In a March 2 interview with MSNBC, for which network she is also an analyst, Evelyn Farkas, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Obama administration, and also an adviser to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, boasted that she and her colleagues had gathered as much intelligence as possible on President-elect Donald Trump’s “ties to Russia” before Obama left office on Jan. 20. After her interview became a focus of media attention last week, and was referenced by the Trump administration as evidence that Trump had been spied on, Farkas tried to backtrack, claiming she never handled any intelligence, and had left the Obama administration in 2015.

Her interview would seem to belie that. Now a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, Farkas manically told MSNBC that she had urged former colleagues, and “frankly speaking, the people on the Hill—it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people—to get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves our administration.” She claimed she feared that “somehow the information would disappear with the senior [obama] people who left, so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy—that the Trump folks—if they found out how we knew what we knew about…the Trump staff dealing with the Russians–that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.” The goal, she continued, was to transmit all the information gathered on Trump’s team to as many political operatives, lawmakers, and Congressional staffers on Capitol Hill prior to January 20.

“We have very good intelligence on Russia,” she said. “I became very worried, because not enough was coming out into the open… So then I talked to some of my former colleagues, and I knew that they were trying to also help get information to the Hill.” Farkas insisted that Trump’s connection to Russian money was “at the heart” of the investigation. If he got money from Russians close to the Kremlin to bail out his debt, and this influenced him, “and he’s hiding this,” she warned, then this will require a major investigation—something far bigger than can be handled by Congress. Something like the 9/11 Commission will be required to conduct this “big, big investigation,” she argued.

Under the headline “Blaming Russia for Everything,” investigative reporter Robert Parry penned a scathing attack on the insane line coming from the liberal media and affiliated institutions, that everything that has gone wrong in the political process is Russia’s fault. “If any American points out the absurdity of this argument, he or she must be a `Moscow stooge’ or a `Putin puppet,'” Parry warns, in an article in his online publication Consortiumnews April 1.

The presidential election was Hillary Clinton’s to lose, Parry asserts, but when she lost, it wasn’t because of her email server scandal, her speeches to Wall Street, her calling Donald Trump’s supporters “deplorables,” or the fact tht she was a widely-disliked Establishment candidate. No! “It was all Russia’s fault,” which it did by “undermining our democratic process.” Truthful information was provided via Wikileaks on how the DNC had rigged the nominating process against Sen. Bernie Sanders, on Clinton’s Wall Street speeches, and on the dirty dealings of the Clinton Foundation. “How dastardly is that?” Parry asks.

After noting other jarring examples of “how the game is played,” he points to last Thursday’s testimony by Clint Watts, of the pro-NATO Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) at the Senate Intelligence Committe. Watts, he says, “seems to believe that any criticism of a U.S. government official (at least anyone he likes) must be directed by Russia!” Watts, Parry points out, supported the PropOrNot group, which has blacklisted many independent internet news sites that don’t toe the line about Russia “eroding faith in the U.S. government.”

“So,” Parry concludes, “We are not to worry our pretty little heads about nuclear war or a future financial meltdown,” or important social issues or

When our adversary’s scenario—”the Russians did it”—is being subjected to merciless ridicule before mass audiences, it is time to recognize that the fight over the future of the United States has not yet been decided—rather, it is in process of being decided right at this moment. It is swaying back and forth over the abyss.

The bold and courageous, but at the same time, competent and cool-headed appraisal of the present world conjuncture, says that world history hangs in the balance during these present weeks. We have reached a moment of decision, and that decision could go either way.

On the opposing side are the forces and institutions which murdered John Kennedy over fifty years ago. But the spirit of John Kennedy, which was the patriotic spirit of Franklin Roosevelt and Alexander Hamilton before him, never actually died. Just when those with worldly wisdom least expected it, John Kennedy’s spirit reappeared once more as an existential threat to the British Empire, in the form of President Ronald Reagan’s “Strategic Defense Initiative” collaboration with Lyndon LaRouche on March 23, 1983. The British Empire tried to kill Reagan; they thought they could imprison LaRouche until he died in jail. They failed.

Yes, maybe they stamped down the sparks for a moment, but now the fire is much higher than before. Now Lyndon LaRouche’s policy proposals can succeed in the near term. The bloody specter of the British Empire, and the historical dead-end which was the whole age-old imperial system, can be quickly done away with. The United States can join with China and Russia in the great Eurasian Land-Bridge project first proposed by the LaRouches. We can continue John Kennedy’s and Krafft Ehricke’s journey of discovery out into the Solar system and beyond.

Don’t forget that your grandchildren will question you long and closely about where you were in 2017, and exactly what you did.