지배엘리트가 2016년에 쿠데타를 일으키네
위의 논제들은 대략적인 정황을 짚은 것이다. 그들의 상세한 계략은 아직 나오지 않았다. 허나 지금까지의 드러난 작전과 언론 보도를 보면 아주 명백한데, 다음 절차가 드러난다. 최우선 목표는 일단 트럼프를 대통령직에 오르지 못하게 만드는 것이다. 그는 너무 독립적이며, 또 미국을 통치하는 권력집단에게 심각한 위협이다. 이번에 국무장관 자리에 틸러슨을 임명한 것은 바로 그런 사례인데(그들은 국무부 부장관으로 임명된 볼튼을 오르지 못하게 만든다), 틸러슨은 생산적인 안정성의 인물이지, 다른 나라들의 정권을 교체시키는 음모를 수행할 사람이 아니다. 이런 트럼프의 개혁에 대해 위협을 느끼는 조직은 다음과 같다 : The above theses are thus far only a general outlay. No general plan has been published. The scheme though is pretty obvious by now. However, the following contains some speculation. The priority aim is to deny Trump the presidency. He is too independent and a danger for several power centers within the ruling U.S. power circles. The selection of Tillerson as new Secretary of State only reinforces this (Prediction: Bolton will not get the Deputy position.) Tillerson is for profitable stability, not for regime change adventures. The institutional Trump enemies are:
현재 씨아이에이 브레넌 국장은 이 조직의 고문프로그램의 주요 인물인데, 오바마의 고문이며 힐라리클린턴 진영에 속해있다. 전직 헤이든 국장과 파네타 국장도 내놓고 클린턴을 지지하는 자들로써 고문의 마왕들이며, 마이클 모렐 부국장도 역사 같은 부류이다. 이런 자들이 반 러시아 프로프갠더 계략 공격을 저지르는 것은 놀라운 일이 아니다. 그들의 언론 조작을 통해 미국민은 러시아가 미 대선에 개입했고, 그때문에 트럼프가 당선되었다는 관념을 갖게 되었다. 따라서 트럼프가 승리한게 합법적이지 못하다는 인상을 심을수있었다. 그런 심리조작을 통해서 12월19일의 투표에서 선거인단이 불법적으로 반 트럼프 투표를 하도록 유도할 수있다는 것이다. The current CIA director Brennan, a leading figure of the CIA torture program and Obama consigliere, is in the Clinton/anti-Trump camp. The former CIA heads Hayden and Panetta are public Clinton supporters as is torturer king and former CIA deputy director Michael Morell. It is thereby no wonder that the CIA is leading the anti-Russian campaign. Its task now is to implant the idea in the U.S. public that Russian intervention skewed the U.S. election towards Trump. The purpose is the delegitimization of the Trump victory in the eyes of the media and public but even more so in the eyes of the electors within the electoral college. 씨아이에이는 주류언론의 막대한 지지를 받았고 대선기간동안 클린턴을 밀어?다. 그 씨아이에이 조직은 과거에 이라크전쟁을 위해서 사담후세인이 대량살상무기를 가졌다는 엉터리 보도도 언론과 합동으로 펼쳐낸 장본인이다. 민주당과 하바다 법대 로렌스 레시그 교수는 선거인단으로 하여금 반트럼프 투표를 함에 있어 법률 자문을 해주고 있다. 만일 선거인단의 다수가 기권하거나 반트럼프 투표를 던지면 트럼프가 당선되는데 요구되는 270표가 도달치 못해서 전체 선거는 의회로 결정이 넘어가게 된다. 이 과정에서 상원과 하원은 요동치면서 분열하고 미국은 다시금 대통령선거의 불법적인 혼돈에 빠지는데, 결국 대법원에서 누가 옳으냐는 걸 갖고서 치열한 분쟁을 벌일 것이다. 이것이 민주당과 네오콘이 대선 흔들기 작전을 하면서 이끌어내려는 것이다. 그런데 미국민은 이런 어둠의 계략을 알게되었는데, 가만히 보고만 있을 것인가? 선거인단은 법을 어기고 양심을 어기면서까지 민주당과 네오콘의 불법행위에 가담할 것인가? 미국의 힘의 세력중에 군부와 정보계는 씨아이에이의 불법 책략을 그냥 놔둘 것인가? 그에 대한 답은 오는 12월19일(한국시간 12월20일 화요일) 선거인단 투표 결과를 보면 알게 될 것이다. The CIA is heavily supported by the same mainstream media that pushed for Clinton during the election. (These are, not by chance, also the same media that pushed the CIA's earlier "Saddam's Weapon of Mass Destruction" campaign.) The Democratic partisan and Harvard law Professor Lawrence Lessig is pushing the electors and offers them free personal legal support. He says the electoral college vote is now close. Could 37 Republican electors, put there by voters in their states to vote for Trump, be convinced to move from electing Trump to abstain or vote for someone else, Trump would miss the needed 270 votes. The whole election of the president would then by kicked up to the House of Representatives. Should the electors vote for Trump there is still a possibility that members of the House and the Senate could officially question that vote and cause delays or Congressional probes and legal challenges. Here are the detailed general proceedings and specifics for the electoral college as explained by the National Archives and Records Administration. Though neoconservatives have no genuine support within the U.S. electorate they have a strong hold on significant parts of Congress and the relevant MSM commentariat. Many leading neoconservatives and war hawks like Robert Kagan, Max Boot and the Washington Post editorial board came out for Clinton during the campaign. Clinton even ran campaign advertisements with Republican Congress luminaries like Lindsay Graham, Sasse and Flake. The House and the Senate majority may well be on the anti-Trump side if push comes to shove. But whatever the outcome there surely would be intense legal challenges and I expect the case to go up to the Supreme Court. As an alternative to legal shenanigans Trump's inauguration could be delayed by Obama's order to the intelligence community to create a formal review of Russian intervention in the election by January 20. That is not by chance the official inauguration date! The selling point: By ordering a "full review" of allegations of Russian into the 2016 election process, President Barack Obama is essentially asking the IC to make an analytical judgment about the validity of the election that will place Trump in the Oval Office. A "compromise" in Congress could be to wait for the Intelligence Community's analysis and then discuss it before certifying Trump as president. That would end up with no result as National Intelligence Estimates are notoriously vague. Meanwhile the Vice President-elect would sit in as acting President: If the President-elect fails to qualify before inauguration, Section 3 of the 20th Amendment states that the Vice President-elect will act as President until such a time as a President has qualified. If the congressional or legal process around the Trump election gets delayed, that may be a state for a long time. The ruling Washington blob or borg could well live with an acting President Pence while Trump would have no official say in any government business. (Could Clinton then become acting VP or qualify as the new president?) The media intervention on the anti-Trump side is heavy. But first keep in mind that there is no public evidence, ZERO, that Russia indeed had anything to do with the DNC or Podesta or other leaks and the publication of emails by various outlets like Wikileaks. Craig Murray assures us that he knows that these were not hacks but insider leaks and that he knows the leaker(s). Indeed he now tells us that the emails were handed over to him during a visits in Washington. Former intelligence officials including the technically very knowledgeable former NSA official William Binney concur that the hacking story is false. All we have heard or seen so far are hearsay rumors and allegations of evidence. To me as experienced IT professional the case is technically laughable just as Murray explains here. If the claimed hacks occurred at all the alleged methods were so common that anybody could have done these. There is not even one claimed fact yet that is technically halfway acceptable as evidence that "Russia did it". But still the NYT runs a big package of pieces telling us that "Russia did it" based on the non-factual CIA rumors and unprofessional IT assertions by Crowdstrike, the self-promoting IT security company the DNC hired and paid. Before that the Washington Post published major claims of Russian interference by anonymous officials. NBC News now tops that with "intelligence officials" saying Putin himself ran the hacking campaign. Authors of the story are the long time insider hacks Bill Arkin and Ken Dilanian known for clearing his stories with the CIA before publishing. The next story will tells us that Vladimir Valdimirovich himself was punching the keyboard. Many news outlets and editorials follow these "leads". Part of the scheme the Clinton campaign has worked out was explained by a former opposition research consultant to the Democratic National Council, the Ukrainian-American Alexandra (aka Andrea) Chalupa, in this thread: Andrea Chalupa ?@AndreaChalupa Dec 11 ************** 불량한 씨아이에이는 새로운 선거를 요구하며 트럼프 암살을 꾀한다 Rogue CIA Calls For New Election Could Lead To Trump Assassination |
출처: 피터김의 체험 나누기 원문보기 글쓴이: Peterkim