This article appears in the June 7, 2019 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
Coup Exposed, British Go for Coverup:
Now Let’s Really Drain the Swamp
This is an edited version of remarks delivered by Barbara Boyd at the opening of the national LaRouche PAC Fireside Chat on May 30, 2019.
Before we get to Robert Mueller’s incitement to impeachment, I want to situate it in the context of the President’s visit to London. There is a line from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, which is pretty apropos of the present moment, as investigations begin in the United States of the perpetrators of the attempted coup d’état: “So full of artless jealousy is guilt, it spills itself in fearing to be spilt.”
Ahead of President Trump’s visit to London this weekend, a furious mobilization is underway to cover up the British instigation and conduct in the coup against Trump. The Queen has initiated a charm offensive, inviting Trump for this historic and fairly unprecedented state visit.
What’s clear is that the British are on a full-scale offensive to convince the President that it wasn’t them who did all of this nonsense. On May 19, the Daily Telegraph carried a story saying essentially that those of us in the UK knew about Christopher Steele’s dossier, before it was exposed in the United States, and we knew about it, because Charles Farr, then Chairman of the all-powerful British Joint Intelligence Committee and Head of the Joint Intelligence Organizations for the now deposed Prime Minister Theresa May, sat down with former MI6 intelligence officer Christopher Steele in November 2016, and we reviewed his “intelligence” about Russiagate in detail.
The only problem with the cover story is that the same very same British tabloids came damn near publishing something truthful about all of this back in 2017, when their confidence was high that the coup against Trump would succeed. On April 17, 2017, the Guardian bragged, that British intelligence had been working up a file on Trump and Russia since 2015 and colluded with Obama CIA Chief John Brennan in its development.
Charles Farr was a truly crazed intelligence mandarin in the image of Dr. Strangelove, and is, conveniently, dead and unavailable for further interrogation. He was known for his promotion of total surveillance and censorship regimes on the pretext of confronting terrorism in order to manipulate the public, and for an insane drive for regime change in Russia. Russiagate has proved to be a far more potent narrative for imposing the police state surveillance schemes Farr advocated, with people who formerly advocated free speech and civil liberties now signing up in droves for measures which will censor and crush all dissent.
If you remember what we wrote about the House of Lords report, UK Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order, what they said was that these censorship regimes were critical to the survival of the British Empire, because Brexit and the election of Trump did not arise because of actual economic dislocation and what happened in the collapse of 2008. They claim that Brexit and the election of Trump were the product of average people having too much access to information that might be important to them.
A British Fairy Tale
Investigative journalist John Solomon reported last night, in The Hill newspaper, that all the way back on January 12, 2017, before Trump was inaugurated, a letter was hand-delivered to Trump’s then National Security Adviser Gen. Mike Flynn, from the then top head of British intelligence, Sir Mark Lyall Grant. In the letter, according to Solomon, Grant claimed that the British government had no confidence in the credibility of former MI6 spy Christopher Steele’s Russia collusion evidence. A pretty remarkable development, and a pretty remarkable explanation of the cover-up.
In other words: “We’re admitting that we did wrong, but since you got elected, we’re saying that was very limited, and hey, we’re really on your side now.”
One glaring problem with Solomon’s article is that the alleged January 12, 2017 letter has not yet been found, and Gen. Flynn has stated that he has no recollection of it. Did it ever really exist? Or is this simply cover-your-ass propaganda, as the evidence of British leadership in the attempted coup against Donald Trump becomes overwhelming?
Around the same time that the letter to Flynn was supposedly delivered, Robert Hannigan, the head of GCHQ, suddenly and unexpectedly resigned. Most people believed that that was because Hannigan took the fall for what former CIA analyst Larry C. Johnson has said—and what LaRouche PAC has published—was a massive GCHQ surveillance campaign that began in 2015 and profiled and set up for dirty tricks every single Presidential candidate running in the 2016 election—Bernie Sanders, included—except for Hillary Clinton. Because the British were absolutely desperate that Hillary Clinton be elected President.
The problem with this reported British mea culpa about Steele and about GCHQ, is that it doesn’t fit with subsequent events or with the fact that the Steele dossier itself was only made public during this very same time period, when then FBI Director James Comey confronted the newly inaugurated President Trump with it in January of 2017, in a blackmail attempt; and when then Director of National Intelligence James Clapper arranged for its full national publication first on CNN and then on BuzzFeed. Senator John McCain was up to his ears in this aspect of the operation.
The chronology claimed by Solomon—that the British had ceased all operations against Trump by January 2017—is contradicted by the previously mentioned British House of Lords Report of November 2018, which declares, as British strategic policy, that Donald Trump must not get a second term, while outlining that Britain’s relationship with America—and, I might add, that control of the relationships among U.S., China, Russia, and India—is the key to the continuing reign of the British empire in this world. These are, of course, the same four national powers cited by Lyndon LaRouche as the key to ending the City of London/Wall Street monetarist control of the world’s economies based on the system they have dominated since Franklin Roosevelt’s death—the system of globalism and maximum tensions between those same four powers who hold the keys to a new renaissance for all of humanity.
That was, and continues to be, LaRouche’s dream. He fought every aspect of the British effort to implement their system, and he proposed that if we can get these Four Powers together, we can have a new Renaissance for all humanity. Keeping these countries apart, exacerbating tensions among them, is the game-plan of geopolitics, it’s the game-plan of imperial control. And that’s why Donald Trump coming in and saying, “I’m going to blast all of these institutions from this period,” which he correctly identifies as “globalism,”—that’s why he represents a threat to the British Empire. That’s why the coup actually happened.
Special Counsel Mueller’s Incitement
As everyone knows, Robert Mueller, the purported Oz behind the circle, made an appearance on Wednesday, May 29—and spoke. This was treated in the media like some kind of classical or religious event: “Thus Spoke God,” or “Thus Spoke Zarathustra,” or something else, from the way this thing was played. He spoke! He never speaks! “Please pause for a moment of solemnity, for he is going to deliver something very pregnant and poignant and immediate, and important, in terms of what is about to happen in our country.”
But that is not what happened. Instead, as we have always said, Mueller is not the strong silent one, the saint, the guy who walks with rectitude and obeys the law. He appeared on May 29 and spoke for only one reason: in order to incite a fairly crazed House of Representatives to undertake immediate impeachment proceedings against the President. They appear to be taking the bait, having nothing else to offer the American people. Already in the hours since Mueller spoke, two more Democratic Senators (and Presidential pre-candidates) and three more Democratic Congressmen have called for impeachment.
Guilt ‘spills itself for fear of being spilt’
The problem for Mueller, as well as for his cultish followers, is that even as he was delivering his lies on Wednesday, the analysis of Bill Binney, the former Technical Director of the National Security Agency, that there never was a Russian hack of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), is making its way around as an underground phenomenon throughout the United States. Binney is calling Mueller out, and calling the intelligence community out, on the fact that the entire premise of Russiagate was a myth, a propaganda ploy. It did not happen. There was no Russian hack of the DNC that resulted in publications by WikiLeaks. That story is all bogus nonsense.
The evidence compiled by Binney has also become officially part of a motion in Roger Stone’s criminal defense, and hopefully we’ll be hearing more about that over the next days.
What Roger Stone is seeking to do, is to use Binney’s analysis that the hack never happened in the way that Mueller has portrayed it, to get all of the evidence in his case tossed, because the search warrants in that case depend upon Mueller analysis of the hack! He is also asking that the entire, unredacted CrowdStrike analysis of the DNC servers be produced to the defense in that case.
That particular aspect of things should be very interesting, because it appears that Mueller relied for his analysis of the hack on the forensics used by the entity called CrowdStrike, which is employed by the Democratic National Committee, and also is tied to the Digital Forensics Research Lab of the Atlantic Council, a British-controlled entity, with a history of false claims about Russian cyberattacks, including in Ukraine.
So Mueller spent a lot of time in his brief address, reiterating that the Russians did horrible things in our election, and that that was the thing most important to emphasize and to get across to the American people, and to continue to get across to the Congress, and everybody else.
Unfortunately for Mueller and his minions, the coup-plotters are themselves now being investigated, by competent and legally empowered investigators, as Attorney General William Barr and several dedicated, thinking congressmen start their quest to figure out how this coup came about.
Also, yesterday, on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson nightly television broadcast, the second aspect of Mueller’s silly claims about Russian interference in the elections came under attack by Aaron Maté, who’s done a substantial analysis of these claims about the Internet Research Agency (IRA) and Russia’s social media allegedly turning American minds into Putin advocates overnight, through Facebook ads. Maté pointed out that this Russian campaign, if you actually look at it, was extremely small-time and juvenile in content. Most of it had nothing to do with the election, didn’t even mention the candidates, and occurred after the elections, with a total expenditure of some $64,000, which Mueller has made such a huge big deal about.
So, Mueller’s reacting directly to the fact that we are having success here, in breaking this story about the central premise of the coup into the media and into the public domain. It’s not an accident, that also over the past 48 hours, the British press, namely, the Telegraph, has directly attacked Larry Johnson for his exposé of the British role in the coup, and of the surveillance conducted of all the Presidential candidates except Hillary Clinton, and his claims about British GCHQ surveillance of Donald Trump.
So, on that aspect of Mueller’s appearance and where we sit, I come back to the famous phrase from Hamlet: “So full of artless jealousy is guilt, it spills itself in fearing to be spilt.”
In the March 31, 2017 issue of EIR we published the first exposé of the coup against Trump as a British operation, as an information warfare operation growing out of the coup in Ukraine, and the British desire to fulminate regime change in Russia itself, a proposition which could lead to the extinction of the human race. We called that article “The Insurrection Against the President, and Its British Controllers—Or, Who Really Is George Soros, Anyway?”
The LaRouche PAC followed that up in September of 2017 with our exposé of Robert Mueller, calling him an “Amoral assassin who would do his job if the American people let him.” We showed you Mueller’s ignoble involvement in the atrocity that was the prosecution of Lyndon LaRouche and his numerous cover-ups conducted to protect Anglo-American intelligence operations, most specifically the 9/11 attacks, but other things, too, like BNL (Banca Nazionale del Lavoro) and BCCI (Bank of Credit and Commerce International). Everything this guy has ever done, has been on behalf of the Anglo-American intelligence apparatus.
Our analysis of the British origins of the coup, and of Mueller’s character have been fully borne out. And Lyndon LaRouche’s continued emphasis on the British Empire, not the British people, as the current bane of humanity, has been fully vindicated.
All Mueller did on Wednesday, was once again, to show his true character: He called essentially for impeachment of the President. He was brought in to give them the boost they needed as this thing was going off the rails.
Now, the emphasis we have to have, is the emphasis which got us here in the first place: We have to keep asking people: What are the reasons why this happened? What is the strategic situation in which this is occurring? Why did Donald Trump represent a threat? Why did Lyndon LaRouche represent a threat?
On June 3, President Trump will go to London armed with a list of questions from Rep. Devin Nunes (R.-Calif.), to press the British for answers on how they plotted to overthrow an American President. Before this coming weekend is out, we will compose our own series of questions for the President to ask the British. [Published in this issue of EIR.] We’re going to ask him to have them give him a full briefing of their role in the operation in Ukraine and the reasons for it.
We’re asking that the British government disclose to him the purpose of the Integrity Initiative, an organization which is working right now out of our State Department to ensure that the President is not elected again in 2020. And we’re asking similar questions along those lines, in order to get a full recognition by the President that the overall impact of this operation was to sabotage any possibility of the Four Power alliance LaRouche outlined as creating the basis to overturn this imperial entity once and for all.
Additionally, we are highlighting Lyndon LaRouche’s emphasis on the difference between the American System and the British imperial or Empire system as a necessary contribution to the discussion of the motives for the coup as we head into the Memorial Tribute for Lyndon LaRouche next week. That is because our role in stopping this coup boils down to this: bringing LaRouche to bear on the present situation by again emphasizing his four laws for sustained economic recovery and exposing the tentacles of the opposing globalist imperial system. The President is determined to expose and uproot those who have conducted the coup against him. Doing that means that the American people have to fully understand why the British and their American friends tried to take out the President.
Would you be surprised to learn, in this context, that the person most responsible for the attacks on Huawei in London is the same Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6 who led the coup against Trump?