was the subject of the discussion at the Trump Tower. This was a person who renounced his U.S. citizenship in 1989 and became a British citizen.
So again, what we’re dealing with here is a complete British operation. It’s just transparent that that’s the case. But this was a deliberate attempt to try to set up a situation which would involve the Trump immediate circles, in attempting to get information on Hillary Clinton allegedly coming from the Russians.
Fourth area: Felonious leaks of intelligence by the Obama administration. This has to do with the unmasking, which was completely out of control, or I guess you could say it was under very directed control by the Obama administration officials. For instance, it’s been revealed that Samantha Power, the Obama UN ambassador, requested 260 unmaskings of U.S. citizens in the course of 2016. And she even tried to get even more unmaskings before the inauguration of Donald Trump. What reason does she have to be asking for such intelligence, from the standpoint of being at the UN?
Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice, it is known asked for many unmaskings, in this case, her National Security Council records were transferred to the Obama library, so that justice could be obstructed, because records at the library are sealed for a number of years.
This is a deliberate policy of targetting U.S. citizens, particularly Trump associated by the Obama administration, and those are two such cases.
You have also the attempted J. Edgar Hoover-style sexual blackmail of Trump, by Comey: This is the fifth area that should be investigated. Comey met with Trump in Trump Tower on Jan. 6, 2017; he met with him alone. Other people had come to the meeting, but he asked them to leave and then met with Trump alone, and presented him with an aspect of the Steele dossier which claimed that he had been involved in sexual perversions in a hotel in Moscow. Trump has reportedly asked for an immediate investigation of this fraudulent dossier, which Comey refused to do.
But this is the kind of thing that J. Edgar Hoover did to many, to Martin Luther King, Jr., and to many others, as a means of terrorizing and controlling people to go along with a policy desired by J. Edgar Hoover’s controllers, which is also the case with respect to Comey.
A sixth area for investigation is the wiretapping of Trump associates, and then the lying by Comey and Clapper to the U.S. Congress. Clapper in particular was asked, was there a FISA ordered surveillance of Trump or his associates? He said no. “Would you know about it if it had occurred?” “Yes, I would,” and he left a loophole and said: Well, there may have been some other jurisdiction was carrying out a wiretap that I don’t know about.
But this is what he said, and he definitively said there was no FISA Court wiretap, and yet, that’s precisely what came out: That Manafort, the campaign manager of Trump, was wiretapped and he had a resident at Trump Tower, and this is precisely what Trump had tweeted on March 4th, 2017: “Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!” So that has to be investigated.
And then the final thing in the dossier, is the attempted entrapment of the President by Comey himself, into an obstruction of justice charge: So you have the head of the FBI who is acting virtually as somebody who goes to a meeting with wires on, and goes back to his controllers at the FBI to consult after each visit with Trump. And then writes memos, which he illegally leaked to the press, and he actually said: “I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.” So he had the intention of getting a special counsel against Trump, on the grounds — one would be to claim that Trump asked him not to pursue an investigation of Michael Flynn; of course Trump didn’t do that, as indicated. He merely said, “I would hope that he wouldn’t be prosecuted.” And of course, as has been pointed out, the President has the right to actually pardon somebody. So, as Alan Dershowitz, the civil rights attorney, and Democrat, has said he had every right to say what he did.
And the other aspect is to say that somehow Trump was obstructing justice by firing Comey! So the attempt was set up to get Mueller to be able to carry out this kind of an investigation against Trump.
Using methods of entrapment, lying throughout, what you had is a witch hunt against a President of the United States. It’s not the first time that the British have been involved in this, and their stooges in the United States, but this is really unprecedented, with the exception of the witch hunt which was carried out earlier against Lyndon LaRouche.
And it’s time that this be stopped! And that’s the whole point of this dossier.
The dossier should be seen as a political weapon in the hands of the American citizenry. The issue here is what Benjamin Franklin said after the Constitutional Convention adopted a Constitution. We have a republic, the question is, can you keep it? And the responsibility rests on the American citizen to use this dossier to actually force the issue in the country right now, to stop this British coup.
Robert Mueller’s full name, as the dossier indicates, is Robert Swan Mueller III. Our intention is to make this operation being carried out by Mueller right now, to be his final swan song.
OGDEN: As we saw on the screen there, the question that was asked at the conclusion of this final section of the dossier is the following: “Have our intelligence agencies, actually instigated an Active Measures counterintelligence program illegally and against a sitting President?” [emphasis in original]
So that’s the question and as the dossier states a little bit later on: It’s very clear that there has been a foreign government that has intervened to attempt to sway the U.S. electoral process and the U.S. democratic process, and that that foreign government is the British government. And so if you follow the thread of Robert Mueller, not just in the attacks right now against President Donald Trump, but if you follow it back to the aggressive cover-up of the events of 9/11, and even the prosecution and witch hunt against Lyndon LaRouche in the 1980s, you’ll see if you pull that thread it will unravel a much, much larger apparatus, and it will reveal a lot more.
This dossier follows that thread very clearly through these three crucial inflection points in our nation’s recent history and the call to action is obviously to access this dossier which we’re making available and to circulate it as widely as possible.
Will, you made the point that the context for all of this is much more significant than maybe even all of the mechanisms by which these crimes have been carried out. The context is what reveals and uncovers the true motivation behind this entire process, and I think if you take the connections between this dossier, which choose 1982 as a crucial year to examine what Lyndon LaRouche’s activities were at that time — meeting with López Portillo, meeting with Indira Gandhi, proposing the Strategic Defense Initiative, and authoring Operation Juárez, and if you trace that forward to the announcement in 2013 by Xi Jinping of the new Silk Road, the Eurasian World Land-Bridge, and the new international financial institution of development that that represents, that’s the unifier for this entire period of history.
And despite the attempts, over and over, and over again, to derail that locomotive of world history, we’ve reached the point where that is the prevailing dynamic on the planet. And the attempts to try to sabotage that and undermine it continue to fail. And so, this is the latest attempt in that, but to look at what the motivation is — maybe you can just say a little bit more about what that context is.
WERTZ: I think the point is, in defeating this British operation which Mueller is spearheading at this point, we create the conditions under which President Trump can move to join with Russia, China, India in the development of the One Belt, One Road policy. This is crucial in terms of reversing the destructions over the recent decades of our industrial capacity in the United States; it’s crucial in terms of developing world peace, solving crises such as Korea, solving crises such as the terrorist onslaught in the Middle East and Northern Africa in particular. That collaboration is crucial. Trump has signalled that he wants to move with such collaboration.
And this is a longstanding fight to bring humanity together, operating on a common destiny of humanity, what John Quincy Adams called a “community of principle among a family of sovereign nation-states.”
The British Empire, as the Venetian Empire before it, has been opposed to that. It has operated under the geopolitical of dividing nations among themselves, creating warfare such as we’ve seen repeatedly over the last more than a hundred years, with two world wars, and perpetual warfare ever since.
And so we’re in a situation, where, as Lyndon LaRouche recently said, “Victory is within our reach,” and you have to understand this broad arc of history in order to have an appreciation of what’s occurring in so-called contemporary affairs. It’s not what meets the eye: it’s this broader question — we’ve got a financial crisis in the world. The system is overbloated and ripe for collapse; the problems of 2008 were never solved. And we have a solution before us which is New Paradigm: Peace based upon economic development, cooperation among nations for the purpose of promoting, as our Constitution says, the General Welfare, not just of our own population, but of the population of the entire planet.
And I think that’s the issue between the British Empire policy of geopolitics, versus the policy of a community of principle among nation-states, which is a U.S. policy; the policy expressed by President Xi of China of a “win-win” policy, as opposed to a zero-sum game — this is what’s at stake right now. I think the American citizen, as this dossier concludes, has to take responsibility, circulate this dossier! We’re going to be producing a leaflet and maybe multiple leaflets that you can get from our site and then circulate throughout the country, to bring people’s attention to this dossier. We’re not in a position to produce a large number of these in hard copy, but we do have an electronic version which will be available on the LaRouche PAC site.
And by doing this, we can create the conditions under which not only is the presence of the United States defended against this coup attempt, and it’s very much like the Maidan in Ukraine that’s being attempted right now; what’s being done to Trump is almost precisely modeled on the Maidan that brought about the coup in Ukraine. But more broadly than that, by defending the Presidency was the chance of bringing about a different geometry on the globe as a whole, and creating the conditions under which we can move towards what the actual mission of mankind is:, which is not only to develop this planet Earth, but also to assert dominion over the Galaxy and eventually the Universe.
OGDEN: Well, thank you, and let me put on the screen, one more time, the cover page of this dossier, so you can get a look at it, and we’ll have the link here on the screen. You can access this dossier at lpac.co/ytdos. And again, the title: “Robert Mueller Is An Amoral Legal Assassin: He Will Do His Job If You Let Him.”
You’ll find this report fascinating: You’ll learn a lot about history, the history of this country over the last 30, 35 years that you did not know, I guarantee you. And you’ll learn a lot about what’s going on right now. There’s much, much more than what meets the eye.
Thank you for joining me, Will. And thank you for tuning in, and we encourage you, read the dossier and circulate it as widely as you can. And stay tuned to larouchepac.com