In December 12, 1972 there was a unique phone call between Journalist Murray Marder at the Washington Post and the then National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger under President Richard Nixon. Here we can see allegations from the Washington Post and the Nixon Government warfare in Vietnam. How it is explained and how the sudden approach of Marder get the truth and also get Kissinger to explain the situation, instead of getting angry and stop listening to press. Something, today’s government should learn, since this is not stopping the spin, but explaining the facts. Also, come forward. We are even seeing that Kissinger went to become “government source”, instead of being named in paper. Just take a look!
Let me show you pieces of the conservation between Marder and Kissinger to give some context:
“Kissinger: Yes, Murray.
Marder: Henry —-
Kissinger: Not that goddamn paper deserves a return call –
Marder: Ah, you mean the editorial or me or what?
Kissinger: The Editorial. No you’ve been 80 % rational. But for a newspaper that’s accusing us of not showing enough goodwill; now to accuse us of naivety is almost more than one’s morality can stand. But go ahead, you’re not responsible for the editorial”
He later continues:
“Marder: This is what I wanted to get at because the Press Office response was it was untrue that Kissinger asked for 126 charges. But we said, well, we thought it was too much because that leaves the question: “well, was it 125 or was it anything or was it –”
Kissinger: The last day we asked for none whatsoever. You know, I don’t know how the sons-of-bitches are counting – they might, during the course of 15 days, if they count every word that was ever suggested in these discussions, they might amount to something, I don’t know. We did not – – there were never more than 8 points seriously at issue at any time during the 15 days. All of this is off-the-record”
“Marder: Which I’m not trying to do obviously because of this is the kind of thing you get a sweeping accusation from somebody of 126 charges.
Kissinger: The major issue that was discussed occurred in one place and did not recur through the document.
Kissinger: It is just not true.
Kissinger: You know, it might be hard to accept it. The U.S. Government may be telling the truth and Hanoi may be lying but it’s just barely conceivable.
Marder: No, the question here was just simple the way the way he is slinging the 126 around, it was obvious to anybody following this that there are not 126 charges probably in the entire agreement in any substantive form and he has gone on to say that – –
Kissinger: Look, can anybody really believe that having negotiated the Berlin agreement, the Shanghai communique, the SALT agreement, that one could be so wrong at the end of October as to think that 126 issues could be settled in three or four days?
Marder: No, I would think absolutely not.
Kissinger: Or is it more likely that we raised exactly the issues that I mentioned at the end of October? Issues on the assumption of a decisions to settle are easy. And on the assumption of a decision not to settle become insoluble.
Marder: Yeah, yes. I would have no problem with that”
Later in the conversation:
“Marder: What is not clear to me is do you see a probability of them dumping everything into that record? That would mean a break and everything if they would go that far.
Kissinger: They wouldn’t do that; they wouldn’t look to good.
Marder: I would think there is a limit. The point is that they probably do not want to break off the negotiations but want to register some great indignation and dismay and generate whatever support pressures from China and Moscow to support them there.
Kissinger: I think that’s right. Murray, I’ve got to run but will you write this please by keeping White House or anybody else out of it.
Marder: All right but I must use something – – Administration sources said the charge of 126 has no foundation whatsoever.
Kissinger: That’s right”
“Marder: This is why I called you because the White House thing left that hanging.
Kissinger: Hell, it wasn’t anything like 10. I mean, in fact, only 10 things that were ever seriously discussed.
Kissinger: There may be a lot of things but all of this is basically irrelevant because all of those issues have in fact practically been settled.
Marder: Right, right. Just one brief thing, the timing discernible at all on any next move on their part?
Kissinger: I have no estimate on that.
Kissinger: Okay, Murray.
Marder: Thank you, Henry.
Kissinger: Right. Tell ______ that I deeply appreciate his editorial.
Marder: I will”
If you see how the conservation was between the National Security Advisor and Washington Post Journalist. Shows how the political game is played and what efforts being made. How it went from I hate that editorial, to I appreciate it. Certainly, politician will act first in defense and say the papers are wrong. But when he changed and listened to Kissinger, the story got altered and the information being given made sense. So it wasn’t a spin. Maybe, the White House of today could learn from it today.
The United States Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, who goes by the street name Jeff Sessions. He was sworn-in, even after a former President didn’t see him fit, but President Donald Trump did so. Since he values loyalty over truthfulness or even honesty. This can now be said not only since Mr. Sessions in Congress hearings couldn’t recall his grandmothers name or even what he ate at lunch.
Today, the Department of Justice released one page of the SF86, the Questionnaire for National Security Positions, which the United States (U.S.) Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the purpose of the form is this:
“This form will be used by the United States (U.S.) Government in conducting background investigations, reinvestigations, and continuous evaluations of persons under consideration for, or retention of, national security positions as defined in 5 CFR 732, and for individuals requiring eligibility for access to classified information under Executive Order 12968. This form may also be used by agencies in determining whether a subject performing work for, or on behalf of, the Government under a contract should be deemed eligible for logical or physical access when the nature of the work to be performed is sensitive and could bring about an adverse effect on the national security” ( QUESTIONNAIRE FOR NATIONAL SECURITY POSITIONS – Standard Form 86 Revised December 2010 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 5 CFR Parts 731, 732, and 736 – December 2010).
So when Jeff Sessions filled in this form for evaluation of his credibility and his ethical background. He had to answer questions that the government and institutions could verify to make sure they don’t appoint someone who isn’t what they say they are. That they are acting accordingly to law and to the aspects of the job.
Because on the 13th July 2016 on the question of ‘Foreign Government Contact’ – where the question ask clearly: “Have you or any member of your immediate family in the past seven (7) years had any contact with a foreign government, its establishment (such as embassy, consulate, agency, military service, intelligence or secret service, etc) or its representatives, whether inside or outside the U.S.? (Answer ‘No’ if the contact was for routine visa applications and border crossings related to either official U.S. Government travel or foreign travel on U.S. Passport.).”
When you read that one, you know the seriousness of it, as the disclaimer and explanation of the what it all means. It meant both traveling to Havanna or just popping by the embassy of Hungry. That all had to be disclosed as the person wanted to get the proper clearance or ready to become part of the central government and intelligence. Certainly, that is why the state and the core needs to know if they have worked for foreign powers, since the loyalty and justice has to be in the Republic and not loyalty to another state, that is treason.
Therefore, with that in mind, it is worrying that the State Attorney delivered on the 13th July 2016 before being sworn-in, he answered ‘No’ to the question. Even as the man himself met with Sergey Kislyak on the 14th April 2016, 19th July 2016 and 8th September 2016. Jeff Sessions met with the Russian Ambassador at different venues and times. Still he didn’t disclose it to the government. This proves his troubling recent past, not only all the viscous acts as Attorney General in Alabama. But that is for another day.
No is just clear, that the Attorney General Sessions has no issues with lying for personal gain, just like his President, who does the same and therefore they support each other. They are similar in that fashion. Sessions just proving that he had no problems with lying to the state offices before becoming Attorney General of the United States. That proves how little he values the office and his own little concern of the times while being on the campaign trail with Trump.
The Shameful Era is here and all the Kings Men are proving their loyalty to the Manchurian Candidate. Not to the state, not to the institutions, but to the man and his family. This isn’t the America we seen before, but we see it now. Nothing is holy and nothing is worth to care about. Unless, it is personal gain over state. That is why Jeff Sessions could lie and deceive the offices who looked into his CV and papers.
You can be sure that he has other contacts than Kislyak, since that is the little we do know, but the tides of enlightenment is turning. The distasteful grunts of devious attempt of impunity might be over. As the revelations of conspiracy and acts of betrayal are getting closer. When the Attorney General, the sons of the President and the Trump Campaign Team are all lying. You know the lie must be big and the truth most be dire. Peace.