Home | About | Donate

After US Senator Asks Public to 'Imagine' CIA Interfering in Foreign Elections, Historians Are Like... Uhhh

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/10/04/after-us-senator-asks-public-imagine-cia-interfering-foreign-elections-historians


I see nothing in Sen. Warner’s bio to suggest he was ever a serious student of history. Ooopsie!

And thanks to the author for that partial–but illuminating!–list of US alphabet agencies’ interference. It’s tragic that it’s not MUCH more widely known.


Is it merely coincidental that the starburst in the CIA’s floor logo looks like a photomicrograph of a really nasty virus?


To be sure, the CIA is most famous for not meddling in the elections themselves, as simply killing the winner of the election they didn’t like or forcing them into exile. But they presumably did a lot of the former too.

1 Like

For you kids out there…The CIA has been screwing around in the elections of other countries since it was formed and was well known for it by the 50’s. No reason to think that they aren’t doing it here also


Isn’t it in the CIA’s job description? Did people actually think the CIA wasn’t meddling in foreign elections? I’d be more surprised to hear that they weren’t.



All liberals and moderates have been removed from both parties and Congress
reflects only right wing presence –

See: CIA Operation Gladio drafted in 1943 and carried out by CIA –

"Can you imagine if the CIA was asked to provide damaging evidence on a political opponent in Australia?" Warner said. "There would be outrage in our political establishment."

There’s just one problem with Warner’s example of the CIA becoming involved in Australian politics—as one Twitter user observed, the CIA “literally did that” in 1975, covertly taking down the pro-independence government of then-Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. Whitlam had proposed shutting down Pine Gap, the U.S. satellite intelligence gathering center in central Australia, and exposing U.S. intelligence operations in the country, a move that sent the CIA into panic mode.

In other words, as Grayzone journalist Anya Parampil tweeted, Warner’s hypothetical was "almost as outrageous as the CIA carrying out a coup against Australia’s democratically elected leftist leader who stood up to the agency, which it actually did."

As John Pilger recounted at The Guardian in 2014:

The Americans and British worked together. In 1975, Whitlam discovered that Britain’s MI6 was operating against his government. “The Brits were actually decoding secret messages coming into my foreign affairs office,” he said later. One of his ministers, Clyde Cameron, told me, “We knew MI6 was bugging cabinet meetings for the Americans.” In the 1980s, senior CIA officers revealed that the “Whitlam problem" had been discussed “with urgency" by the CIA’s director, William Colby, and the head of MI6, Sir Maurice Oldfield. A deputy director of the CIA said: "[governor-general of Australia, Sir John Kerr] did what he was told to do."


On 11 November—the day Whitlam was to inform parliament about the secret CIA presence in Australia—he was summoned by Kerr. Invoking archaic vice-regal “reserve powers,” Kerr sacked the democratically elected prime minister. The “Whitlam problem” was solved, and Australian politics never recovered, nor the nation its true independence.

Certainly, from the very earliest days of the United Nations it has been crippled by US/CIA co-option
of its authority/rule – and its efforts to protect small nations – and its effort to protect nations from
aggression (especially by the US MIC) and secret coups/assassinations, etal.

And – most especially – by the assassination of Dag Hammarskjold, heading up the United Nations.
From that time on, the UN was seriously weakened and continues to be weakened by the US and
its “allies.”


It’s made clear in CIA’s Operation Gladio that ONLY right wing governments will
be permitted to rise and hold control over governments in the nations over which
the US had influence and control at that time –

i.e., Italy, France, Japan, Germany

I’d also add UK and Greece

This is one of the Operations drafted in 1943 by Cord Meyer and later run out of CIA.

Later of course, especially with the power of nuclear weapons in US hands, many other
nations came under US influence and control…


More history on CIA interference in elections, US included, up to the present moment:


Reminds me of seeing this performed by the Capitol Steps five years ago. https://youtu.be/LOtmPXzYl1U


Just about every country screws around with the elections of other countries that they aren’t friends with. We, however, tend to carry it too far, regularly screwing around with the elections of countries we’re nominally friends with…

1 Like


Thank you!

I see the rumors were made “official” –

AND, why don’t we have another option to the Dem Party/DNC?

We never since 2016 fought for RANKED voting which would move the Green Party
and other third parties onto firmer ground, provide some real competition for the
two fake parties –

Following the electoral fiasco of 2016, the DNC defended itself in court by arguing that it has no obligation to provide a fair and open primary. In fact, the DNC ran a disinformation campaign against Bernie Sanders, used Superdelegates to overturn primary results, miscounted and misplaced ballots in crucial state primaries and violated its own charter in the allocation of funds to the candidates. In other words, they stole the primary election. MORE …
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/10/04/impeachment-brought-to-you-by-the-cia/ 3

This is your periodic reminder that the “Democratic Party” is not an organization that Democratic voters belong to or have any right to control. The Democratic Party is instead a private organization, much like a club, that non-members support by giving it their money, their time and their votes. (The same is true of the “Republican Party.) All other “rights” and promises offered by the Party to its supporters, including those obligations described in the DNC charter, are not obligations at all, but voluntary gifts that can be withdrawn at any time.

At least, that’s how the DNC sees it.

Consider this report of a 2017 court filing, one that almost no one noticed, in which Sanders supporters sued the DNC for violating the section of its charter that requires DNC-run elections to be “impartial” and “evenhanded.” The DNC’s defense was, in essence, “So what?” (emphasis added below):

DNC Lawyers Argue DNC Has Right to Pick Candidates in Back Rooms

Attorneys claim the words ‘impartial’ and ‘evenhanded’—as used in the DNC Charter—can’t be interpreted by a court of law

On April 28 the transcript [pdf] was released from the most recent hearing at a federal court in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., on the lawsuit filed on behalf of Bernie Sanders supporters against the Democratic National Committee and former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz for rigging the Democratic primaries for Hillary Clinton. Throughout the hearing, lawyers representing the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz double[d] down on arguments confirming the disdain the Democratic establishment has toward Bernie Sanders supporters and any entity challenging the party’s status quo.

Shortly into the hearing, DNC attorneys claim Article V, Section 4 of the DNC Charter—stipulating that the DNC chair and their staff must ensure neutrality in the Democratic presidential primaries—is “a discretionary rule that it didn’t need to adopt to begin with.” Based on this assumption, DNC attorneys assert that the court cannot interpret, claim, or rule on anything associated with whether the DNC remains neutral in their presidential primaries.

The attorneys representing the DNC have previously argued that Sanders supporters knew the primaries were rigged, therefore annulling any potential accountability the DNC may have. In the latest hearing, they doubled down on this argument: “The Court would have to find that people who fervently supported Bernie Sanders and who purportedly didn’t know that this favoritism was going on would have not given to Mr. Sanders, to Senator Sanders, if they had known that there was this purported favoritism.” … MORE …


To this day the DNC believes that if it wanted to “go into back rooms” and “pick the [presidential] candidate,” this would “have been their right,” and no one outside the organization would have any right to enforce the DNC charter or interfere in any other way.

Good to know as we watch the 2020 machinations (for example, this one) unfold before us.

1 Like

Thanks for these links , Greenwich. After the letdown of these events from the 2016 federal election and aftermath, I followed our Bernie supporters’ lawsuit in Florida, stunned & appalled by the DNC lawyers’ statements that the DNC has no obligation to a fair and equitable primary process, and further that they’re a private corporation so their leadership can select the candidate as they fit, with no accountability to the masses of their donors, who they said should have already known that the primary process was rigged before they contributed. They hid these facts intentionally! So did they argue we were all psychic?!? So I’ll never vote for a Democrat again in my lifetime. It’s clear we need a strong Progressive Party for the people: workers, minorities, women, LGBTQIA, refugees and those displaced by our Perpetual Wars, climate disruption, income inequality, and US torture and regime change I thought Bernie Sanders was the closest to generating that.

I was a Green Party supporter in Maryland. The Green Party-US was on the ticket in 49 states and invited Bernie to run at the head of their Pres’l ticket after the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia. Instead he and his campaign maintained loyalty to the Democratic party even in the face of their rigging the primary against him.

In order to have a chance to slow climate disruption, we need to take a perspective higher than the one in which the problem was created, as Einstein famously advised. No Republican would even acknowledge climate change, and all the Dems Pres’l candidates including Martin O’Malley from Maryland touted 2050 as the year by when the US would end carbon emissions, not saying anything about methane which is 80 times more harmful as a heat-trapping greenhouse gas. The NASA scientists I knew spoke clearly that 2030 was the limits of our ability to respond and survive because the predictions were more conservative than what was playing out in real time even then. HRC was taking fossil fuel money, hiding her speeches on Wall Street, and shouting down and berating environmental activists trying to communicate the urgency to the DNC-chosen candidate.
I’m wondering about this Progressive Party Organizing Fund, www.ppof.us which is actually a PAC. Why do they say they’ll be ready to support a federal candidate in 2 years. That seems too late. I want to attend their October 19th meeting in Boston to understand what they’re really up to.