Robert Mueller er en umoralsk, juridisk morder:
Han vil gøre sit job, hvis I giver ham lov.
LaRouche PAC Internationale Webcast,
29. sept., 2017.

Vært Matthew Ogden: God aften; det er den 29. september, 2017. Med mig i studiet i dag har jeg William Wertz fra Executive Intelligence Review. Vi vil diskutere den netop udkomne specialundersøgelses-rapport; dossieret med titlen, »Robert Mueller Is an Amoral Legal Assassin; He Will Do His Job if You Let Him!«

Fig. 1

Jeg viser rapportens forsidebillede her på skærmen [Fig. 1]. Som I ser, så er rapporten nu tilgængelig; den er allerede blevet cirkuleret i over et døgn. Den er allerede i hænderne på folk i hele USA, og man kan se den her: lpac.co/ytdos (LPAC’s hjemmeside; EIR-rapporten findes som pdf på vores hjemmeside).

Rapporten er delt op i tre afsnit og følger tråden af personen Robert Mueller igennem tre af de mest berygtede forbrydelser i de seneste 30 år. For det første, de falske anklager og retsforfølgelsen af Lyndon LaRouche – LaRouche-sagen; for det andet, det aggressive bedrag af det amerikanske folk mht. sandheden om begivenhederne den 11. september, 2001, som dernæst blev brugt til at lancere en række krige for regimeskifte; og for det tredje, det igangværende kup imod den siddende amerikanske præsident, mens vi taler. Og I vil se, forhåbentlig i løbet af denne udsendelse – og vi opfordrer jer til at læse hele dossieret – at tråden til Robert Mueller kan spores hele vejen igennem disse afgørende, historiske vendepunkter. Hvis man trækker i denne tråd, vil hele dette apparat, hele denne operation, blive optrævlet.

Will Wertz er her i dag for at fremlægge nogle af rapportens punkter i en overordnet gennemgang, og for at guide jer gennem rapportens indhold og komme med nogle refleksioner over hvert af disse tre, afgørende knudepunkter, som detaljeret dækkes i rapporten. Og, forhåbentlig også for at lokke jer og tilskynde jer til at læse og studere denne rapport i detaljer. Jeg vil lade Will gå i gang, og vi vil vise noget materiale på skærmen undervejs, men vi vil gennemgå noget af indholdet fra rapporten.

William Wertz: Tak. Matt. Skønheden i denne rapport – som er noget, der omgående må handles på for at redde denne republik og præsidentskabet og bevæge verden ind i et Nyt Paradigme, som det defineres af den kinesiske politik for Ét Bælte, én Vej, og som er blevet vedtaget af mange lande i hele verden, inklusive Rusland, og som USA er blevet inviteret til at tilslutte sig – er, at den identificerer dette angreb på præsident Trump og det amerikanske præsidentskab over en længere tidsperiode; og hvor det fundamentale spørgsmål er, om verden fortsat skal være domineret af et bankerot, finansielt imperiesystem, der kontrolleres af briterne, eller om vi i stedet bevæger os ind i et Nyt Paradigme, baseret på princippet om fred gennem økonomisk udvikling. Det er det fundamentale spørgsmål. Dette er noget, som Lyndon LaRouche har kæmpet for i årtier. Tilbage i 1971, den 15. august, fremlagde han meget klart de alternativer, der ligger foran menneskeheden, og foran dette land, med Nixon, der annoncerede første fase, anden fase, af nedtagningen af Bretton Woods-systemet, som Roosevelt havde indsat efter Anden Verdenskrig. Han (LaRouche) sagde dengang, at vi har et alternativt valg; alternativet er at satse på en politik for økonomisk udvikling på global skala, eller også vil vi blive konfronteret med et forsøg på at gennemtvinge en fascistisk, økonomisk politik i Schachts tradition, som ville resultere i massive dødstal over hele verden. Med ’Schachts tradition’ refererer jeg til Hjalmar Schacht, finansminister under Adolf Hitler, der kom til magten med hjælp fra sådanne folk som John Foster Dulles og briterne.

Det, LaRouche gjorde i 1970’erne efter denne vurdering, var, at han fremlagde mange absolut afgørende udviklingsprogrammer. I 1975 var han fortaler for skabelsen af en International Udviklingsbank. Senere krævede han oprettelsen af en Nationalbank i USA efter samme principper som Alexander Hamiltons Første Nationalbank. Han præsenterede udviklingsprogrammer for områderne i Stillehavsbækkenet og det Indiske Oceans bækken. Han præsenterede et program ved navn Operation Juárez, for Mexicos udvikling, som en model for Nord-Syd-relationer gennem udveksling af mexicansk olie til gengæld for amerikansk teknologi. Senere præsenterede han programmer for den Eurasiske Landbro i samarbejde med sin hustru, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, og som senere udvikledes til Verdenslandbroen. Briterne var totalt modstandere af denne politik – totalt. Vi vil få at se, at dette har været en kamp under hele perioden 1970’erne og 1980’erne og under hele 11. september-perioden, og frem til det aktuelle angreb på Trumps præsidentskab. Det har været en kamp mellem Det britiske Imperium, som har interveneret i USA for at forhindre, at USA gik i denne retning, som Lyndon LaRouche har forsøgt at styre USA i; og som LaRouche er på randen til at styre USA i, i dag, og som er årsagen til, at briterne er så bange!

Tilbage i 1980’erne spillede Lyndon LaRouche en afgørende rolle i udformningen af den tiltrædende Reagan-administration. LaRouche var ophavsmand til det Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ, som Reagan senere annoncerede i marts måned, 1983. LaRouche var også modstander mod briterne i krigen om Malvinas-øerne (som briterne kalder Falklandsøerne), og han krævede en gennemførelse af Monroe-doktrinen imod briternes kolonipolitik dér. Som et resultat mødtes LaRouche og hans hustru i 1982 med Indira Gandhi; han og hans hustru mødte Indira Gandhi i april 1982 for at diskutere udviklingen af det indiske subkontinent og Stillehavsbækkenet. I maj 1982 mødtes han med José López Portillo (Mexico) for at diskutere Operation Juárez. Som respons på dette sendte Henry Kissinger, i august 1982, et brev til FBI-direktør William Webster med krav om en efterforskning af Lyndon LaRouche på en anklage om angivelig chikane af Kissinger for at være britisk agent. Der blev ligeledes sendt et brev den 27. august 1982 fra den britiske regering til FBI; som krævede en efterforskning af Lyndon LaRouche og hans organisation. Den 24. september 1982 skrev FBI, i skikkelse af chef for kontraefterretning, James Noland, et svar til briterne.

Matthew Ogden: Vi har faktisk en FOIA-udgivelse (FOIA: Freedom of Information Act) af dette FBI-memo, som vi viser på skærmen [Fig. 2]. I kan selv se det følgende citat, som Will vil læse.

Fig. 2

Will Wertz: Der står, og det er altså fra James Noland til den britiske regering: »Vi vil gerne gentage vores konklusion om, at, alt imens mange af NCLC’s chikane-aktiviteter« – NCLC var Lyndon LaRouches organisation – »og de temaer, som NCLC’s publikationer promoverer, såsom EIR [Executive Intelligence Review] ofte er favorable over for sovjetisk misinformation og propagandainteresser, så er der ingen direkte beviser for, at russerne dirigerer eller finansierer LaRouche eller hans organisation. Det er imidlertid helt igennem sandsynligt, at russerne (sovjet-russerne) har udviklet eller vil udvikle kilder internt i NCLC, der befinder sig i en position, hvor de kan indskyde sovjet-inspirerede anskuelser i NCLC’s aktiviteter og publikationer. Det er sandsynligt, at russerne vil forsøge at drage fordel af eller udnytte NCLC-meninger, der er paralleller til eller fremmer sovjetiske, udenrigspolitiske mål.«

Minder dette jer om interventionen på vegne af Storbritanniens Government Communications Headquarters – GCHQ – eller på vegne af MI6’s Christopher Steele, for at forsøge at få en efterforskning af USA’s præsident Donald Trump, for angiveligt ’aftalt spil’ med russerne?

Alligevel skete der det, at præsidentens Udenrigspolitiske Råds Styrelse den 12. januar, 1983, krævede en efterforskning fra FBI’s side. Robert Mueller kommer ind i billedet i 1982. Han blev en del af USA’s justitsminister William Welds stab i Boston i 1982. Efter valgene i 1984 lancerede Weld en efterforskning af LaRouche; og i 1986 efterfulgte Mueller Weld, da Weld af George Bush – det var faktisk Ronald Reagan, der var præsident, men under indflydelse af George Bush, senior – blev udnævnt til at lede Justitsministeriets Kriminal-afdeling. Mueller bragte dernæst en vis John Markham ind for at udføre retsforfølgelsen af Lyndon LaRouche, der begyndte i Boston. Efter en razzia den 6. oktober, 1986 i Leesburg, Virginia, mod LaRouches hovedkvarter, hvor der var en trussel om, og en faktisk plan for, at forsøge at iscenesætte mordet på Lyndon LaRouche. Dette forsøg blev forpurret, men retsforfølgelsen forsatte i de sene 1980’ere.

Her følger resten af webcastet i engelsk udskrift:

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.

CNN coverage.

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