Go to home page

This article appears in the June 21, 2019 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.


Trump and the Not-So-Special Relationship With the British

[Print version of this article]

View full size
White House/Andrea Hanks
President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump meet with Queen Elizabeth II in Portsmouth, England on June 5, 2019.

June 10—With President Donald Trump’s urgent insistence that investigators get to the bottom of who and what is behind the coup attempt against him, there has been an intensified focus on the central role of the British monarchy, which acted through its intelligence channels in the UK and in the United States, in launching Russiagate. The evidence of the British role is finally emerging into public view, with potentially devastating blow-back to come against the perpetrators.

The ongoing coup attempt against President Trump must be defeated and exposed not just to defend our current President, but to break the apparatus, centered in Britain, which has promulgated wars on our planet for the last two centuries, by getting nation states to fight each other for the benefit of that predatory British-centered oligarchical power. This is the crucial insight that even Trump’s most staunch supporters most frequently miss, either because of a stubborn narrowness of vision, or for lack of real strategic oversight.

The anti-Trump fanatics, including pro-impeachment Democrats, neo-con Republicans and mainstream media, continue to pound the “Russia hacking” line—that is, that Russia interfered in the 2016 Presidential election, to elect Trump, citing Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation and Mueller’s fraudulent report as “proof.”

EIR readers know that investigators in the LaRouche movement have presented compelling evidence, from Day One, of the British origin of Russiagate, and our publications and the interventions by our activists have played a crucial role in bringing that British origin forward. A renewed focus on how the dodgy dossier of “former” British spy Christopher Steele provided the excuse for spying on the Trump campaign, is provoking panic among British imperial circles. And Attorney General William Barr’s appointment of a hard-edged prosecutor—the U.S. Attorney for Connecticut, John Durham—to look into the origins of the fabricated narrative of Russiagate, has deepened their concern.

So it is not surprising that a major public relations effort was undertaken, starting with the Queen herself, to convince President Trump that the so-called “Special Relationship” between the United States and the UK is as strong and as important, as ever. That is what was behind the pageantry, the so-called “pomp and circumstance,” which characterized last week’s visit of the U.S. President to London. It occurred at a moment of increasing instability in the UK, as the still-unresolved matter of Brexit adds to the sense that the British Empire is devolving into a full-blown existential crisis.

Do not be fooled by comments from Trump himself, extolling the “unique bond” between the United States and Great Britain. At the same time that he expressed admiration for the Queen, reveled in the red carpet treatment, and responded mildly to a lengthy and foolish lecture from Prince Charles on “global warming,” Trump has remained focused on the British role in the coup attempt. This is adding to the extreme nervousness in London.

‘Former’ Spy Can’t Hide Any Longer

Trump’s focus became evident in a May 8 tweet, in which he wrote about the “former” British MI6 agent who compiled the infamous “pee-pee” dossier against him. “This British spy,” he tweeted, “Christopher Steele tried so hard to get this (the Fake Dossier) out before the election. Why?”

The tweet referred to a recently declassified memo from Kathleen Kavalec, Deputy Coordinator in the U.S. State Department for Assistance to Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia, which discredited Steele and his dossier, identifying it as “unverified,” asserting that Steele seemed desperate to get his dossier out in time to interfere with the U.S. election.

Kavalec’s memo was delivered to top FBI officials ten days before Steele’s fraudulent compilation was used by the FBI as the primary source in obtaining a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court surveillance warrant against the Trump campaign. This warrant gave the FBI the basis to engage in what Attorney General Barr characterized as “spying” on Trump’s campaign. The release of the still partially redacted Kavalec memo not only demonstrates criminal action by FBI Director James Comey, but reaffirms Steele’s place at the center of the criminal conspiracy to overturn Trump’s election victory.

Trump again explicitly called out the British on May 24, in explaining his order to declassify all documents related to Russiagate, saying of his mandate to Barr, “I hope he looks at the UK and I hope he looks at Australia and I hope he looks at Ukraine.” It is necessary, he added, to find out what happened and when, “because this was an attempted takedown of the President of the United States, and we have to find out why.”

The Steele story popped up, during Trump’s visit to the UK, in a June 5 article in the London Times, “Christopher Steele: MI6 Agent to Face Questions on Trump Russia Dossier.” The news in the story was that Steele has finally agreed to testify before U.S. authorities, within certain conditions, on his relationship with the FBI.

But even more important, the article reveals that the British government is disavowing any relationship with Steele, quoting a “senior official” who said the government was not involved in his decision to testify, “as this relates to issues arising many years after he left government employment.” Previously, when Steele appeared in a London court, a top barrister employed by the British government accompanied him, to protect him and prevent the “compromising of any state secrets.” It appears that this protection has now been lifted, leading to reports in the New York Times and other media of mounting hysteria on the part of Steele, and among his defenders.

Source of the ‘Russian Hacking’ Narrative

Such sophistry from Her Majesty’s Government is unlikely to divert Attorney General Barr’s team from investigating other leads while questioning Steele, such as the coordination between Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the equivalent of the U.S. National Security Agency, and former CIA Director John Brennan, in launching Russiagate months prior to the release of the Steele dossier; the role of the “Five Eyes” (the UK, U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) in spying on behalf of President Barack Obama’s intelligence team, to maintain the fiction that U.S. intelligence was not spying on Americans; and the coordination between the UK’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) and the FBI in using shared operatives, such as Josef Mifsud, Stephan Halper and Alexander Downer, to set in motion the lie of “Russian hacking” in the 2016 Presidential election campaign.

View full size
Attorney General William Barr.

The New York Times reported on June 12 that Attorney General Barr and investigator Durham will interview two senior CIA officers because—

Mr. Barr has been interested in how the CIA drew its conclusions about Russia’s election sabotage, particularly the judgment that Mr. Putin ordered their operatives to help Mr. Trump by discrediting his opponent, Hillary Clinton. . . . Mr. Barr wants to know more about the CIA sources who helped inform its understanding of the details of the Russian interference campaign. . . . He also wants to better understand the intelligence that flowed from the CIA to the FBI in the summer of 2016.

This channel of the investigation will lead to exposing the still-accepted lie of the Mueller report, that Russia engaged in hacking the Democratic National Committee’s computers, as part of its strategy to aid Trump’s election. The Guardian reported that in June 2016, British GCHQ Director Robert Hannigan brought the first so-called evidence of Russian interference to then CIA Director Brennan, which led to the opening of an official investigation, in July 2016. The January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment accepted, with no evidence presented, the story of Russian interference, which then became a central theme of the anti-Trump narrative. It was later given the status of unquestioned truth in the Mueller report, despite the absence of any credible forensic evidence to prove there was Russian hacking that obtained the emails later released by WikiLeaks.

This fraud has been definitively refuted by former NSA Technical Director and whistleblower William Binney, whose actual forensic investigation found that there was not only no hacking, but that the emails were downloaded to a thumb-drive or similar device, as an “inside job,” which was then delivered to WikiLeaks.

More Evasions and Lies from Mueller

As impeachment-obsessed Democrats continue to demand that Mueller testify before a Congressional committee, more gaping holes are opening up in his fictional report.

Gage Skidmore
Former CIA Director John Brennan.

On the British angle, he has yet to answer why he never interrogated Steele; why he never looked into the initiating role of GCHQ and Hannigan; why he ignored voluminous evidence of malicious, criminal intent on the part of his long-time buddy James Comey and leading FBI officials, in their targeting of the Trump campaign and then the Trump Presidency, using the faked Steele report; and why he repeated, without question, the various stories designed to confirm Russia’s role, planted by shared British-U.S. intelligence assets Josef Mifsud, Stephan Halper, and Alexander Downer, who were part of an elaborate sting operation targeting a former foreign-policy advisor to Donald Trump, Carter Page—who was the subject of the initial FISA Court application—and also minor Trump campaign advisor, George Papadopoulos.

Former FBI Director James Comey.

A new lead was reported by John Solomon in The Hill on June 6, which relates to Mueller’s charge that Ukrainian businessman and political consultant Konstantin Kilimnik—who was an associate of former Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort—was an agent of President Putin and Russia’s secret services. Solomon reported on June 6 that there are “hundreds of pages of government documents—which special counsel Robert Mueller [has] possessed since 2018,” which describe Kilimnik “as a ‘sensitive’ intelligence source for the U.S. State Department who informed on Ukrainian and Russian matters.”

Solomon points out that the Kilimnik narrative is so important to Mueller’s charges of Russian involvement that it appears in the opening of his report, writing that the FBI assessed that Kilimnik had “ties to Russian intelligence,” with no reference to his connection to, and activity on behalf of the State Department.

Kilimnik’s relationship with the U.S. State Department, through the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, puts him in the circle of those, including Christopher Steele, who were instrumental in pulling off the anti-Russian regime-change coup in Ukraine, which triggered a devolution of relations between Russia and the trans-Atlantic nations. Steele had a close relationship with Jonathan Winer, a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, who channeled his reports on Ukraine to Victoria Nuland, then Assistant U.S. Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, who was a coordinator of the U.S.-British intervention there. Winer became a source for the circulation of Steele’s dirty dossier during the 2016 election campaign.

It is not known if Trump followed through on a request made in a May 22 letter by Republican Congressman Devin Nunes that Trump ask Prime Minister Theresa May whether the British government was aware of, or took part in surveillance efforts against the Trump campaign.

But one indication that he may not be so committed to the special relationship—as it emerged after being first described as such in 1946 by then UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill—was his quoting the prayer of President Franklin Roosevelt (FDR), as U.S., British and Canadian troops stormed the French beaches on D-Day, June 6, 1944. That is an indication that would not be missed by leading British intelligence officials: It is well known that FDR had been sharply at odds with Churchill during World War II; FDR repeatedly told Churchill that the U.S. would not permit the restoration of the British Empire after the war.

Despite his pleasantries with the Queen and her family, Trump’s definition of national sovereignty does not include allowing the present-day British Empire to deploy its forces to sustain the presently imploding trans-Atlantic globalist strategic and financial regime. With the investigation of the perpetrators of Russiagate proceeding under Barr’s direction, the so-called special relationship may be finally meeting its well deserved end.

Back to top    Go to home page