RussiaGate 2.0. (2024-25): Donald Trump and the Manchurian Candidate. Regime Change in America

Dear Readers,

Are we living RussiaGate 2.0? Below is my article entitled:

“Trump, The Manchurian Candidate. U.S. Foreign Policy and the Campaign to Destabilize the Trump Presidency, Regime Change in America” — published on January 4, 2017, two weeks prior to President Donald Trump’s inauguration on January 20, 2017,

The  2017 article is followed by my June 2024 article entitled “RussiaGate 2.0. Regime Change in America (2024)”, which was published a month prior to the attempted assassination of President Trump. (image below)

RussiaGate 1.0

The ultimate intent of the 2016-2017 campaign led by the Neocons and the Clinton Faction was to destabilize the Trump presidency.

Prior to the November 8 [2016] elections, former Secretary of Defense and CIA Director Leo Panetta had already intimated that Trump is a threat to National Security. According to The Atlantic,  Trump is a “Modern Manchurian Candidate” serving the interests of the Kremlin.

RussiaGate 1.0 contends that Trump was “in bed with the enemy”, namely Russia. In the wake of the 2016 elections, prior to his inauguration, Trump was accused of high treason.

There was a carefully planned “Disrupt Campaign” formulated well before the November 8, 2016 elections which consisted in a media smear campaign, an engineered anti-Trump protest movement across the US, coordinated with media coverage, petitions,  the objective which was “to disrupt”

RussiaGate 2.0

While it is too early to make predictions, several of the strategies against Trump in 2016-2017 will no doubt be envisaged under RussiaGate 2.0.(2024-25)

Already there are “insinuations” that the Russians intervened in the “Swing States”:

 

My Question: Will the July 2024 attempted assassination against president Trump be the object of an in-depth investigation?

 

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, November 7, 2024 

 

Trump, “The Manchurian Candidate”

U.S. Foreign Policy and the Campaign to Destabilize the Trump Presidency,

Regime Change in America

by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, January 4, 2017

Introduction

Obama has formally accused Moscow of interfering in the US elections on behalf of Donald Trump [December 2016]. These are serious allegations.  Whereas the sanctions are  directed against Russia, the ultimate intent is to undermine the legitimacy of president-elect Donald Trump and his foreign policy stance in relation to Moscow. 

According to the US media, the sanctions against Moscow were intended to “Box in President-elect Donald J. Trump” because  Trump “has consistently cast doubt” that Putin was involved in the alleged hacking of the DNC.  \In an earlier report on Kremlin meddling, the NYT  (December 15, 2016) depicted Donald Trump as “…a Useful Idiot”… an American president who doesn’t know he’s being played by a wily foreign power. (emphasis added)

But the accusations against Trump have gone far beyond the “Box in” Narrative. The unspoken truth pertaining to Obama’s Executive Order is that the punishment was intended for Trump rather than Putin.

The objective is not to “Box-In” the president-elect for his “unfamiliarity with the role of intelligence”. Quite the opposite: The strategy is to delegitimize Donald Trump by accusing him of high treason. 

In recent developments, the director of National Intelligence James Clapper has “confirmed” that the alleged Russian cyberattack constitutes an “existential threat to our way of life”.

“Whether or not that constitutes an act of war [by Russia against the US] I think is a very heavy policy call that I don’t believe the intelligence community should make,” said Clapper.

That “act of war” not by Russia but against Russia seems to be have been endorsed by the outgoing Obama administration: several thousand tanks and US troops are being deployed on Russia’s doorstep as part of Obama’s “Operation Atlantic Resolve” directed against the Russian Federation. 

Are these military deployments  part of Obama’s “act of retribution” against Russia in response to Moscow’s alleged hacking of the US elections?

Is this a “fast-track” procedure on the part of the outgoing president with the support of US intelligence, intended to create political and social chaos prior to the inception of the Trump administration on January 20th?

According to Donbass DINA News: “A Massive US military deployment [on Russia’s border] should be ready by January 20 [2017].” (emphasis added)

Political Insanity prevails.

And insanity could potentially unleash World War III.

Meanwhile the “real story” behind the hacking op. is not front page news. The mainstream media is not covering it.

Destabilizing the Trump Presidency

The ultimate intent of this campaign led by the Neocons and the Clinton Faction is to destabilize the Trump presidency.

Prior to the November 8 [2016] elections, former Secretary of Defense and CIA Director Leo Panetta had already intimated that Trump is a threat to National Security. According to The Atlantic,  Trump is a “Modern Manchurian Candidate” serving the interests of the Kremlin.

 

Vanity Fair November 1 2016

The Atlantic October 8 2016

 

In the wake of the Grand Electors’ Vote (in favour of Trump) and Obama’s sanctions against Moscow, the accusations of treason directed against Donald Trump have gone into high gear:

A specter of treason hovers over Donald Trump. He has brought it on himself by dismissing a bipartisan call for an investigation of Russia’s hacking of the Democratic National Committee as a “ridiculous” political attack on the legitimacy of his election as president.” (Boston Globe, December 16, emphasis added)

“Liberals are suggesting President-elect Donald Trump is guilty of treason after President Obama announced new sanctions against Russia and Trump praised Vladimir Putin’s response to the sanctions.” (Daily Caller, December 30, 2016, emphasis added)

Coordinated Operation to Destabilize the Trump Presidency? 

Is Trump “in bed with the enemy”?

These are serious accusations allegedly backed up by US intelligence which cannot be brushed away.

Will they just be forgotten once Trump accedes to the White House? Unlikely. They are part of a propaganda campaign on behalf of powerful corporate interests.

What is at stake is tantamount to a carefully coordinated operation to destabilize the Trump presidency, characterized by several distinct components.

The central objective of this project against Trump is to ensure the continuity of the Neocons’ foreign policy agenda geared towards global warfare and Worldwide economic conquest, which has dominated the US political landscape since September 2001.

Let us first review the nature of the Neocons’ foreign policy stance.

Background on The Neocons’ Foreign Policy Agenda

In the wake of 9/11, two major shifts in US foreign policy were devised as part of the 2001 National Security Strategy (NSS).

The first pertained to the “global war on terrorism” against Al Qaeda, the second introduced the preemptive “defensive war” doctrine. The objective was to present “preemptive military action” –meaning war as an act of “self-defense” against two categories of enemies, “rogue States” and “Islamic terrorists”:

“The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration. …America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.(National Security Strategy, White House, 2002, http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

The preemptive war doctrine also included the preemptive use of nuclear weapons on a “first strike” basis (as a means of “self-defence”) against both nuclear and non-nuclear states. This concept of  a preemptive first strike nuclear attack was firmly endorsed by Hillary Clinton in her election campaign.

In turn, the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) launched in the wake of 9/11 has come to play a central role in justifying US-NATO military intervention in the Middle East on “humanitarian grounds” (R2P), including the instatement of so-called “No Fly Zones”. GWOT also constitutes  the cornerstone of media propaganda.

The military and intelligence dimensions of the Neocons’ project are contained in The Project for the New American Century formulated prior to the accession of George W. Bush to the White House. The PNAC also posits a “Revolution in Military Affairs” requiring a massive budget outlay allocated to the development of advanced weapons systems including a new generation of nuclear weapons.

The PNAC initiative was launched by William Kristol and Robert Kagan whose wife Victoria Nuland, played a key role as Clinton’s Assistant Secretary of State in engineering the Euro-Maidan coup in Ukraine.

The Neocon project also includes a menu of “regime change”, “color revolutions”, economic sanctions and macro-economic reforms directed against countries which fail to conform to Washington’s demands.

In turn, the globalization of war supports Wall Street’s global economic agenda: The (secretly negotiated) Atlantic and Pacific trade blocks (TPP, TTIP, CETA, TISA), coupled up with IMF- World Bank- WTO “surveillance” are an integral part of this hegemonic project, intimately related to US military and intelligence operations.

 

 

“The Deep State” and The Clash of Powerful Corporate Interests

Global capitalism is by no means monolithic. What is at stake are fundamental rivalries within the US establishment marked by the clash between competing corporate factions, each of which is intent upon exerting control over the incoming US presidency. In this regard,  Trump is not entirely in the pocket of the lobby groups. As a member of the establishment, he has his own corporate sponsors and fund raisers. His stated foreign policy agenda including his commitment to revise Washington’s relationship with Moscow does not fully conform with the interests of the defence contractors, which supported Clinton’s candidacy.

There are powerful corporate interests on both sides, which are now clashing. There are also overlapping allegiances and “cross-cutting alliances” within the corporate establishment.  What we are witnessing are  “inter-capitalist rivalries” within the spheres of banking, oil and energy, the military industrial complex, etc.

Is “The Deep State” divided?  These corporate rivalries are also characterized by strategic divisions and clashes within several agencies of the US State apparatus including the intelligence community and the military.  In this regard, the CIA is deeply embedded in the corporate media (CNN, NBC, NYT. WP, etc) which is waging a relentless smear campaign against  Trump and his alleged links to Moscow.

But there is also a  countervailing campaign within the intelligence community against the dominant Neocon faction. In this regard, the Trump team is contemplating a streamlining of the CIA (aka purges). According to a member of the Trump transition team (quoted by the Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2017),

“The view from the Trump team is the intelligence world [is] becoming completely politicized, … They all need to be slimmed down. The focus will be on restructuring the agencies and how they interact.”

This project would also affect CIA operatives responsible for propaganda embedded within the mainstream media. This would inevitably create profound divisions and conflicts within the US intelligence apparatus, which could potentially backlash on the Trump presidency. it is unlikely that a Trump administration would be able to undermine the inner structures of US intelligence and CIA sponsored media propaganda.

Continuity in US Foreign Policy? 

Crafted in the late 1940s by US State Department official George F. Kennan, the “Truman Doctrine” sets the ideological foundations of America’s post-war hegemonic project.  What these State department documents reveal is continuity in US foreign policy  from “Containment” during the Cold War to today’s post 9/11 doctrine of “Pre-emptive Warfare”.

In this regard, the Neocons’ Project for the New American Century’s blueprint (cited above) for global conquest should be viewed as the culmination of a post-war agenda of military hegemony and global economic domination formulated by the State Department in 1948 at the outset of the Cold War.

Needless to say, successive Democratic and Republican administrations, from Harry Truman to George W. Bush and Barack Obama have been involved in carrying out this hegemonic blueprint for global domination, which the Pentagon  calls the “Long War”.

In this regard, the Neocons have followed in the footsteps of  the “Truman Doctrine”.

In the late 1940s, George F. Kennan called for building a dominant Anglo-American alliance based on “good relations between our country and [the] British Empire”.  

In today’s world, this alliance largely characterizes the military axis between Washington and London, which plays a dominant role inside NATO to the detriment of Washington’s  (continental) European allies.  It also includes Canada and Australia as key strategic partners.

Of significance, Kennan underscored the importance of preventing the development of continental European powers (e.g. Germany, France, Italy) which could compete with the Anglo-American axis.

The objective during the Cold War and its aftermath was to prevent Europe from establishing political as well as economic ties with Russia.

In turn, NATO largely dominated by the US has prevented both Germany and France from performing a strategic role in World affairs.

 

Trump Foreign Policy Realignments

It is highly unlikely that a Trump administration would depart from the mainstay of US foreign policy.

While the Trump team is committed to a socially regressive and right wing agenda on the domestic front, certain foreign policy realignments are possible including a softening of the sanctions against Russia, which could potentially have an impact on the multibillion dollar contracts of the military industrial complex. This in itself would be a significant achievement which could contribute to a period of Detente in East-West relations.

Moreover, while Trump has put together a right wing cabinet of generals, bankers and oil executives,  which largely conforms to the mainstay of the Republican Party, the bi-partisan “entente cordiale” between Democrats and Republicans has been broken. Meanwhile, there are powerful  voices within the GOP who are supportive of the “anti-Trump faction”.

The divisions between these two competing factions are nonetheless significant. With regard to US foreign policy, they largely pertain to US-Russia bilateral relations which have been jeopardized by the Obama administration as well as to the ongoing US military agenda in Syria and Iraq. They also have a bearing on the European Union, which has been affected by Obama’s economic sanctions against Russia.

The sanctions have resulted in a dramatic decline in EU trade and investment with the Russian Federation. In conformity with the “Truman Doctrine” discussed above, US foreign policy under the Neocons, particularly since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, had sought to dismantle the Franco-German alliance and weaken the European Union.

Of relevance in relation to recent developments in Ukraine and Eastern Europe, George F. Kennan explicitly pointed in his 1948 State Department brief, to “a policy of containment of Germany, within Western Europe”. What Kennan’s observations suggest is that the US should be  supportive of  a European Project only inasmuch as it supports US hegemonic interests. And that is precisely what the Neocons have achieved under the Bush and Obama administrations:

“Today both Francois Hollande and Angela Merkel are taking their orders directly from Washington. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was a turning point. The election of pro-US political leaders (President Sarkozy in France and Chancellor Angela Merkel in Germany) was conducive to a weakening of national sovereignty, leading to the demise of the Franco-German alliance. ” (Michel Chossudovsky America’s Blueprint for Global Domination: From “Containment” to “Pre-emptive War”. Global Research, 2014)

The more significant question is whether this realignment under a Trump administration will restrain the deployment of NATO troops and military hardware in Eastern Europe on Russia’s doorstep. Will it be conducive to nuclear disarmament?

While Trump’s foreign policy agenda has been the target of “dirty politics” by the Clinton faction, the new administration has powerful corporate backers who will no doubt challenge the Neocons including those operating within the intelligence community. It is worth noting that Trump also has the support of the pro-Israel lobby as well as Israeli intelligence. In December, the head of Mossad met up with the Trump team in Washington.

The Timeline of the Destabilization Project

At the outset, prior to the November 8 elections, the project to disrupt and destabilize the Trump presidency consisted of several coordinated and interrelated processes some of which are ongoing while others have already been completed (or are no longer relevant):
  • the media smear campaign against Trump, which has taken on a new slant in the wake of the November 8 [2016] elections (ongoing);
  • the engineered anti-Trump protest movement across the US, coordinated with media coverage, petitions, with the objective to disrupt (ongoing);
  • The vote recount in three swing states, (No longer relevant)
  • The passing of  H.R 6393: Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, which includes a section directed against so-called “pro-Moscow independent media”, in response to Moscow’s alleged interference in the US elections in support of Donald Trump;
  • The Electoral College Vote on December 19 [2016] (No longer relevant)
  • The Petition launched by California Sen Barbara Boxers on Change.org pertaining to the electoral College vote (No longer relevant)
  • The ongoing “Disrupt” Campaign intent upon disrupting the January 20, 2017 Presidential Inauguration Ceremony.
  • The possibility of an impeachment procedure is already contemplated during the first year of his mandate.

The Catch Phrase is “Disrupt”. The Objective is “Disrupt”

In turn, the Disruptj20.org website [link no longer functional]  is calling for the disruption of the inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20, 2017:

#DisruptJ20 is supported by the work of the DC Welcoming Committee, a collective of experienced local activists and out-of-work gravediggers acting with national support. We’re building the framework needed for mass protests to shut down the inauguration of Donald Trump and planning widespread direct actions to make that happen. We’re also providing services like housing, food, and even legal assistance to anyone who wants to join us.

What are the Possible Outcomes?

The propaganda campaign together with the other components of this operation (protest movement, anti-Trump petitions, etc) are used as a means to discredit an elected-president.

This media propaganda campaign against an incoming president is unprecedented in US history. While the MSM routinely criticize politicians in high office including the president of the US, the media narrative in this case is fundamentally different. The incoming president is the target of an organized media smear campaign which will not subside upon Trump’s accession to the White House.

Concurrently, an engineered and coordinated protest movement against Trump has been ongoing since November 8. [2016] In fact it started on the evening of November 8 prior to the announcement of the election results.  The protests have all the appearances of  a “color revolution” style op.

The media also provides a biased coverage of the engineered protest movement. The organizers and recruiters are serving the interests of  powerful corporate lobby groups including the defence contractors. They are not serving the interests of the American people

It is unlikely that these various initiatives including the Disrupt campaign will have a significant bearing on Trump’s inauguration. Our assessment suggests, however, that the president-elect will accede to the White House amidst an aura of controversy.

Impeachment is the “Talking Point”

The propaganda campaign will continue in the wake of Trump’s inauguration intimating accusations of treason. The impeachment of Donald Trump has already been contemplated, prior to his accession to the presidency. In the words of the Huffington Post (January 1, 2017):

“There is only one constitutional way to remove a president, and that is via impeachment.

What’s needed is a citizens’ impeachment inquiry, to begin on Trump’s first day in office.

The inquiry should keep a running dossier, and forward updates at least weekly to the House Judiciary Committee. There will be no lack of evidence.”

Change.org which organizes the engineered protest movement has launched a petition to impeach Trump:

Change.org petition campaign

Boston Globe, December 16, 2016

Huffington Post, December 26, 2016

The American People are the Unspoken Victims: The Need for A Real Mass Movement

The American people are the unspoken victims of this clash between competing capitalist factions.  Both factions are serving the interests of the elites to the detriment of the US electorate.

In turn, meaningful real grassroots opposition to Trump’s right-wing social policy agenda has been “kidnapped” by an engineered protest movement financed and controlled by powerful economic interests. The organizers of this movement are acting on behalf of powerful elite interests. People are misled. What is required in the months ahead is  the development of “real” social movements against the new Trump administration with regard to broad social and economic issues, civil rights, health care, job creation, environmental issues, foreign policy and US led wars, defense expenditure, immigration, etc.

Independent grassroots movements must consequently be divorced from the engineered protests backed and financed (directly or indirectly) by corporate interests. This is no easy task. The funding and “manufacturing of dissent”, the manipulation of social movements, etc. are firmly entrenched.

Ironically, neoliberalism finances activism directed against neoliberalism. “Manufacturing dissent” is  characterized by a manipulative environment, a process of arm-twisting and subtle cooptation of individuals within progressive organizations, including anti-war coalitions, environmentalists and the anti-globalization movement.

“Co-optation is not limited to buying the favors of politicians. The economic elites –which control major foundations– also oversee the funding of numerous NGOs and civil society organizations, which historically have been involved in the protest movement against the established economic and social order.” (Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, September 20, 2010)

Is America gearing Towards a Deep-seated Constitutional Crisis

At this stage it is difficult to predict what will happen under a Trump administration. What seems abundantly clear, however, is that America is gearing towards a deep-seated political crisis, with major social, economic and geopolitical ramifications.

Is the tendency (at some future date) towards the adoption of martial law and the suspension of constitutional government?

Note: This article relies in part on previous texts written by the author pertaining to the US elections.

Updated on January 5, 2017

 


.

.

RussiaGate 2.0

Regime Change in America (2024)

by

Michel Chossudovsky

June 2024

Introduction

The constitutional crisis which has been ongoing in the course of the last 7-8 years –overlapping with the Covid crisis– has concurrently triggered an unprecedented collapse in the basic tenets in U.S. foreign policy, largely directed against Russia and China. It has also resulted in the most serious economic and social crisis in World history. 

Moreover, The Biden Administration  has also endorsed the insidious role of NATO and its unbending support of the Neo-Nazi Kiev regime. 

RussiaGate is alive and kicking. Normalization of diplomatic relations with the Russian Federation as proposed by Donald Trump in 2017, not to mention real peace negotiations are not part of ruled based foreign policy pronouncements of the outgoing Biden presidency.

The levels of political manipulation, fraud and criminality have reached their pinnacle.

Donald Trump has opted for real peace negotiations

It’s an integral part of his election campaign.

Trump’s national security advisory team has prepared a balanced plan: if the Kiev regime does not enter into peace talks with Moscow, the U.S. would (under a Trump presidency) immediately suspend the flow of US weapons to Ukraine:

“Under the plan drawn up by General Keith Kellogg and Fred Fleitz, who both served as chiefs of staff in Trump’s National Security Council during his 2017-2021 presidency, there would be a ceasefire based on prevailing battle lines during peace talks, Fleitz said.

They have presented their strategy to Trump, and the Republican presidential candidate responded favorably”. (Reuters, June 23, 2024)

This strategy was formulated a few weeks prior to the failed attempt to assassinate Donald Trump in Pennsylvania.

On the campaign trail, “Trump has repeatedly said he could end Russia’s war within 24 hours if elected president”

without specifying the steps for reaching a peace deal between Kyiv and Moscow.

President Volodymyr Zelensky said that Ukraine is ready to cooperate with the Republican Party if Trump is elected as the U.S. president.


Video. Trump Assassination Attempt

Pennsylvania, July 13, 2024. This video was added to the article on July 14, 2024


RussiaGate 2.0 and the Project of the New American Century (PNAC)

What was initiated in 2016 under RussiaGate  is now unfolding under RussiaGate 2.0

According to Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, a corrupt political clique within the Democratic Party:

“…began the assault on Donald Trump seven years ago with absurd accusations that Trump teamed up with Russian President Putin to interfere in the US presidential election, throwing the victory to Trump.

This led to the absurd Department of Justice (sic) investigation of “Russiagate” which ended after years of dragging Trump through the mud with a Special Council’s report that the charge had no basis in fact and reflected poorly on the FBI’s honesty and professionalism”. 

Trump was considered by “The Deep State” as a “political impediment” to the conduct of America’s “Long War” as defined by the Project for the New American Century. 

The PNAC dispels the planning of “consecutive” military operations: it describes:

America’s “Long War” is defined as follows: 

“fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars”

The conduct of  “Simultaneous theater Wars” is the backbone of America’s hegemonic Agenda.

It’s a project of global warfare. The PNAC controlled by the NeoCons also dispels diplomacy and the holding of real peace negotiations.

The PNAC was published at the height of the presidential election campaign in September 2000, barely 2 months prior to the November 2000 elections.  It has become the backbone of US foreign policy at the outset of the G.W. Bush administration

It is the basis for the carrying out a hegemonic global warfare agenda, coupled with the imposition of a “Unipolar World Order”.

The Nuclear Agenda and Global Warfare

The threat of nuclear war has reached new heights under Biden. In recent developments, the Pentagon has announced the development of the B61-13 gravity bomb which is

“24 times more powerful than the one used on Hiroshima in WW II, aims to address evolving security challenges. It won’t increase the total nuclear stockpile. This decision aligns with a changing security landscape, with a focus on deterrence and alliance assurance, as stated by Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy John Plumb.”

Why Does the Biden administration require a $1.3 trillion nuclear weapons program which is slated to increase to $2.0 trillion in 2030?

Superiority in Nuclear War is the backbone of the NeoCon agenda as expounded in the PNAC. The objective is to “Maintain Nuclear Superiority”, specifically in relation to the US-Russia balance.

According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, this is a troubling development:

“the United States is building or proposing, … that a new nuclear arms race is expanding. ….Most tragically, it further cements an absolute commitment on the part of the United States to retain nuclear deterrence as the centerpiece of its security policy for decades to come. While most of us hope the world can eventually stop relying on the threat of mass murder at a global scale as the basis for international security, the B61-13 moves everyone further away from that day. (Stephen Young, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists)

The “new nuclear arms race” is part of the PNAC as well as the restructuring of NATO which is predicated on “Investing in our Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear defence capabilities”

Nuclear deterrence is the cornerstone of Alliance security.  The fundamental purpose of NATO’s nuclear capability is to preserve peace, prevent coercion and deter aggression.  As long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance.  (NATO Summit Declaration)

Flash Forward to June 2024. RussiaGate 2.0

The RussiaGate objective THEN AND NOW is: 

“to get rid of a President who intended to normalize relations with Russia, thus curtailing the budget and power of the military/security complex” (Paul Craig Roberts, emphasis added)

In January 2019, the FBI Russia investigation was quoted by the media as “evidence” that Trump was “wittingly or unwittingly” an agent of the Kremlin.

Even prior to the inauguration of president Trump, the US media in liaison with US intelligence had launched successive waves of smears directed against President elect Donald Trump.

The objective from the very outset was to discredit president Trump, presenting him as a Manchurian candidate serving the interests of the Kremlin.

 RussiaGate initiated in 2016 is a continuum?

It has once again reached a new climax. In recent developments, as outlined by Ralph Nader:

After the jury came in with its verdict that Donald Trump was guilty of a scheme and coverup to illegally influence the 2016 election, the Biden campaign issued a statement saying that the judgment demonstrated that “no one is above the law,” not even a former President. The overwhelming truth is that the majority of criminal laws are not a deterrent to the serious violations of law committed by sitting presidents of the United States.

This includes the incumbent Joe Biden, especially with regard to foreign and military decisions.

At least five long-standing federal laws explicitly condition the shipment of weapons to foreign countries.  It is legally impermissible for the U.S. government to provide weapons to countries that violate human rights or use these weapons offensively.

Day after day, Joe Biden has become a co-belligerent with Netanyahu’s genocidal war crimes and mass slaughter of innocent children, women and men. He has violated all five of these federal laws. (See Nader’s February 16, 2024 column: Biden & Blinken – Rule of Illegal Power Over Rule of Law).

It is worth noting that Tulsi Gabbard has also condemned Biden for abusing the US justice system:

“Joe Biden has turned our country into a banana republic,  “where those in power use the legal powers and the law enforcement against their opponents”:.

Martial Law

What is at stake in the months leading up to the 2024 November elections, is complex. 

Inasmuch as Trump remains committed to restoring diplomatic relations with Moscow, he may be sidetracked or he may be used as a carefully negotiated  “solution” by the Deep State.

I should mention that Trump is fully aligned with Israel. He has the support of the Zionist lobby. 

What however is more serious, Martial Law could be invoked in relation to  the ongoing wars in Ukraine and the Middle East prior to the November elections.

At the same time martial law could be adopted concurrently in relation to the evolving Covid crisis, the mRNA vaccine and its devastating economic and social aftermath.

My January, 4, 2017 article concluded with the following sentence:

“Is the tendency (at some future date) towards the adoption of martial law and the suspension of constitutional government?”   (emphasis added)It is worth noting that war preparations against Russia were already ongoing in 2016 under Obama’s “Operation Atlantic Resolve”.

John Forbes Kerry succeeded Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State in February 2013, exactly one year prior to the U.S. sponsored EuroMaidan Coup d’Etat in Ukraine.

Victoria Nuland –who was directly involved  in the February 2014 EuroMaidan Coup d’Etat– was appointed Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, working under the helm of Secretary of State John F. Kerry. 

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, June 13, 2024, video of Attempted Assassination of President Donald Trump, added on July 13, 2024

Author’s Note:

Global Research is based in Canada. As an independent media, we support the normalization of diplomatic relations and peace negotiations with Russia. Global Research has no links to U.S. party politics. Our mandate is to reveal the truth. We are in solidarity with the American people. 

 


Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page

Become a Member of Global Research


About the author:

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research. He has undertaken field research in Latin America, Asia, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific and has written extensively on the economies of developing countries with a focus on poverty and social inequality. He has also undertaken research in Health Economics (UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), UNFPA, CIDA, WHO, Government of Venezuela, John Hopkins International Journal of Health Services (1979, 1983) He is the author of 13 books including The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003), America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005), The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity (2015). He is a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages. In 2014, he was awarded the Gold Medal for Merit of the Republic of Serbia for his writings on NATO’s war of aggression against Yugoslavia. He can be reached at [email protected]

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Centre of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post Global Research articles on community internet sites as long the source and copyright are acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original Global Research article. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected]

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: [email protected]