After Michael Bloomberg’s Robert Mueller moment Deep State launches Russia-gate II, They’re baaack!

The DNC is so desperate to stop the Bernie Sanders that they changed the requirements to participate in the Democratic debates to allow Michael Bloomberg on the stage.  Of course they made sure that anti-war candidate Tulsi Gabbard would not be on stage lest she blow up the Deep State globalist agenda. 

Self-financed billionaire ex-mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg was to be the savior of the Democratic Party, just like the testimony of Robert Mueller in Russia-gate was to be the savior.  We were told over and over Mueller was the great inquisitor who had the goods on Donald Trump for colluding with Russian President Vladimir Putin to steal the U.S. election from Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. 

After two years of investigation Robert Mueller’s testimony proved to be far more damaging to the Democratic Party than anyone could have imagined.  His stumbling, mumbling, fumbling, incoherent testimony was a major embarrassment laying bare the baseless foundation for Deep State spying on the Trump 2016 campaign.  The Deep State smoking gun turned out to be a water pistol. 

The Deep State is desperate to defeat President Trump and the current Deep State approved roster of candidates is failing to garner any support among the American voters.  With complete control over the mainstream media by the CIA, they cannot understand how the American people can remain averse to their propaganda campaign.  Bloomberg, who is as Deep State as Deep State gets, with his rise to the governorship on the heels of the 911 attacks would be a continuation of the W. Bush/Obama globalist agenda.  From Consortium News:

Excerpt:

Bloomberg Surrogate Was PR Guru for Bolsonaro

Arick Wierson, who is pushing the billionaire’s presidential bid, devoted himself in 2018 to softening the image of Brazil’s extreme-right leader, reports Ben Norton.

A Michael Bloomberg surrogate pumping up the billionaire’s 2020 campaign for president helped to elect Brazil’s extreme-right leader, Jair Bolsonaro, an open supporter of military dictatorship who frequently threatens violence against his political opponents.

Arick Wierson is a public relations strategist who served as a political aide and the top communications adviser to Bloomberg when the Republican media mogul was mayor of New York City.

Wierson worked with Bloomberg for nearly nine years, he noted, “first as an aide in his 2001 political campaign, and later as his chief media advisor at City Hall.” Wierson is so close with the billionaire he sarcastically refers to himself in his Twitter profile as a “Former Media Hack for Mayor Bloomberg.”

In 2018, Wierson joined Bolsonaro’s presidential campaign, devoting himself to softening the image of the Brazilian demagogue who pledged to imprison or exile leftist rivals and said in a newspaper interview that a congresswoman was not “worth raping; she is very ugly.”

Since coming to power with the help of Bloomberg’s former chief media adviser, Bolsonaro has waged a full frontal assault on Brazil’s political system. He has signaled his real agenda by openly praising Chile’s murderous dictator Augusto Pinochet and taunting the United Nations human rights chief over her father’s torture at the hands of his military junta…

Although Wierson no longer appears to have an official position in the Bloomberg campaign, he is aggressively promoting him and has become a prominent advocate for the billionaire candidate in corporate media.  In his media appearances and on his social media accounts, Wierson has vigorously attacked self-described socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, the most popular presidential candidate in the Democratic primary.

On both Twitter and Facebook, Wierson posts nonstop pro-Bloomberg propaganda. He openly fantasizes about a brokered convention, in which the DNC hands the nomination to the oligarch. A banner on his Facebook profile reads, “I’m with Mike Bloomberg 2020.”

Wierson has found a reliable platform to defend Bloomberg’s candidacy on corporate cable news media. Back in November 2019, he made the early case for the billionaire running for president in a CNN op-ed titled “Michael Bloomberg is the antidote to Donald Trump.” The piece celebrated his “serene disposition and courage” and declared that he “can resurrect America’s standing in the world.”

Then on Feb. 14, Wierson published another column for CNN promoting Bloomberg as “the ideal standard bearer for the party in 2020, representing Democrats’ best chance for taking back the White House from Trump.”  Four days later, Wierson was invited on CNN Newsroom with Brooke Baldwin, where he proclaimed that “Michael Bloomberg represents the Democratic Party’s best chance to take on Donald Trump in 2020.”

Wierson portrayed the Democratic primary as a battle between the billionaire and the self-declared democratic socialist. “As far as I’m concerned, it’s a two-person race: it’s Bernie Sanders and Mike Bloomberg,” he said.

In his CNN appearances, Arick Wierson advised the billionaire to avoid the presidential debates, because “Bloomberg is not exactly a warm and fuzzy guy,” he conceded, and “the chances of him coming off as dry, lacking empathy, and somewhat mechanical loom large.”  This advice echoes similar counsel Wierson gave to Jair Bolsonaro during his presidential campaign. The former Bloomberg adviser successfully convinced the far-right Brazilian leader to skip the final debate.

Wierson’s role on the Bolsonaro campaign was trumpeted by Bloomberg Media, the billionaire candidate’s personal media empire. In an October 2018 puff piece titled “Bolsonaro’s Message on Love and Peace Tested in Brazil Media,” Bloomberg.com credited Wierson with helping to soften the demagogue’s personality with a heartwarming ad about loving one another and combating hate.

Wierson heaped praise on the far-right presidential candidate, writing on social media that Bolsonaro “is going to clarify a lot in the Manifesto. Brazil will be able to sleep in peace.” He even complained that Brazilian journalists were treating Bolsonaro unfairly — while the far-right president has gone on to threaten media outlets that exposed his dirty secrets, particularly his links to the assassination of socialist feminist activist Marielle Franco.

Michael Bloomberg himself has rubbed elbows with Bolsonaro henchmen like Sergio Moro, a mastermind of the political coup against Brazil’s left-wing Workers’ Party government and the jailing of its leader.  In 2018, the Brazilian-American Chamber of Commerce held an opulent gala dinner at which the powerful lobby group gave its top award to both Moro and Bloomberg.

As a senior judge with extensive ties to the U.S. government, Moro oversaw a Washington-backed supposed “anti-corruption” operation, known as Lava Jato, which was used to orchestrate a soft coup against Brazil’s democratically elected President Dilma Rousseff and then imprison Lula da Silva, by far the most popular candidate in Brazil’s 2018 presidential election.

After conspiring with Bolsonaro allies to bring the far-right demagogue to power, Moro was rewarded with a promotion to justice minister. Bolsonaro and Moro immediately proceeded to visit CIA headquarters…

The links between the Bloomberg camp and Bolsonaro’s allies also reflect the role the billionaire’s own media network has played in shaping both leaders’ images.  When leaked recordings exposed how Moro blatantly politicized Lava Jato with the express intention to oust the Workers’ Party government, Bloomberg’s news agency published columns defending the supposed “anti-corruption” operation.

Bloomberg Businessweek also honored Moro in 2016 by dubbing him No. 10 in its list of the 50 most influential people of the year.  Many Bloomberg columnists sang the praises of Bolsonaro, celebrating him as the “pro-business candidate.” Among them was Admiral James Stavridis, a former commander of NATO and Bloomberg columnist, who proclaimed that the rise of “Brazil’s Bolsonaro Completes a U.S. Sweep of South America.”  The caption on the featured image did away with any pretense of subtlety: “Yankee come back…”

To forge that unshakeable bond with the junta-happy Brazilian leader, Wierson clearly sees his other former boss, Bloomberg, as the perfect candidate.

Bloomberg would have been wise to take Wierson’s advice, Bloomberg’s performance at the Wednesday night debate was an absolute disaster.  He came across as an out of touch plutocrat trying to buy his way into the presidency.  He may as well get aboard the Biden “No Malarkey Express.”   As Moon of Alabama puts it, Bernie Sanders won the debate.

Excerpt:

Sanders Wins Democrats Primary Debate

The various reflections of last night's debate between Democratic Party primary candidates give a consistent picture.

·        Bloomberg lost. He had brought a wallet to a knife fight and made a generally bad impression. Even the news service that carries his name headlined: Bloomberg Hammered.

·        Buttigieg was again exposed as the soulless fluff he is.

·        Biden is frail, confused and talks too much.

·        Warren gets some points for hammering Bloomberg. But that is it.

·        Klobuchar gets points for hating Buttigieg but is otherwise too mechanic to attract votes.

·        Sanders ably defended his positions against attacks from all sides.

·        Tulsi Gabbard was unfortunately not invited…

The Democrats will likely have a brokered convention. If there is no candidate who gets a majority in the first round, hand selected 'superdelegates' will also vote. They will select the candidate the party's paymasters want. They may even try to rerun Hillary Clinton through this backdoor.

Op-eds that argue for such sham democratic processes already get published. Even under the slogan "Democracy Dies in Darkness":

All candidates but Bernie Sanders seen to be fine with such anti-democratic schemes. When the moderators asked if the candidate with the most delegates should automatically become the party nominee the answers were:

- Bloomberg: No

- Warren: No

- Biden: No

- Buttigieg: No

- Klobuchar: No

- Sanders: Yes, the inclusion of superdelegates is not indicative of a democratic process.

The Democrats are now desperate and abandoning any facade of a fair primary election as they put in place Deep State “super delegates” to once again overrule the Democratic voters and nominate a Deep State globalist like Bloomberg. According to Greg Palast:

Excerpt:

California: Screwing Bernie Sanders Again?

In the 2016 California Democratic Primary, 750,000 votes were DISQUALIFIED, mostly cast by No Party Preference (NPP) voters — three out of four of whom were Bernie Sanders supporters, according to a Roper poll.

While the media is misdirecting concern to touchscreen machines in Los Angeles, this November the BIG steal will happen by mass exclusion of NPP voters and provisional ballots. They know that if NPP voters are allowed to vote in the California Democratic primary, Sanders walks away with it.

In 2016, California had over 1 million provisional ballots — equal to half of ALL provisional ballots cast in the United States. The vast majority of these provisional ballots were never counted, which is why we call them placebo ballots.

By the raw numbers, there is no state which is more expert and more vicious at vote suppression than the state of California. Alex Padilla, the so-called Democratic Hispanic Secretary of State, has been an absolute pro — he’s been the Kemp and the Katherine Harris of California.

NPP voters, if you want to vote in the California Democratic primary, you MUST ask for a “CROSSOVER Democratic ballot”. But why not make your life easy? Register as a Democrat. It doesn’t mean you have to vote Democrat in the general or anywhere else. It just means you have the right to vote in the primary without getting hassled and with less risk that your ballot will be thrown out...

Yes the DNC is utterly corrupt, but that is not to say that the RNC is not equally corrupt.  In 2016 the media colluded with the RNC to defeat Trump just like the DNC is colluding with the media to defeat Sanders.  From Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone:

Excerpt:

New Hampshire 2020: In Supreme Irony, the Horse Race Favors Bernie Sanders

Sanders and Trump are political opposites, but they’re on the same path to victory.

Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire primary Tuesday night. Second-place finisher Pete Buttigieg earned 24.4 percent of the vote, while Amy Klobuchar, not long ago polling in single digits, came out of nowhere with 19.8 percent, a classic New Hampshire outlier result.

The words “eked” and “narrowly” are getting a workout in headlines today. There is a Yeah, but… passage in nearly every major media write-up of Bernie’s win. “Sanders cements his front-runner status, but his narrow margins… show how volatile this race is,” is how The New York Times put it.

In reality, the results for Sanders cut both ways. On one hand, it’s amazing he can win any state after years of propaganda depicting him as a half-dead cross of Hitler and Stalin (MSNBC before New Hampshire outdid itself with Looney Tunes commentary about “executions in Central Park” and a “digital brownshirt brigade”).

On the other hand, there are signs after New Hampshire that some of the relentless corporate messaging against Sanders is landing. This will inspire orgies of excitement — it’s already happening — as pundits revel in every storyline suggesting Democratic voters are scrambling to find an “electable” alternative.

Good. Let them. I saw this movie in 2016 and have a fair idea of how it ends. It just won’t be horrifying this time.  Four years ago, after New Hampshire, it was crystal clear that Donald Trump was not only going to win his party’s nomination, but that his path was being actively cleared by the Republican Party establishment and the national news media, whose half-baked efforts to stop him were working in reverse. I wrote this in February 2016:

The [Republicans] sent forth to take on Trump have been so incompetent, they can’t even lose properly. One GOP strategist put it this way: “Maybe 34 [percent] is Trump’s ceiling. But 34 in a five-person race wins…” The numbers simply don’t work, unless the field unexpectedly narrows before March.

Early mixed results guaranteed that Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Jeb Bush, and Marco Rubio would not drop out soon enough to give any of the others a chance. As a result, the following was obvious at this time four years ago: “Trump will probably enjoy at least a five-horse race through Super Tuesday.”

In hindsight, those Republican challengers were so villainously terrible that none would have beaten Trump in a two-person race. Still, Bush’s backers knew their man was roadkill by New Hampshire, yet didn’t pull the plug. Kasich, who in a rare moment of self-awareness was ready to bail after Iowa (“If we get smoked up there, I’m going back to Ohio,” he fumed in New Hampshire), let himself be fooled by one surprise second-place finish.

All pledged to be committed to stopping Trump but accelerated his victory by staying in too long. Popular disgust was also enhanced by delusional news-media hype surrounding a succession of would-be “real” candidates.

All of this is happening all over again, only this time it’s Democrats who are committing ritualistic self-abuse, seemingly in a conspiracy with one another and the news media to push as many votes as possible to a hated outsider. I thought this outcome might be possible for Bernie nearly a year ago:

The 30,000-foot pundit view on Sanders’ chances should be that he, of course, has a chance, one rooted in the same logic that saw Trump win. He is an unconventional candidate with an at least somewhat insoluble base of support, running in an overlarge field of mostly traditional politicians, many of whom will take votes from one another.

Still, no one could have predicted that even the idiosyncratic particulars of the 2016 and 2020 races would be so alike.

In 2016, Iowa’s Republican caucus was won by Cruz, but press wizards gushed over the “Marcomentum” of third-place Rubio, who acted like he’d won with a soaringly pompous address that somehow evoked both Obama and Henry V:

They told me that we have no chance because my hair wasn’t gray enough and my boots were too high… But tonight, tonight here in Iowa, the people of this great state have sent a very clear message.

Four days before the New Hampshire vote, Rubio stepped on a rake in a debate, repeating the “let’s dispel with the fiction that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing” schtick four times in a viral fiasco. The New York Times declared “the End of Marcomentum” roughly 10 days after it began.

This year the standout haughty victory declaration in Iowa was given by a different human haircut, Pete Buttigieg, who told Iowans “you have shocked the nation,” with zero percent of the vote in.

Unlike Rubio, Pete could argue he technically won, but otherwise, the story was the same. Press swooned – “#Pete-mentum is no joke,” declared the Daily News – only to watch as the Great Electable Hope stepped on a rake in the New Hampshire debate, with Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar both kicking him in the balls on his race record.

Like clockwork, Pete was no longer the new hotness. With about 10 percent of the results in Tuesday night, Gloria Borger on CNN opened the floodgates on the inevitable next gambit.  “Klomentum?” she asked Anderson Cooper. The latter responded, correctly, that the horrible word sounded like something he took for his sciatica…

One of the lessons of 2016 was that cheeseball clichés like “the Big Mo,” “straight talk,” and the “beer test” no longer had traction. Voter calculations were about rage and nihilism: They were done with catchphrases. Like amputees who still feel a leg is there, pundits continued speaking in this dead language, which widened the credibility gap further.

Four years later, they’re still doing it. Kasich of all people was on CNN Tuesday night talking about “the Big Mo.” Van Jones wondered about the “beer lane.” “Klomentum” is the relic being flogged this morning. The “firewall” might be next.

The hapless Joe Biden, 2020’s clear answer to 2016 establishment Hindenburg Jeb Bush, finished a disastrous fifth in New Hampshire. Joe should drop out. The world knows it. The man shouldn’t be driving, much less running for president.

Nonetheless, because Biden is perceived to have a “firewall” in the South — the “firewall” of minority voters enjoyed by this or that corporate-funded candidate is one of the more vile campaign clichés — he will certainly not drop out. His campaign, even before Tuesday, was directing reporters to ignore New Hampshire and look to Nevada, South Carolina, and Super Tuesday.

This means once again, it will likely be (at least) a five-person race through Super Tuesday, this time between Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Biden, Sanders, and Mike Bloomberg, the detestable oligarch who has not even test-driven his eleventy-gazillion election-buying dollars yet. If Elizabeth Warren stays in [checks Twitter], the pie will be split in at least six big parts.

The Democratic Party’s argument against Sanders for years has been his alleged inability to grow beyond his base. Now, things have been arranged so that he may not have to dispel these notions before Super Tuesday. This may or may not be a good thing — beating Trump is important and the Democratic nominee should have to demonstrate the widest appeal — but the brutal irony of Bernie Sanders boosted by horse-race luck and conventional-wisdom miscalculation is difficult to miss.

As with Republicans in 2016, the defining characteristic of the 2020 Democratic race has been the unwieldy size of the field. The same identity crisis lurking under the Republican clown car afflicted this year’s Democratic contest: Because neither donors nor party leaders nor pundits could figure out what they should be pretending to stand for, they couldn’t coalesce around any one candidate.

These constant mercurial shifts in “momentum” — it’s Pete! It’s Amy! Paging Mike Bloomberg! — have eroded the kingmaking power of the Democratic leadership. They are eating the party from within, and seem poised to continue doing so.

For Sanders supporters, the calculation has always been simpler: Are you bought off, or not? Just by keeping to the right side of that one principle, Sanders will hold his 20-to-30 percent and keep grinding toward victory, “narrow” wins or not. It’s a classic tortoise-and-hare story. When you know where you’re going, you tend to get there.

Taibbi is right the Democrats have no clear message.  If they appoint an “electable” candidate, meaning a “centrist” that will continue America’s decline, Trump will win in a landslide.  Even if Sanders were to be the candidate it will be an uphill battle, and Sanders doesn’t seem averse to continuing forever wars.  Any which way the Democrats lose and they know it.  Already the cries of Russia-gate have started.  Gawd, as if Trump needs the help of Russian President Vladimir Putin to beat the clowder of clowns.  From James Howard Kunstler via Kunstler.com:

Excerpt:

'The Russians Are Coming...Again' - Exposing The Resistance's Poverty Of Imagination

We’re reminded this morning by The New York Times, America’s official psychotic fantasy generator, that the Russians are coming (again!) as an ad hoc arm of the committee to re-elect Mr. Trump.

You have to ask yourself: Does Mr. Trump actually need their help? His opponents have been self-meddling so diligently that their party now looks like a Frankenstein creature assembled from the spare parts of Herbert Marcuse, Tupac Shakur, Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, and Jame Gumb. Imagine that monster running a government.

If Vlad Putin happened to express an aversion to the idea at an international cocktail party, can you really blame him? Plenty of Americans surely feel the same way. Anyway, the Times’ story never gets around to saying much about the alleged new Russian campaign besides this:

They have made more creative use of Facebook and other social media. Rather than impersonating Americans as they did in 2016, Russian operatives are working to get Americans to repeat disinformation, the officials said. That strategy gets around social media companies’ rules that prohibit ‘inauthentic speech.’”

Wow, that’s pretty scary! Except when you consider that Americans have done a crackerjack job of mind-fucking themselves with disinformation the past several years, coincidentally via this very The New York Times, a figment machine so demented that it has come to resemble the proverbial crazy aunt locked in the attic.

The true wonder is the Times’ poverty of imagination, reviving a tattered cockamamie story that bombed abjectly the first time around. I suppose, in a culture addicted to stupid sequels, they expect Robert Mueller will be called back on-duty to sort this one out like he did so nicely before.

Actually, you could make a credible argument that the vaunted US “Intel Community” is a bigger threat to American life than anything the Russians might do on Facebook.

Hence, the good news that Mr. Trump has just appointed Ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, to the pivotal job as Director of National Intelligence, a position created in 2004 to supposedly coordinate the farflung activities of seventeen armies of spooks and snoops, lately notorious for feeding disinformation to The New York Times and its “Resistance” media allies.

Note: right off the bat, The Washington Post characterized Mr. Grenell as a “partisan propagandist,” seeking to disable him from the get-go. One could reasonably assume that the officers of the seventeen intel agencies will do everything possible to work around Mr. Grenell, but he does have the power to ask questions, and to ask additionally the reason why is isn’t getting straight answers, and then to do something about it.

Of course, that’s exactly what the Resistance is afraid of.

It was Mr. Grenell’s Predecessor, Joseph McGuire, who fecklessly allowed the “whistleblower,” and that phantom’s enabler, ICIG Michael Atkinson, to play the nation on UkraineGate, a hideously embarrassing episode of engineered political subterfuge that instigated the grave process of impeachment, so that the whole world could see exactly how dishonest we are amongst ourselves — more proof that we don’t need Russia’s help sowing disorder and ignominy in our country.

Mr. Grenell might commence by asking some questions about that caper. There’s so much do dig into at the CIA, FBI, and the NSC after three years of deceitful shenanigans that he’ll need a Bucyrus RH400 hydraulic excavator to get the job done.

The Attorney General sure can use some help. No doubt you saw the circus around the Roger Stone case develop into another Lawfare operation to oust Mr. Barr when a thousand-odd former federal attorneys — including some who signed off falsely on FISA warrants — mobbed up a petition for his resignation. I suspect it only pissed him off and made him more determined to bring cases against some of them.

Stone, of course, is a political clown with a weak sense of boundaries who made some legally foolish moves, considering the parlous times. But you can still argue he was treated rather unfairly, since his jury forewoman outed herself as a Resistance activist as soon as the trial concluded and no one, including Judge Amy Berman Jackson, has addressed how that happened.

The General Flynn matter is something else, and goes far deeper into the seditious misuse of US intelligence. Flynn has become the American Dreyfus, an honorable army officer dragged through the muck unjustly by the Intel Community working “six ways from Sunday,” in the immortal words of Senator Chuck Schumer, to prevent its dirty laundry from being aired.

His ordeal has gone on for three years and is coming close to climax. The legal devices used to screw General Flynn are known to the public now, including the initial deceitful interrogation by FBI agents Strzok and Pientka, the withholding of exculpatory evidence by his prosecutors (and plenty of other misconduct), and the unethical behavior of his former lawyers from the Swamp firm of Covington and Burling. He’s going to eventually get off this ignoble rap sooner or later, one way or another. Silencing him was probably the key objective in the long train of seditions that I sum up as CoupGate.

It would be best if the federal court itself could clean up the Flynn mess by Judge Emmet Sullivan declaring it a malicious prosecution and throwing out the case, because that would begin to repair the institutional damage. But Mr. Trump might have to pardon him in the end. If he does, I hope he goes on national television and provides a detailed explanation of the aforesaid DOJ misconduct for the public, and I hope he does it off the teleprompter so it will come off clearly and coherently.

The smell of desperation is in the air.  After Michael Bloomberg’s Robert Mueller moment Deep State launches Russia-gate II, They’re baaack!  Good luck Democrats, I predict that Russia-gate II will be every bit as successful as Russia-gate I.  Way to ensure the reelection of Donald J. Trump.