US deep state

The Democrats and Soros-backed groups are desperately looking to impeach Trump. The US activities in Syria offer the perfect opportunity, but of course Trump's enemies won't pursue it because they are right behind the US-NATO war crimes in Syria. It is ironic that, when Trump is really doing bad illegal stuff, he is also doing the will of the Democrats. This would be because the external policies of both political parties are driven by the Deep State. A further complication is that, if Trump could be impeached, then all those behind the illegal war on Syria would also be in danger of pursuit under criminal law. Automatic transcript provided.

Automatic transcript

Below is a cut and paste of Youtube's automatic transcript of the speech, which may contain errors, notably based on machine spellings of sounds. Emboldened emphases are by Editor of candobetter.net.

[Music]
0:01 welcome to talk nation radio a half-hour
0:04 discussion of politics as if the people
0:07 mattered
0:08 I'm David Swanson it is my great
0:10 pleasure to welcome to talk nation radio
0:13 this week Francis Boyle Francis Boyle is
0:15 a professor of international law at the
0:17 University of Illinois College of Law he
0:20 has served as counsel to Bosnia and
0:22 Herzegovina and to the provisional
0:24 government of the Palestinian Authority
0:25 he has represented the Blackfoot nation
0:28 the nation of Hawaii the Lakota Nation
0:30 he drafted the US domestic implementing
0:33 legislation for the biological weapons
0:36 convention known as the biological
0:37 weapons anti-terrorism Act of 1989 and
0:41 he has been a strong advocate over the
0:43 years for the proper use of the power of
0:45 impeachment Francis Boyle welcome to
0:49 talk nation radio well thank you very
0:52 much for having me on David my best to
0:54 your listening audience very glad to
0:56 have you on should Donald Trump be
0:59 impeached well I've taken the position
1:05 certainly that his attacks on Syria
1:09 clearly violate the War Powers Clause of
1:14 the United States Constitution the War
1:17 Powers Resolution of 1973 and the United
1:22 Nations Charter they would constitute
1:26 crimes against peace as recognized by US
1:31 Army Field Manual 27:10 so certainly in
1:35 my opinion those are impeachable
1:38 offenses for sure is there a reason you
1:41 named Syria in particular as opposed to
1:44 Afghanistan or Iraq or Yemen or you know
1:47 other places where Donald Trump has
1:50 dropped bombs no I just think that you
1:54 know that clear the serious situation is
1:57 is a clear-cut case for impeachment I
2:01 guess the rest weed we have to talk
2:04 about that the press release we put out
2:08 was prompted by Trump
2:13 to latest attacks on Syria yoga it seems
2:19 that there's a view that if the latest
2:22 attack was on Syrian forces as opposed
2:25 to some other forces in Syria then that
2:28 makes a difference but it seems to me
2:31 the the list of violations you went
2:34 through the UN Charter etc covers
2:37 killing anybody in Syria or for that
2:39 matter Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere
2:42 else that the United States is illegally
2:44 killing people well David I you know I'm
2:49 a law professor I just have to be
2:52 precise in my analysis when we're
2:54 dealing with each of one of these
2:55 countries but certainly when it comes to
2:59 Syria the United States government has
3:02 no right to be in Syria at all and as
3:05 you know we have military forces up
3:08 there and Raqqa we're bombing up there
3:11 we also have military forces in Syria
3:15 itself near the border with Jordan those
3:19 are the ones who are fired
3:21 this time arm so our whole presence in
3:25 Syria is is completely illegal unlawful
3:30 unconstitutional it's never been
3:32 approved by our Congress and so
3:34 definitely that's that's impeachable for
3:37 sure from my perspective we you know we
3:42 can talk about other countries if you
3:43 want to but you know I I have to be
3:47 precise I just can't lump everything
3:50 together in you know in one bucket
3:54 absolutely well I would be delighted to
3:57 simply impeach Trump for Syria I was
3:59 just trying to grasp what the
4:00 distinction is between Syria and say
4:03 Afghanistan because it seems that
4:05 Congress allows both to go on provides
4:08 the funding that is used for both the UN
4:11 Charter covers neither etc so I am just
4:15 you know looking for what's the what's
4:17 the legal distinction between the two
4:20 well again right now I just you know I
4:22 want to talk about Syria if you want to
4:24 talk about other countries we can
4:27 and in in terms a you know I've seen
4:32 also references to the fact that Donald
4:36 Trump apparently owned stock in hidden
4:38 raytheon you know in the missiles that
4: sends into Syria is that sort of
4:43 corruption make it make it any worse or
4:45 any more of an impeachable offense or is
4:47 it is the attack on Syria enough well
4:52 that's why I'm arguing the attack on
4:54 Syria's enough I I think you know if you
4:57 look at other potential articles of
5:00 impeachment and I've been this through
5:03 this before I was counsel to the late
5:07 great Henry B Gonzales on his bill of
5:11 impeachment against Bush senior for the
5:14 Gulf War and Ramsey Clark and Gonzales
5:17 and I set up a national campaign to
5:19 impeach bush senior for that war on and
5:22 when when the war started congressman
5:25 Gonzales introduced his bill of
5:27 impeachment and in his memoirs Bush
5:30 senior did state that the reason he
5:33 stopped at Basra and did not go all the
5:36 way to Baghdad was that he feared
5:37 impeachment so we did have have an
5:40 impact there unfortunately couldn't stop
5:44 that war but right now uh you know I'm
5:49 certainly prepared to say that the
5:51 Trump's attacks on Syria are impeachable
5:54 offenses for sure it's it's a slam-dunk
5:57 to use that phrase a type of situation
6:02 yeah right there I could I could draw
6:04 those that article of impeachment now if
6:07 a member of Congress wanted to see it as
6:11 I recall a you and Ramsey Clark also
6:14 presented a case for the impeachment of
6:17 Bush jr. to the Democrats in Congress
6:20 just a week or so before the the attack
6:25 on Baghdad you know which could
6:27 conceivably have saved over a million
6:30 lives and the Congress members there as
6:33 I recall from your account of it
6:37 accepted the the logic of the of the
6:40 case but decided it would be better for
6:42 the Democrats to wait until the next
6:45 election and be able to campaign against
6:48 the war is that what happened basically
6:52 yes David what happened is just before
6:57 the start of go for two by Bush jr.
7:00 Congressman John Conyers the ranking
7:05 member of the House Judiciary Committee
7:06 that had jurisdiction over bills of
7:09 impeachment invited me and Ramsey Clark
7:13 to come in and argue the case for
7:15 impeachment
7:16 uh before 40 or so of the top lawyers
7:22 affiliated with the Democratic Party and
7:26 he had a draft bill of impeachment there
7:30 uh by me drafted by me you can find it
7:33 on the internet if you want to look for
7:35 arm and Ramsey had one too that was was
7:39 similar to mine so Ramsey and I it was a
7:43 two hour debate
7:44 almost everyone there were were lawyers
7:46 of Ramsey and I both both argued the
7:50 case for impeachment and what happened
7:55 the the decisive factor was that John
7:59 Podesta appeared and no Podesta is
8:03 Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign
8:06 director or was and he said that he was
8:12 appearing there on behalf of the
8:15 Democratic National Committee and the
8:18 Democratic National Committee did not
8:22 want a bill of impeachment put in
8:24 against Bush I also had one for Cheney
8:27 and Ashcroft so you know what can I say
8:33 it's clear the Democrats uh were in on
8:38 this war I mean that debt really put the
8:40 kibosh on on the whole thing whatever
8:43 they say in in public
8:45 I'm not criticizing congressman not
8:47 Conyers of course if you you know if he
8:49 he
8:50 had booked the will of the DNC probably
8:53 would have been stripped of his
8:55 seniority and everything else I know his
8:58 heart was in the right place uh you know
9:01 but he's a team player and so we never
9:05 put put put the bill of impeachment in I
9:08 regret to say it was one of the great
9:10 disappointments of my life certainly uh
9:13 and all those people you know the the
9:16 estimate is maybe 1.5 million Iraqis
9:20 were exterminated in what could only be
9:23 called a war of outright genocide
9:25 against the Iraqis and it still
9:28 continues today but what your listeners
9:30 have to understand is that the
9:33 Democratic Party fully supported that
9:37 you know in fact congressman Danza
9:41 Podesta who was Clinton's campaign
9:45 manager was the one who personally put
9:48 the kibosh on it arm so you know what
9:52 can I say I'm not a political
9:55 independent so I you know wasn't for me
9:59 to tell Democrats what to do although
10:02 Ramsey you know as a lifelong Democrat
10:05 and he you know he tried to make that
10:07 argument from from the perspective of a
10:10 lifelong Democrat I said it I made the
10:13 best legal argument I could actually
10:16 yeah sure you did you did and I recall
10:18 what it looked like congressman Conyers
10:21 also discouraged his colleagues from
10:23 introducing any legislation for
10:26 impeachment implying that once he was
10:29 once the Democrats had the majority then
10:31 he would handle it but of course when
10:34 they had the majority in January 2007
10:39 rahm emanuel openly told the washington
10:42 post we're going to keep the war going
10:43 keep Bush and Cheney in place and
10:46 campaign against them again in 2008
10:49 that'll be better and you know for
10:52 whatever
10:53 strategic reasons John Conyers and the
10:56 rest of them went along with that again
10:59 and that's exactly what obama did he you
11:03 know obama was behind me at harvard law
11:06 school we had the same jurisprudence
11:09 teacher Roberto Unger who publicly would
11:12 later call Obama quote a disaster
11:15 unquote on and Obama used that strategy
11:19 to get elected president in 2008 uh but
11:25 he you know he lied tricked and deceived
11:27 all of us as did the as did the
11:30 Democrats and I you know I'm a political
11:34 independent I bet I did not vote for
11:37 Obama either time between you and me
11:39 because I knew all about his career
11:41 behind me at Harvard Law School he is a
11:44 total opportunist you know from here in
11:47 Chicago while I'm not in Chicago but I
11:50 he you know he lived up there in Hyde
11:53 Park and South Side of Chicago where I'm
11:56 from and I contacted people up there
11:58 about him and they said he was a total
11:59 opportunist so I never supported him
12:04 twice voting for for president I voted
12:08 for other candidates right what can I
12:10 say we're speaking with Francis Boyle
12:13 who is a professor of international law
12:15 at the University of Illinois College of
12:17 Law Francis I've got a list of other
12:22 articles of impeachment people are
12:23 proposing for Donald Trump let me let me
12:26 run a few by you and tell me if you
12:28 think they are impeachable offenses are
12:30 not domestic and foreign emoluments
12:33 clauses domestic clause the president
12:36 shall not receive any other emolument
12:38 from the United States or any of them
12:40 any of the states the the foreign Clause
12:43 no person holding any office of profit
12:46 or trust under the US government shall
12:48 without the consent of the Congress
12:50 accept any present emolument office or
12:52 title of any kind whatever from any King
12:55 prince or foreign state Trump seems in
12:58 clear violation of both from day one
13:02 well you know I'm not here to criticize
13:07 anyone else who wants to impeach Trump
13:11 one way or the other
13:12 but let me point out the sociology
13:16 behind this one when Clinton was
13:19 Secretary of State and was involved in
13:24 all the slush funds there with the
13:27 Clinton Foundation none of the lawyers
13:31 pushing this argument on the emoluments
13:34 clause who are all affiliated with the
13:37 Democratic Party talked about impeaching
13:40 Clinton on the basis of the emoluments
13:42 clause not one of them every every
13:46 lawyer behind this campaign on the
13:49 emoluments clause is affiliated with the
13:51 Democratic Party and they did not push
13:55 any of this at all with respect to mrs.
13:57 Clinton the Secretary of State and the
13:59 Clinton Foundation slush fund so I I
14:03 myself um you know if these Democratic
14:06 Party lawyers want to push this they
14:08 can't the only Republican they have on
14:12 there is this fellow Richard painter who
14:16 who used to teach here they use him as a
14:19 frontman claiming that well he's
14:22 authoritative uh because he served as
14:26 the in the White House counsel's office
14:30 as ethics adviser to President Bush jr.
14:35 well you know that makes me laugh that
14:38 that here a painter and Bush jr. are
14:44 covered in blood from head to toe and
14:49 he's there lecturing us painter on on
14:53 ethics this would be like serving as the
14:57 legal adviser on ethics to Genghis Khan
15:01 or something like that yeah only arm you
15:04 know where I you know I'm not I'm not
15:06 discounting the emoluments clause but
15:09 you know you have to look at who's
15:11 making it yet all the lawyers making
15:14 this argument the lawyers who have filed
15:16 the lawsuit they're all uh legal hatchet
15:20 men for the Democratic Party so you know
15:23 if you want to get involved in that uh I
15:26 guess you can't
15:27 and that all the domestic respects the
15:30 domestic laws Francis is specifically
15:33 about the president not a Secretary of
15:34 State but the foreign one could
15:37 certainly be applied to either so I
15:39 guess my question is it granted the part
15:41 of the did the gross blatant
15:43 partisanship it's there were such people
15:47 wrong not to bring such charges against
15:50 Hillary Clinton or are they wrong to
15:53 bring them against Donald Trump what I'm
15:56 saying now is that it's total hypocrisy
15:58 under these circumstances and I'm not
16:01 getting involved with my personally for
16:04 me I'm not getting involved with a gang
16:07 of legal hatchet men for the Democratic
16:11 Party uh who supported Clinton and
16:15 supported Obama for all these years
16:19 but others want to get involved in them
16:21 that you know that's fine that's your
16:23 business but Obama but I'm not getting
16:25 involved in it Obama dropped a lot more
16:28 bombs on Syria then Donald Trump has yet
16:31 to drop on Syria and I don't think any
16:33 of these individuals brought up
16:34 impeaching Obama for bombing Syria
16:3 7either yet we are better Ryan to say
16:40 it's a legitimate charge against Trump
16:43 so that why you know there's there s a
16:47 piracy but it's still an important
16:49 charge to bring is it not well and not
16:52 only did AMA drop bombs on John Syria he
16:56 was the one who started the so-called a
17:00 color revolution that we're seeing in
17:04 Syria now none of these democratic
17:07 lawyers did anything about Obama they
17:09 were fully supporting Obama I tried
17:12 myself to get a Bill's of impeachment or
17:17 bill of impeachment in there against
17:19 Obama and I failed I you know I couldn't
17:21 get anyone to impeach obama for anyone
17:25 for anything or put a bill of
17:27 impeachment in there and you know i
17:29 talked to some members of congress
17:31 republicans and they weren't willing to
17:33 do it so well i could neither veterans
17:37 for peace was the only organization
17:39 as I recall right Willington to say yes
17:43 envy job and i i signed their a petition
17:48 in support of impeaching obama that's
17:51 correct
17:52 yeah but almost no one uh did it so you
17:56 know as I see it this emoluments clause
17:58 you know this is just a partisan effort
18:00 being used by the Democratic Party arm
18:04 which you know uh I'm you know when I
18:09 was a kid
18:09 the Democrats are waging war in Vietnam
18:12s o I not going to be affiliated myself
18:16 with anything that the Democratic Party
18:20 is running here one way or the other
18:22 well let me let me ask you about some
18:24 other charges that I would bring that as
18:26 far as I know no Democrats or
18:28 Republicans are proposing Oh
18:30 one would be banning Muslims from the
18:33 country and having it thrown out by a
18:36 court and doing it again is that not a
18:40 high crime in ms I think you are correct
18:43 on that of David clearly um I think a an
18:50 argument could be made here that it
18:52 violates the First Amendment of the
18:54 United States Constitution and that's
18:57 what these courts have found I have I
18:59 have read I guess the opinion out in
19:03 Hawaii and another opinion out on out in
19:06 the Ninth Circuit there you know in San
19:09 Francisco so clearly um I think an
19:13 argument could be made that if someone
19:17 wanted to pull a put a bill of
19:19 impeachment in there for violating the
19:22 First Amendment I I would support that
19:25 yes but I'm certainly not going to work
19:27 with a gang of you know Democratic
19:29 lawyers who have an agenda here uh to
19:35 basically reverse of the November 8th
19:41 2016 election where Clinton lost and
19:45 that I think is really what's going on
19:48 here with some of these efforts
19:51 I personally putting a
19:53 side the you know the merits of the
19:56 emoluments clause argument um but I
19:59 think that's the agenda there to reverse
20:01 that election and certainly to use it
20:06 against against Trump but I want to make
20:08 clear I didn't vote for Trump and I
20:10 certainly didn't vote for Clinton that's
20:12 for sure
20:13 yes well you and me both the the
20:17 defending Hillary and arguing that
20:20 Hillary would have won if not for
20:22 foreign interference and corruption just
20:24 ignore all the domestic interference and
20:26 corruption seems to be part where you
20:29 agree right that anybody about that I
20:32 agree with what you said yeah yes so so
20:34 I wonder both what you make of the
20:37 business Russia madness and what you
20:39 make of the argument well let's get him
20:42 for obstruction of justice even if there
20:44 wasn't anything there to be found by an
20:47 investigation is that is that a
20:50 legitimate church well the anti-russian
20:56 history is pure war mongering as as you
20:59 know Clinton decided to use that against
21:03 Trump in the campaign uh once once Trump
21:08 was nominated and the Democrats and
21:12 Clinton and the mainstream news media
21:15 all of whom supported Clinton are
21:18 continuing this anti-russian war
21:22 mongering and hysteria there's no other
21:24 word for it and it is extremely
21:28 dangerous under the circumstances and
21:31 certainly but I think if Clinton has
21:33 been elected president we'd be we'd be
21:35 at war with Russia now on the wrestling
21:39 so there there we are I don't know what
21:42 to say about it but there's no I haven't
21:45 seen any evidence that you know Putin
21:48 corrupted our election or anything like
21:51 that I you know I think this is all
21:53 boulder dash you know and I follow these
21:56 things quite carefully no it's it's
22:00 amazing that it goes on and on without
22:02 any evidence but then I have people that
22:04I respect who say well even if there's
22:06 nothing
22:07 there he still obstructed justice and
22:10 the cover-up is worse than the crime and
22:12 you can go after him for obstruction of
22:14 justice for firing Comey what what do
22:17 you make of that argument uh I don't
22:21 think you know well you do have to
22:23 distinguish between uh the crime of
22:26 obstruction of justice I I was
22:28 originally hired here to teach criminal
22:32 law for several years and right now I
22:35 don't I don't see that crime that he he
22:38 committed was different when you know
22:40 you had Archibald Cox who was a special
22:44 prosecutor and a grand jury and
22:48 everything else like that that's correct
22:50 um but and with Clinton too even though
22:54 you know the Clinton impeachment was
22:56 ridiculous but there to you had Ken star
23:00 and a grand jury and things of that
23:02 nature but right now it's just you know
23:05 the director of the FBI he was talking
23:07 with the director the FBI we're not
23:10 exactly sure what they said or why they
23:12 said it what with reasons behind it that
23:14 statute clearly says corruptly but let
23:17 me put it this way certainly if you know
23:19 they want to make a case of impeaching
23:21 him for obstruction of justice of course
23:23 they can do that if they want to but
23:25 right now I don't see the evidence to
23:27 convict them for a crime but we have to
23:30 understand one thing here um David there
23:34 are no good guys on either side of this
23:36 at all call me director of the FBI
23:42 Wesley Swearengen a retired and
23:45 decorated FBI agent in his book FBI
23:49 secrets called the FBI quote an American
23:53 Gestapo uncle you know commies no hero
23:56 here at all he director the American
23:58 Gestapo he worked for President Bush jr.
24:02 and Ashcroft at the Department of
24:04 Justice he's up to his eyeballs in
24:08 torture and forced disappearances and
24:10 all the other hideous atrocities that
24:13 horse jr. inflicted against
24:16 international human rights the United
24:18 States Constitution
24:20 as for Muller this new special
24:23 prosecutor he's just a legal and
24:26 political hatchet man for the Bush
24:28 family of the CIA FBI and everyone else
24:33 he's a political operative Muller was
24:36 the one who was personally in charge of
24:40 manufacturing the case that framed
24:43 Muammar Qaddafi over the Lockerbie
24:46 bombing and everyone knows that was a
24:48 joke that the Qaddafi had nothing to do
24:51 with it
24:52 Libya had nothing to do with it up and
24:55 yet the order was given by Bush senior
24:58 CIA are to deflect attention from Iran
25:03 in Syria for because they supported Bush
25:06 senior on his war against Iraq the first
25:09 time and uh frame Gaddafi in Libya yeah
25:14 personally handled that at the
25:16 Department of Justice he was in charge
25:19 the whole thing and it's always under my
25:21 leadership that the anthrax
25:23 investigation went so badly as he also
25:27 did the cover up on the anthrax there's
25:30 no question all about it up and blaming
25:34 this poor Bruce Ivins guy who committed
25:36 suicide and Muller has his death on his
25:41 hands as well we had all a couple
25:43 minutes left Francis Boyle I think that
25:47 the biggest obstacle we may have to
25:50 impeachment in Washington may be exactly
25:54 as you say there are no good guys and
25:56 there's this this horror of pence
25:59 becoming president you know it would
26:02 make somebody worse president to which I
26:05 say well if we had a culture of
26:06 accountability an impeachment it would
26:08 that would matter more than who was
26:10 stepping into the office but what do you
26:12 say to all these wise people who say
26:14 don't be stupid and make pense president
26:20 well I
26:22I you know personally in my experience
26:26 on impeachment going back to congressman
26:30 Gonzalez uh and also now we find out
26:35 that Obama did not attack Syria in 2013
26:43 Ben Rhodes recently said this that Obama
26:47 feared impeachment uh you know I think
26:50 it would be good to send a shot across
26:53 the bow of Trump or any other president
26:56 as I tried to do with bush senior I
27:00 tried to do with Clinton I had a
27:01 campaign impeach Clinton for the right
27:04 reasons not a having fellatio with right
27:07 Monica Lewinsky and lying about it but
27:09 all these bombings that he was doing uh
27:11 and then we just discussed uh my effort
27:16 with Ramsey Clark on Bush jr. and I
27:20 tried to get you notes a member of
27:23 Congress to introduce bill of
27:25 impeachment against Obama but I failed
27:28 so I we we have a an imperial presidency
27:33 as you know indeed after 9/11 2001 we
27:37 have a hyper imperial presidency result
27:40 i thirty Seconds there is value there is
27:43 value in introducing a bill of
27:47 impeachment and I'm certainly prepared
27:49 to do that on Syria if a member of
27:51 Congress wants to talk with me and also
27:54 pursuant to your suggestion on the ban
27:57 against the Muslims and send a shot
28:01 across Trump's bow and cast a character
28:06 surrounding him I think there's value in
28:08 that I certainly agree I hope some
28:10 members of Congress are listening and
28:11 take you up on it Francis boiled thank
28:14 you very very much for coming on talk
28:16 nation radio well thank you very much
28:19 David for heavy on this is talk nation
28:22 radio I'm david swanson take action at
28:25 roots action org help end war at world
28:29 beyond war
28:31 all task shows can be heard at david
28:34 swanson org talk nation radio is
28:37 produced in Charlottesville Virginia and
28:39 syndicated by Pacifica Network if you
28:43 are listening to a nonprofit station
28:45 please support pat station talk nation
28:48 radio is funded by contributors at david
28:50 swanson org there is no way to peace
28:54 peace is the way until next time
28:58[Music]

Dr Paul Craig Roberts is interviewed by Julian Charles of The Mind Renewed, UK, for his explanation of President Trump's about turn on all foreign policy. The conclusion is that Trump has been sidelined and others have taken over his role at the White House. The term 'coup d'etat' is not used, but that is what is assumed. Paul Craig Roberts also suggests that the only hope of reducing the United States' dangerous power is for Europe to decouple from it. He says that we cannot hold out hope for the UK to do anything because they are completely tied to the United States, but that if the anti-globalist parties, notably the French National Front, win in Europe, there is some hope that Europe will draw back from the USA-dominated EU. Australia and Canada are held responsible, along with some European leaders, for inexplicably enabling this dangerous situation by supporting the United States in its illegal wars. First Published on Saturday, 22 April 2017 20:50 at http://themindrenewed.com/interviews/2017/1035-int130

Paul Craig Roberts interviewed by Julian Charles, The Mind Renewed, UK

TMR 171 : Dr. Paul Craig Roberts : Trump Is Over

First Published on Saturday, 22 April 2017 20:50 at http://themindrenewed.com/interviews/2017/1035-int130

We are joined once again by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former US Assistant Secretary to the Treasury for Economic Policy, for a discussion on the Trump presidency so far.

Dr. Roberts assesses the performance of the new president and his administration with reference to pre-election promises; shares with us his view that the deep state has effectively neutralised Donald Trump as US president; gives his reaction to the so-called "Syrian gas attack" in Idlib, and the subsequent military action by the US against Syria; and considers the very real prospects for war as Washington steps up its warmongering around the globe.

(Download Podcast HQ 128 kbps)

To many it might seem strange that Donald Trump's recent departure from his election promises has made me think of Marcel Aymé's story about a character in a book who wanted to avoid her destiny. What could a French author of absurd comical novels have to do with the political analysis of Donald Trump's strange about-face from the foreign policy he promised before his election? Marcel Ayme, in "Le Romancier Martin," the first story in Derriere chez Martin, writes of a novelist who developed a bad habit of killing off most of his principal characters and even some less important ones, which made very depressing reading and diminished sales. The characters themselves and Martin's editor complained that their life expectancy was grossly inferior to that of characters in other novels. Madame Soubiron, the wife of a principal character, somehow sensing that she would be next to die, decided to challenge her fate. First she visited the writer and begged him to make certain changes, but he claimed to have little say in what his characters did. Once he had created them, he said, the die was cast. Although it seemed impossible for a mere fictitious character to influence her role, Mrs Soubiron ultimately managed this by deviating from what was expected of her in strange and unusual ways which the novelist could not have considered in advance. For instance, one evening at dinner, she took off her shoe and put it on her plate. Instead of eating the slice of beef she had served herself, she dropped it down the front of her dress and rubbing her stomach, mimed how tasty it was. As she continued to act more and more absurdly out of character, she eventually escaped death.

Trump suddenly starts acting out of character

Well, after hearing Donald Trump babbling on about 'beautiful little babies' and not hearing any punchline, then of his ordering the firing of 59 missiles at a Syrian airfield in response to an implausibly attributed chemical weapons attack at Khan Sheikhun, and conveying, furthermore, this news to a Chinese president over a 'beautiful slice of chocolate cake', of course I had a sense of déjà vu. Trump was obviously a fan of Marcel Aymé's and he was using the Mme Soubiron tactic for resisting a fatal and stupid script. Anyone with a slight knowledge of Trump's history on the subject knows that before and during his election campaign, Trump held in utter contempt, had several times denounced as absurd, the idea of intervention in Syria and Obama's near invasion on the basis of specious chemical weapons. Now he was carrying on just like Hillary. Who had a gun to his head? Had his grandchildren been taken hostage?

A cry for help?

When Trump dropped the absurdly outsized and expensive cliched 'mother of all non-nuclear bombs' on caves in Afghanistan, I knew it was an absurdist cry for help. Trump has been surrounded and somehow forced to go along with ISIS fans, Bin Laden obsessives and Putin-Rasputin conspiracy theorists like John McCain, John Kerry, Obama and the Clintons. How did they do it? Many have said that the neocons run the Whitehouse according to a script no-one may escape. Bribery, blackmail, threats and assassination are among the establishment's arsenal, according to John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hitman. And we all know it anyhow, as that same establishment openly targets anyone standing in its way with assassination: most recently Gadaffi (Hillary Clinton, 'We came, we saw, he died, ha ha ha') and a long list before him: J.F.K, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King and then lots more foreign leaders: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/US/Foreign_Assassinations_since_1945. It has also been suggested that a somehow no less irresistible pressure has been applied by purportedly Zionist son-in-law, Jared Kushner, via Ivanka, Trump's beloved daughter. Shades of King Lear! Another absurdist character. And this Kushner pressure is also supposed to have led to Steve Bannon's departure. See, Steve Bannon exposes Jared Kushner also see How much of Kushner's financing came from George Soros?.

Or has Trump gone mad?

An alternative theory is that Trump has gone mad. Gordon Duff at Veterans today, "Breaking: VT Hit with Stuxnet as Trump’s Complicity in Gas Attack is Confirmed," (April 15, 2017) suggests that Trump is suffering from bi-polar disorder and, under pressure from the situation in the Whitehouse, he has become hypomanic or even manic, with delusions, suggestibility and loss of judgement. However I don't think the madness theory stands up. If Trump was going to lose his mind, it would have happened during that long and grueling election campaign with all the travelling to give speeches, interaction with millions of supporters, and the few hours of sleep nightly. No, Trump showed he had incredible endurance when he was in charge of his own campaign and policies.

Cryptic genius

Another theory is that Trump is conducting a program of such cryptic genius that most mere mortals simply cannot put the pieces together. A bit like Mme Soubiron. Thierry Meyssan of voltaire.net.org writes: http://www.voltairenet.org/en. "Trump : two steps forward, one step back": "Damascus, Syria. Whilst the international press describes Donald Trump's big about-turn, Thierry Meyssan shows that it's not that at all. Far from having abandoned his ideal of peace, the President of the United States shouts and bombs, but always careful not to do anything irreversible...."[1]

Deep state victim

It could still be, however, that Trump has recently being drugged, poisoned, blackmailed, or threatened in other ways. Certainly something has changed. Since no-one outside the White House can be sure of what is happening, it all makes you think that Trump should never have agreed to live at the White House. He should have remained at Trump Towers with his tried and true security forces. But is it even possible to resist the Deep State? They got Gaddafi. They got Bin Laden (they say). And maybe they have got Trump.

What happened to Mme Soubiron, the character who evaded death by her creator? Although she wasn't insane, she finished up in an insane asylum, as the novelist found her impossible to bend to the plot. And the plot went on without her.

Will the Deep State swallow America? Surely America is bigger than the evil dwarfs who run the Deep State! Well, let's hope so. But we need some hobbits or something to help us.

NOTES

[1]"Trump : deux pas en avant, un pas en arrière
DAMAS (SYRIE)
Alors que la presse internationale décrit le grand retournement de Donald Trump, Thierry Meyssan montre qu’il n’en est rien : loin d’avoir abandonné son idéal de paix, le président des États-Unis hurle et bombarde, tout en faisant attention à ne rien commettre d’irréversible.." Source: http://www.voltairenet.org/article196024.html

I have transcribed the text from an abbreviated version of President Bashar al-Assad's interview in the embedded video, which was released on 13 April 2017. The guts of President Bashar al-Assad's response to world allegations that Syria's national army attacked civilians with chemical weapons is that the Syrian Arab Army was not in the area at 6-6.30 am when Al-Quaeda alleges a chemical weapons attack took place, they were there around 11.30-12.00hrs. The area had no strategic value for them. Syria got rid of its chemical weapons arsenal in 2013, under international supervision, so what was the army supposed to have used? At the time of the alleged attack, the Syrian Army had the terrorists [Al-Quaeda/ISIS] on the run so why would they [invite punishment from the world community] in carrying out a senseless act with chemical weapons of no strategic importance, if they actually had chemical weapons, which they deny? The film of the alleged incident shows rescuers without any masks or other safety equipment supposedly dealing with people affected by toxic gas that is fatal on contact. Trump's U-turn on foreign intervention policy and US action on the fabricated incident shows that the president has no real power and that the United States is run by the Deep State. Text of statements are under the video inside this article. This transcription is provided because President Assad's English in the abbreviated version is not always completely clear. The entire interview, with English subtitles, is to be found at the bottom of my transcript of the shorter version. It is well worth listening to!

PRESIDENT ASSAD: "Al-Quaeda's forces say the attack happened at 6.00- 6.30 in the morning, while the Syrian [Army] attack was happening around noon, between 11.30 to 12.00. Let's suppose we have this [chemical weapons] arsenal and let's suppose we have the will to use it, why didn't we use it when we were retreating and the terrorists were advancing? Actually, the timing of that attack - or alleged attack - was when the Syrian Army was advancing very fast and actually the terrorists were collapsing in that area. So, why to use it, if you have it and if you have the will, why to use it at that timing and not when you are in a difficult situation? Logically, and this is second, if you have it and if you want to use it again, if we suppose, why do you use it and why do you use it against civilians, not use it against terrorists that we are fighting? Third, in that area we don't have army, we don't have battles, we don't have any object in Khan Sheikhoun and it's not strategic area, why to attack it? What the reason? Military? Of course, the foundation for us morally, we wouldn't do it if we have it [chemical weapons]. We wouldn't have the will because morally this is not acceptable. We won't have the support of the public.

INTERVIEWER: So you mean that you don't have chemical weapons.

PRESIDENT ASSAD: No, no, definitely. A few years ago, in 2013, we gave up all our arsenal and the chemical agency announced that Syria is free of any chemical materials.

INTERVIEWER: Because the Pentagon said that there are chemical weapon in the airbase. You deny.

PRESIDENT ASSAD: Yes. They attack that airbase and they destroy depots of different materials and there was no sarin gas. If they said that we launched the sarin attack from that airbase, what happened to the sarin when they attacked the depots? Did we have [unclear] sarin? Our chief of staff was there a few hours later. How could he go there if there was sarin gas? If the same fabricated videos that we've been seeing about Khan Sheikhoun when the rescuers tried to rescue the victims - or the supposedly dead people or inflicted people - but actually they weren't wearing any masks or any gloves. How? Where's the sarin? They should be affected. Right away. And so, actually, this is the first proof that it's not about the president of the United States, it's about the Regime and the Deep State, or the deep regime, in the United States. It's still the same, it doesn't change. The president is only one of the performers on their theatre. If he wants to be a leader, he cannot, because - as some say, he wanted to be leader, Trump wanted to be leader, but every president there, if he want to be real leader, he later is going to eat his words, swallow his pride, if he has pride at all, and make 180 degree U-turn, otherwise, he will pay the price politically.

Entire Interview with automatically generated transcript plus English subtitles is embedded below:

Violence started up again in eastern Ukraine soon after New Years Day, which was the day of an immensely shameful visit to the front lines in Ukraine by the scabrous US republican Senators, John McCain and Lindsey Graham. In the video below, after a short speech in Ukranian by an obese Poroshenko dressed in a camouflage fatigues, we hear in English at 1.17 in the video, these appalling foreign politicians encouraging the Kiev soldiers assembled to start up their war against East Ukraine again. The English is interpreted into Ukrainian. The expressions on some of the soldiers faces are fascinating and tragic, when you consider that with unemployment so high in Ukraine, many of them may have joined the army merely to survive and they won't want war, let alone war financed by the US deep state. The two nasty old American men also said that they would return to America to find support for the overthrow of Russia. This appears to be a continuation of previous warmongering by an attempted US shadow government. For more about US involvement in Ukraine see /node/4112. The utter evil of these actions is clear when you consider that they signal that this dreadful war would probably run out of steam without this kind of repeated foreign stimulus. One also wonders, listening to the insane statements about Putin, whether the deep state actually thinks it would be a good idea to put the incompetent Poroshenko in as a replacement for Putin in Russia. See video inside.