Judicial passions boil in Washington. The point is not that in the US capital there is some kind of resonant process of murder or theft on an especially large scale. The fact is that the political struggle in the overseas superpower has long turned into a race of "who replaces whom faster."
Many were drawn into the maelstrom of media legal disputes - both the president of the United States, and his former assistants, and former intelligence officers, and the US attorney general, and the bosses of the Democratic Party. In addition, as in 2016, the figure of journalist-seeker Julian Assange was again in the spotlight. I think this is no coincidence, because at the disposal of the founder of WikiLeaks there may be evidence capable of turning the hail on a hill upside down in an instant.
But first things first.
Donald Trump was recently acquitted during an impeachment procedure. He personally is no longer in danger. Anyway, bye. Now it’s fit to fear for their freedom those retired and current employees of the Ministry of Justice, the FBI, the CIA and the State Department, who were at the forefront of the so-called Russian case and, in fact, were plotting against the legally elected president.
One of these conspirators, former Bureau Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, author of a book about "Trump's conspiracy with the Kremlin," recently escaped being accused of lying to a congressional committee "because of a lack of evidence." However, this does not mean that he broke off the hook. The Ministry of Justice created a special group of investigators led by the experienced prosecutor John Duram, which follows the trail of the "saviors of the republic." And one of the main persons involved in the “investigation of investigators” is precisely McCabe. However, not only him. Many high-ranking Washington bureaucrats, including the heads of law enforcement agencies, are under the gun.
Among conservative American politicians and experts, there is an opinion that the hasty (and in fact from scratch) declaration of impeachment to the 45th president of the United States was precisely due to the fact that the Duram group got too close to a secret carefully guarded in Washington. This, of course, may turn out to be a conspiracy theory or banal political gossip. But the way the ex-Obama administration and liberal media sympathizers welcomed the Justice Ministry’s refusal to indict McCabe says a lot. Turn out to be a former senior Bureau official under investigation, who knows what he could tell!
Actually, we all know this “scary secret”. In 2015—2016 the entire political establishment, all the liberal media (and at that time part of the conservative ones), almost the entire leadership of the special services and federal departments rallied against the populist republicans and their unexpected leader Donald Trump in order to prevent the latter from being elected president of the United States. But all the efforts of the "Washington Regional Committee" went to dust.
Not resigned to defeat, the liberals blamed their failures on the "intrigues of the Kremlin", which, according to their version, with the help of "government hackers" led his agent to the White House.
It was not possible to prove the collusion of the Trump headquarters with Moscow. The best people of the FBI, and then the group of special prosecutor Robert Muller, with almost unlimited powers, searched for incriminating evidence of the 45th US president and his “Russian curators”, but did not find anything. The result of almost three years of hunting for witches was one big zilch.
Nevertheless, the media and a significant part of "intelligence community veterans" (not human resources officers, of course, but metropolitan bureaucrats) still do not leave rhetoric about the "Russian trace". Like, maybe Donald was not “Putin's puppet”, but Putin definitely intervened in the US election. Why are they doing this? For three reasons. Firstly, they are ashamed (and unsafe for their careers) to admit that they have been deceiving the public for so long. Secondly, they do not want to agree that their defeat in 2016 is a result of their own weakness and incompetence. And thirdly, if Russia has nothing to do with it, you will have to answer a number of uncomfortable questions about the origins of the “Russian case”, in which the FBI listened to American citizens and harassed the campaign staff of one of the presidential candidates. It is, of course, about the headquarters of Trump. Hillary Clinton and her entourage, on the other hand, were in every way guarded against possible prosecution.
Sooner or later, the "big secret" will be finally revealed and will become the property of all US citizens, regardless of their political preferences. But for this it is necessary to first reveal the secret, small, secret-in-secret - how and under what circumstances the liberal establishment and the top of the special services “turned arrows” to Russia.
The compromising evidence on the former head of trump’s headquarters Paul Manafort, readily provided by Kiev, the so-called Russian dossier, composed by former MI-6 agent Christopher Steele on the Democratic Party’s orders, the accusations against “Putin network trolls” brought forward by special prosecutor Müller are all just particular . The cornerstone of the Kremlin’s “interference” case is the public disclosure of Clinton’s headquarters e-mail and the Democratic National Committee, which suggested that the party’s leadership was playing a dishonest game against Hillary’s primary rival, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.
As you know, this correspondence was published by the WikiLeaks group in the summer of 2016, shortly before the Democratic election conference. The US liberal elite still calls this information bomb the main reason for the defeat of Madame Clinton in the presidential election. Following Hillary’s headquarters, US intelligence officials then rushed to blame Russia for the data leak. Like, Assange and his associates, being "agents of the Kremlin", hacked the corresponding mail servers on the instructions not of anyone but Putin personally and posted the correspondence of high-ranking Democrats in the public domain.
Assange himself has repeatedly stated that his source is neither Russian nor any other state or near-state organization in the world. And if so, then the leak could be the result of an insider or hacker attack of one of the many groups of cyber activists, of which there are many.
If this is proved, a tremendous scandal will break out, which has nothing to even compare with. It turns out that the US law enforcement agencies fabricated the “Russian case” from beginning to end.
We will return to 2020. While a group of the prosecutor Duram identifies the conspirators, Trump's enemies continue to attack his associates. It turns out with varying success. The case, kneeling on the knee against the former national security adviser, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, has practically collapsed. The court refuses to confirm the deal with the investigation, which the ex-adviser made, admitting a lie to the FBI agent, because the "perjury" was provoked by the Bureau.
But another adviser and long-time friend of trump, Roger Stone, faces a considerable term on similar charges. True, here there were some legal incidents. It turned out that the jury foreman in the Stone case, Tomeka Hart, had lied during the selection of jury members. She claimed that she was little interested in politics and had no prejudice against the defendant and his friend, the president. However, it turned out that Hart was an anti-Trump activist and conducted political campaigning on social networks.
Roger Stone got a chance to review his case. Perhaps a complete excuse. But almost all analysts agree that Donald Trump will have mercy on his companion, if Themis is unwilling to do so. When on February 18, 2020, the White House owner signed a decree to pardon several people at once, including the infamous former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (the very one who tried to sell the newly elected President Barack Obama in the Senate in 2008), they considered it to be a preparation for extradition A “free ticket” to everyone who has been tried as a result of investigations related in one way or another to Trump and the “Russian case”.
The logic here is simple. The head of state is constantly under "shelling", which often hurts those who are most loyal to him. If, as a result of the political struggle in Washington, Trump's associates run the risk of sooner or later being imprisoned for long periods, no one will want to work with him. Yes, and those who want to get over to the enemy camp can be found. If the president, with his constitutional authority, can help them out through pardon, his allies and friends have a motivation to continue the fight.
By the way, among the people pardoned by Trump on February 18, there was a Wall Street businessman Michael Milken who was caught in financial frauds. Many commentators immediately remembered another dishonest person - Paul Manafort, the temporary head of Donald's campaign headquarters, convicted of tax evasion.
However, Stone’s case is much more interesting. According to the liberal opposition, it was Roger Stone in 2016 who was “connected” between the headquarters of Trump and WikiLeaks. In February 2019, special prosecutor Robert Muller tried to give this version official status, but little came of it. The indictment has only perjury. Moreover, in December 2018, Müller had to fight off journalist Jerome Corsi, who filed a lawsuit against the special prosecutor for blackmail in order to extort false confessions from him that he allegedly was an intermediary between WikiLeaks and Stone.
It would seem, why try to prove the connection of the allies of Trump and Julian Assange? Well, we know that Assange is a brave journalist who has repeatedly published the uncomfortable truth about the dirty secrets of the Western elite on the net.
This is considered by tens of millions of people around the world. But in the eyes of the US Department of Justice, he is a dangerous criminal. And therefore, is now under arrest in London, awaiting a court decision on extradition to the United States.
But this thing has a flip side. As mentioned above, Assange knows for sure how the correspondence of the Democrats got to him in 2016. If it turns out that this was an insider, then the whole “Russian business” will crash with a crash, burying half of the “Washington swamp” and many former and, possibly, active representatives of the US intelligence community under its rubble.
Therefore, there is every reason to seriously worry about the life of a truth seeker. Julian’s father recently predicted his death in an American prison in the event of extradition. This gloomy forecast may well turn out to be fair - in an open court (and, for example, the Senate controlled by the Republicans may require this) Assange will probably tell a lot of interesting things. For example, about the suspicious death in the summer of 2016 of an employee of the Democratic National Committee, Seth Rich, who was killed on the street of a prosperous district of Washington exactly a few days after the publication of the correspondence of the bosses of the Democratic Party. The version that it was Rich who was the WikiLeaks informant was never refuted.
No matter how Donald Trump and his Attorney General William Barr would like to ensure the safety of Assange, everything happens in the US penitentiary system. Take even the recent example of the death of Jeffrey Epstein, the organizer of the elite pedophile network, who went to cooperate with the investigation. He was under special supervision in one of the best federal prisons and still died under mysterious circumstances in his cell.
But imagine that the US president will have mercy not only on his comrade-in-arms Roger Stone, but also on Julian Assange. Then the founder of WikiLeaks will become a free man. His protection and secret export to the United States as a witness can be entrusted to an independent security company and even a private military corporation. For example, PMC Blackwater, whose founder Eric Prince is a personal friend of Trump. Let me remind you that it was Prince, who did not trust the US Secret Service, who provided Donald with a second security circuit during the 2016 election campaign.
So in the case of Assange's pardon, the chances that the world will know about the true circumstances of the publication of the electronic correspondence of the democratic party elite are significantly increased.
It is no coincidence that right now (and not two and a half years earlier), a sensational news was heard in a London court that Congresswoman Dana Rorabacher, in a conversation with Assange in August 2017, suggested he get a pardon if he disavows the version of the “Russian trace” in hacking Democratic Party mail. Rohrabacher claims that he acted not on behalf of the president, but on his own behalf and received no definite answer. Moreover, the congressman did not manage to get to the head of state - his initiative was blocked by the then head of the administration, John Kelly.
It is still unclear who specifically wished British lawyer Julian Assange to talk about his client’s conversation with the American congressman. It could be the enemies of Trump, and his allies. Liberal media are striving to present the case in such a way that the White House owner tried to bargain for the whitewashing of Russia (and at the same time himself) in exchange for a pardon. Thus, the media are trying to discount in advance the possible revelations of the founder of WikiLeaks. So, they are afraid of these revelations.
Perhaps the leadership of the Democratic Party is looking for a reason for another impeachment (and what, the law of this madness does not prohibit). Perhaps Julian’s lawyer, with his desperate demarche, decided to draw the attention of the US president to his client. And perhaps Trump really had a “cunning plan” in which Assange was called upon to play an important role.
Good last. Because one of the most famous truth-seekers of the 21st century seems to have the last hope for life - the unpredictability of Donald Trump and his ability to act “not according to the rules”.
The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.