Burisma wasn’t just paying off the Bidens. Ex-CIA directors are also on the payroll

Spread the love

Loading

This is a way underreported story.

It was Antony Blinken, the limp wristed Secretary of State who bends over for all US adversaries while calling it a success, who reached out to ex-CIA Director Mike Morrell to cobble together a group of “intelligence experts” who would sign a false statement calling the Hunter Biden laptop “Russian disinformation” so Biden could use it a hammer to pound Donald Trump in their debate. Morrell was eager to help. After all, he was motivated to do so. Financially motivated.

In 2017 the thinktank Atlantic Council signed an agreement with Burisma despite knowing it was corrupt.

The Atlantic Council began working in early 2017 with Burisma Holdings, even though a director at the prominent think tank expressed “uneasiness” regarding the Ukrainian energy firm in an email to a State Department official.

The Board of the Atlantic Council has some pretty interesting characters.

@MikeBenzCyber:

3 of the CIA directors serving as advisers to Rob Reiner are also on the board of the Atlantic Council. Michael Morrell, Michael Hayden, Leon Panetta. Did I mention the Atlantic Council was sponsored by Burisma & signed a Burisma partnership deal.

(Rob Reiner has advisers???? Ex-CIA advisers??? If you catch Meathead on Twitter, the Trump hatred he spews will now make sense to you)

Part of that 2017 deal were the financial perks:

WASHINGTON — A Ukrainian company that employed Hunter Biden paid more than $450,000 to a prominent Washington think tank, including picking up the tab for energy-related conferences as part of a campaign to burnish its image in the United States after it was accused by Western officials of corruption.

Burisma’s support of the Atlantic Council was detailed last week by the Wall Street Journal, which said the company had given the think tank $100,000 per year for three years starting in 2016. The council lists Burisma as a contributor on its website.

The Atlantic Council told Yahoo News Tuesday that in addition to the $100,000 given annually by Burisma, the company “also reimbursed speaker travel and event costs, which … amounted to around [$50,000 to $70,000] per year.”

Burisma and the Council worked together several times.

As part of the partnership, the Atlantic Council and Burisma hosted several events together in Washington, New York and Kiev.

Remember that in 2014 Burisma put Hunter Biden on its board at a cool $83,000 per month. Seems Burisma was looking for insurance in addition to its Biden insurance. Things get even worse.

Chris Krebs, as CISA censorship czar at DHS, deputized disinformation flagging to the Atlantic Council, whose London-based team censored US opinions about mail-in ballots in 2020. Atlantic Council has 7 living CIA directors currently on its board.

…That’s not a typo. Seven living CIA directors – Michael Hayden, James Woolsey, Leon Panetta, David Petraeus, Michael Morrell, William Webster & Robert Gates – on the board of the group deputized by DHS to censor your opinions about mail-in ballots during the 2020 election cycle.

They had a financial reason for censoring you and me.

Amanda Devine:

What a coincidence! Those same three are members of the Dirty 51. They signed that letter falsely claiming Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation. Morell organized the dishonest missive at the prompting of then-Biden campaign operative Tony Blinken, now SoS. The Dirty 51, mainly ex CIA, including Biden’s partner in Ukraine’s destabilization, John Brennan, signed the letter to help Biden win the 2020 election, as Morell has admitted in testimony to Congress. They wanted to give him a response when Trump called him corrupt during the final debate. Worked a treat. Most of the Dirty 51, if not all, still have their security clearances that are worth a motza in civilian life.

Morrell and company were protecting their own asses and their own wallets when they signed that garbage document. What better protection (outside of the Bidens) could Burisma get than former CIA Directors? This was election interference writ large.

It explains why Morrell and company were so anxious and eager to besmirch Donald Trump in 2020. Shamefully, it’s no longer a surprise to see how low “intelligence officials” have gone.

image courtesy @listen_2learn

5 4 votes
Article Rating
8 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

How much of Burisma’s payoff money came from US aid to Ukraine?

The head of Burisma was the governments energy director, awarded himself all the drilling leases,(no corruption there) that was the investigation. He also hired Nazi storm troopers to punish the Donbas for flipping Ukraine the bird and declaring independence & tossing a wrench into profits.

It’s a big bed and they are all in it… and always will be.

They need to be charged with the fraud for personal gain they enacted. Imprisonment and loss of benefits would be a start.

Everyone that took payoffs should have ALL their assets confiscated in addition to prison. Being allowed to retire with full benefits every time someone is caught in corruption doesn’t seem to be as much of a deterrent as one might think.

Well, if the assets are acquired with tainted funds, yes. They should also be stripped of clearance and access to information tbey can’t be trusted to keep.

Well Ukraine needs more money
comment image

Does The CIA Run America?

We’ve all surely had dark thoughts that the CIA is really running the United States, including many media venues. Maybe that’s been true for decades and we just didn’t know it. If so, let’s just say that it would explain a tremendous amount of what has otherwise been clouded in secrecy.

comment image

How would this be possible? Knowledge is power while secret knowledge is full control. Even fake knowledge means power and control, such as we found out in the phony Russiagate investigation early in Trump’s term. They hounded the new administration for years under a completely fake scenario in which Russia somehow got Donald Trump elected.

Yes, that was an intelligence operation all along, one directly designed to overthrow an election, a “color revolution” on our own soil.

How dare an agency not elected by the people, and evading oversight and public accountability, put itself ahead of the Constitution and the rule of law? It’s been going on for many decades as the agencies have gained ever more power, even to the point of forcing a full lockdown of America and even the world under false pretense.

None of this is verifiable precisely because of the secrecy involved. It’s not as if the intelligence community is going to send out a press release: “Democracy in America is an illusion. We know because we control nearly everything, plus we aspire to control even more.”

The incredulous among us will shoot back: look at what you are saying! Your conspiracy theory is non-falsifiable. The less evidence you have for it, the more you believe it. How in the world can we argue with you? Your position is not really plausible but there is nothing we can do to convince you otherwise.

Let’s grant the point. Still, let’s not dismiss the theory completely. Based on a New York Times (NYT) piece that appeared last week, it contains more than a grain of truth. The article is titled: “Campaign Puts Trump and the Spy Agencies on a Collision Course.”

Quote: “Even as president, Donald J. Trump flaunted his animosity for intelligence officials, portraying them as part of a politicized ‘deep state’ out to get him. And since he left office, that distrust has grown into outright hostility, with potentially serious implications for national security should he be elected again.”

Ok, let’s be clear. If the intelligence community led by the CIA is not the “deep state,” what is?

Further, it is proven many times over that the Deep State is in fact out to get him. This is not even controversial. Indeed, there is no reason for these journalists to write the above as if Donald Trump is somehow consumed by some kind of baseless paranoia.

Let’s keep going here: “Trump is now on a possible collision course with the intelligence community …. The result is a complicated and possibly destabilizing situation the United States has never seen before: deep-seated suspicion and disdain on the part of a former and perhaps future president toward the very people he would be relying on for the most sensitive information he would need to perform his role if elected again.”

Wait just a moment. You are telling us that all previous presidents have had a happy relationship with the CIA? That’s rather interesting to know. And deeply troubling too, since the CIA has been managing regime change the world over for a very long time, and is now directly involved in U.S. politics at the most intimate level.

Any president worth his salt should absolutely have a hostile relationship with such an agency, if only to establish clear civilian control over the government, without which it’s not possible to say that we live in a Constitutional republic.

And now, according to the NYT, we have one seeking the Presidency who does not defer to the agency and that this is destabilizing and deeply problematic. Who does that suggest really rules this country?

Is the NYT itself guilty of the most extreme conspiracy theory imaginable, or is it just stating facts as we know them? I’m going to guess that it is the latter. In this case, every single American should be deeply alarmed.

Crazy huh? As for the phrase “never seen before,” we have to push back. What about George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, James Polk, and Calvin Coolidge? They were all previous presidents, according to the history books that people once read.

There was no CIA back then. If you doubt this, I’m pretty sure that your favorite AI engine will confirm it.

One must suppose that when the NYT says “never seen before,” it means in the post-war period. And that very well might be true. John F. Kennedy defied them. We know that for certain. The mysteries surrounding his murder won’t be solved fully until we get the documents. But the consensus is growing that this murder was really a coup by the CIA, a message sent as a lesson to every successor in that office.

Think of that: we live in a country today where most people readily admit that the CIA probably killed the president. Amazing.

It’s intriguing to know at this late date that the Watergate “scandal” was not what it appeared to be, namely an intrepid media holding government to account. Even astute observers at the time believed the mainstream narrative. Now we have plenty of evidence that this too was nothing but a deep state attack on a president who had lost patience with it and provoked another coup.

All credit to my brilliant father who speculated along these lines at the time. I was very young with only the vaguest clue about what was happening. But I recall very well that he was convinced that Richard Nixon was set up in a trap and unfairly hounded out of office not for the bad things he was doing but for standing up to the Deep State.

If my own father, not a particularly political person, knew this for certain at the time, this must have been a strong perception even then.

You hear the rap that these agencies—the CIA is one but there are many adjacent others—are not allowed by law to intervene in domestic politics. At this point and after so much experience, this comes across to me like something of a joke. We know from vast evidence and personal testimony that the CIA has been manipulating political figures, narratives, and outcomes for a very long time.

How involved is the CIA in journalism today? Well, as a traditionally liberal paper, you might suppose that the NYT itself would be highly skeptical of the CIA. But these days, they have published a long string of aggressively defensive articles with titles like “It Turns Out that the Deep State Is Awesome” and “Government Surveillance Keeps Us Safe.” We can add this last piece to the list.

So let’s just say it: the NYT is CIA. So too is Mother Jones, Rolling Stone, Slate, Salon, and many other mainstream publications, including major tech companies like Google and Microsoft. The tentacles are everywhere and ever more obvious. Operation Mockingbird was just the beginning. The network is everywhere and the practice of manipulating the news is wholly normalized.

Once you start developing the ability to see the markings, you simply cannot unsee them, which is why people who think and write about this can come across as crackpot crazy after a while.

Have you considered that maybe the crackpots are exactly right? If so, shouldn’t we, at bare minimum, seek to support a Presidential candidate with a hostile relationship to the intelligence community?

Indeed, that ought to be a bare minimum standard of qualification. There is simply no way we can restore civilian control of government and constitutional government until this agency can be thoroughly reigned in or abolished completely.