photovisi-download (3)

Ok. Slap me silly and call me ‘Susan.’ You don’t have to buy this. But, I’m going to set it out. And then, as and when the penny loafer drops. I can say. I told you so. Er. At length.

Trump and his businesses have been involved in Russia for at least thirty years. His businesses have not always been successful. He has twisted arms to get financing to bail out the idiot too big to fail.

There have been suggestions that, at some point, some of those businesses may have been bailed out by Russians.

And pretty much, since the collapse of communism, large-scale business-dealings by Russians have generally involved some level of the Russian mob. Who have large amounts of money that need laundering overseas.

Much of which has been laundered by well-known banks in the City of London. And, apparently, through some New York real estate.

Trump is an ‘expert’ in New York real estate. His investment in which has not always gone spectacularly well.

An investigation into that New York real estate just came to an abrupt end.

As did the tenure of the Director of the FBI. Who might have been getting too close to certain matters relating to Trump. According to one or two senior but anonymous FBI officers.

Those well-known banks in the City of London have, over the past few years, been slapped on the wrist pretty heavily for other nefarious activities. Including trying to manipulate exchange markets and laundering drug money.

Most recently, a network of respected left-wing citizen activists and journalists in the United Kingdom appeared to have uncovered a trail of money that led from one of the largest of those City of London banks to the governing British Conservative Party.

A £200+ million loan was made by HSBC to a company the Chairman of which used to be a co-Treasurer of the Conservative Party, and who donated several million pounds over the years after David Cameron became Conservative Party Leader in 2006.

That company then made donations to the Conservative Party in amounts totaling £5 million.

I have made initial contact with the gentleman who is the lead investigator behind this story.

To be honest. When we have a longer chat. I’m going to ask him, bluntly, what he thinks the story is.

Rich people in the UK giving large amounts of money to the Tory Party is nothing new.

Granted. The inference is that the trail was a backdoor way for HSBC to make donations to the Tory Party. Granted. HSBC has been shown favored treatment by the British Conservative government over the years. Granted. The former Chairman of HSBC was appointed a senior government minister by David Cameron when he was British Prime Minister. But is this a story in and of itself?

Is there, in fact, more to this story? Could that ‘more’ in fact be one of the stories which came to light during the course of my own 29 years of investigating the strange paths of dirty money in the UK?

What story would that be? I have written elsewhere that, beginning in the late Sixties, British military intelligence in Northern Ireland decided to use psyops and disinformation campaigns to win hearts and minds in Northern Ireland. This has been documented by others.

Ok. I’m not much into links today. But. If you want those links. Go have a gander at the rest of this blog. Which began as a blog on Trump’s strange activities. And is becoming. Um. Wider in its coverage.

That psyops in Northern Ireland worked. Then, some bright sparks decided that the real problem was not the IRA. It was soft politicians in the UK, who lacked backbone. And those bright sparks in British Intelligence decided they had a right to take matters into their own hands.

It’s a strange phenomenon in the UK. A hold-over from days of old. Monarchy. Fealty. Game of Thrones stuff. Allegiance. Aristocracy. From the younger sons of which came the early recruits for adventures in British Intelligence in the first half of the last century. As the British were fighting to retain their Empire in two World Wars.

An ethos became embedded in certain aspects of the British civil service, military and intelligence that officers did not owe their allegiance to governments, but rather to the monarch. Which, frankly, they later used as an excuse to persuade themselves that they owed no allegiance to anyone but themselves.

And so, in the early Seventies, a senior element within British Intelligence decided it had the right to determine that the governments of Harold Wilson and Edward Heath were traitors to the cause. And should be removed.

Dirty tricks, psyops and disinformation campaigns were waged. British Prime Minister Wilson left the stage. As did Prime Minister Heath. Who was replaced as Leader of the British Conservative Party in 1975 by Margaret Thatcher. Whose campaign for the Leadership was run by several well-connected former British Intelligence officers. One of whom was my mate. Who was one of her favorite speechwriters.

In return for their help, newly-elected British Prime Minister Thatcher in 1979 gave British Intelligence carte blanche to do what they liked.

British Intelligence needed money. Lots of it. Having been starved of funds by several years of socialist government.

As a consequence, British Intelligence went into business for itself. Nasty business. Primarily arms-dealing. The profits and kickbacks from which needed to go somewhere.

Enter my mate. Senior British Intelligence officer. Close to Thatcher. Lawyer. Partner in a firm of lawyers in London who just happened to specialize in money-laundering. Although, it wasn’t called anything as nefarious as that back then. It was called ‘money management.’ Most important. My mate was a member of the Conservative Party National Board of Finance.

One of my sources sent me a large swath of documentation which he said underpinned the conclusions of his own investigations in the Nineties. Which suggested that, during the Eighties, the British Conservative Party became a quite effective money-laundering mechanism in its own right.

It became something of an open secret in the Eighties that there was a group, known as the ‘Savoy Mafia,’ which oversaw all of the strange arms dealing associated with the said British Intelligence officers. And the Conservative Party.

The group was made up of those British Intelligence officers, senior civil servants, Conservative politicians, defense contractors, one or two of those bankers from the City of London. And Margaret Thatcher’s husband and son.

My mate was recruited. Among other troubleshooting activities, to be the person who set up the primary money-laundering routes from the illicit profits and bribes arising from the arms dealing. Which routes, according to my information, likely included the British Conservative Party itself.

The British Conservative Party is a strange financial construct. Going back a hundred years or more.

There’s a whole voluntary side. Local associations. Citizen members. Grassroots activity. They donate up the ladder. To a body at the top. Which sort of publishes accounts every year.

But all of this activity and those accounts aren’t subject to too much scrutiny. Nor are they overseen by an elected National Treasurer.

Rather, that Treasurer is appointed by a Party Chairman, who is himself or herself appointed by the Leader of the Conservative Party.

Then, there’s a professional wing to the Party. Hired help. Who provide services to the associations. And run things at the top. All of which professionals are again appointed by the Chairman, or his staff.

There is no suggestion that all of the activity at the top of the British Conservative Party, all those services, can be financed by donations from the associations. From raffles and jumble sales.

No. Over the years. Various National Treasurers have made it their job to invite donations from wealthy folk.

But some of those wealthy folk have wanted to remain anonymous. So, devices had to be found. Separate bank accounts set up.

This began, according to my source and his documentation, after the Second World War, under Winston Churchill.

But it really took off in the Eighties. When there was a lot of money, which certain people, associated with certain arms deals, wanted to give to the Conservative Party, as a way to demonstrate gratitude to the political party that was making those arms deals possible through its tenure in government. That would be called ‘kickback.’

Once again, enter my mate. As a gesture of ‘democracy,’ those at the center of the financial machinations of the British Conservative Party had set up a committee (the National Board of Finance), on which sat the eleven Regional Treasurers of the voluntary wing of the Conservative Party. One of which Regional Treasurers in the early Eighties was none other than my mate.

Safe business was conducted in open committee meetings. Less safe business was conducted down the hall. In the office of the Chairman of the Board. Who also happened to be the National Treasurer of the Conservative Party.

That was partly how my mate was invited to set up certain money-laundering routes involving the Conservative Party.

The thing is this. There is no legal entity called the ‘British Conservative Party.’ Or, at least, there wasn’t in the Eighties.

There were all these wings. And associations. Each with their own private bank accounts.

And, since there was no specific legal entity at the center, private bank accounts had to be used as vessels for money being donated to the center. Some of which had to be overseas. Due to the need for anonymity. And to avoid certain laws about foreign donations.

All of the central private bank accounts were at all times simply in the name of xxx ‘acting as Leader of the British Conservative Party.’

They were the personal bank accounts of the Leader at the time. Acting in his or her capacity as Leader of the Conservative Party.

There was nothing more formal than that. And no scrutiny beyond the Leader, the Chairman and the National Treasurer of the Conservative Party. And those they chose to trust.

And those accounts became quite a network in the Eighties. In order to hide the nefarious donations coming in. Not least from arms deals. And thanks to my mate.

When my mate died in mysterious circumstances in 1988. It was discovered that some £5 million was missing from his law firm’s clients’ trust account. My mate had left Wedlake Bell and set up his own small law firm in about 1981.

Investigations by the British Law Society (investigations which were brought to a premature end, according to the international firm of fraud investigators hired by the Law Society), those investigations discovered other monies sitting alongside the missing £5 million. At first, some £10 million. Later, I was told by the private firm the actual amounts may have been somewhere between £30 million and £100 million.

Under pressure from me, the Law Society were prepared to admit that ‘other monies’ had been found. But they were not prepared to say how much. Although they did declare that they believed my mate had been involved in money-laundering. Again, no details.

My source for the dickey bank accounts at the heart of the British Conservative Party told me that the monies in the overseas bank accounts, at the time that Margaret Thatcher was ejected as Leader in 1990, and a new Leader was put in place, those monies amounted to no less than £300 million.

Discussions ensued with my journalistic source. Stops and starts. I presented the example of my mate’s bank accounts. Not all that much of an ‘example’ really. Bearing in mind the information was that my mate had had a hand in setting up at least some of the strange accounting at the heart of the British Conservative Party.

So. Discussions ensued. Eventually, those discussions encompassed the information that ‘the story’ was not the donations. The story was the money-laundering. Huh?

The fact that the routes established were not so much routes for donations. I mean, who the heck ‘donates’ £300 million? So much as routes to be used for ‘other monies.’ Which included arms money, etc.

Shortly after this, my journalistic source stopped talking to me. He told me. What were his words? Oh yes. He had been told by a person he believed to be credible that he should leave me and this story well alone. Credible? Silence. As in Intelligence? Click.

Before he did ‘click,’ he did share with me more documentation that he said evidenced a takeover of the British Conservative Party and its secret bank accounts.

Whether one takes the view that it was her politics or her support for certain arms activity and consequential money-laundering through the Conservative Party machine, there were several very wealthy British businessmen who were very unhappy with Thatcher’s departure.

According to my soon-to-be-silent journalistic source, these businessmen conspired to take over the Conservative Party. To keep the machine intact. And to ensure that any new Leader, when they became Prime Minister, would revive the arms dealing.

Allegedly, the primary businessman was Sir James Goldsmith. Who was later replaced by one Michael (now ‘Lord’) Ashcroft, when Goldsmith died in 1997.

Ashcroft was appointed National Treasurer of the Conservative Party in 1998. He was a controversial figure. He maintained the secrecy surrounding the Conservative Party’s central accounts. And became the first of a string of millionaire/billionaire businessmen, who not only held the position of National Treasurer, but were also the source of many millions of pounds in political donations in their own right.

Ashcroft stood down as National Treasurer in 2001. There was considerable controversy over his bank and other holdings in the tax haven of Belize, and some suggestion that he may have been under investigation by the US DEA for laundering drug money.

When David Cameron became Leader of the British Conservative Party in 2005, he made no secret of his discomfort with Ashcroft. Yet, Cameron appointed Ashcroft Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party, in the run-up to the British General Election of 2010.

What hold did Ashcroft have? Over Cameron, and the Conservatives? Knowledge, money or both?

During his period as Deputy Chairman, Ashcroft used monies that were not accredited Party monies to support Conservative Party Parliamentary candidates in marginal constituencies.

No-one has ever been able to determine the precise source of those funds. But, due to the strange nature of the private bank accounts at the heart of the British Conservative Party, it is entirely possible that Ashcroft gained and retained control of at least some of those accounts.

There is also some possibility that Ashcroft was better placed in the Tory arms activities of the Eighties than has previously been recorded. Certainly, he was very close to Margaret Thatcher’s husband and son at that time.

Ok, ok. I’m the one who has mapped out these suggestions and possibilities. I’m not going to include my full thinking here (blimey, this note is long enough already!). You’re going to have to buy the book. But. Sigh. I do think we need a link to Ashcroft.

And yes. What the heck. I’ll include another link. I’m weakening. This one is to a note which provides some more detail for what I’ve just been suggesting about Ashcroft. Gosh, I sure hope he sues me …

Regardless of what may or may not be Ashcroft’s continuing influence within or over the Conservative Party, it remains the case that, since him, there have been others like him (right-wing millionaire/billionaire businessmen), who have, literally, ‘owned’ the British Conservative Party, through donations and their tenure as National Treasurer.

Which brings us to the man Michael Spencer, who is the former Conservative Party National Treasurer, whose £5 million in donations, from his company IPGL to the Tory Party, from a loan of some £200 million from HSBC, caused such consternation just recently.

Those £5 million in donations will be the basis of my discussions with the aforementioned left-wing citizen journalists in due course.

When I will ask them what they believe happened to the remainder of the some £200 million. And whether or not they believe it may have been laundered through the Conservative Party’s secret accounting system.

Which is not only important of itself. But is indicative of how seemingly straightforward people and institutions allow themselves to get used by nefarious people with loads of money who need that money laundering.

Which I believe may represent the strangeness at the heart of what is going on at the moment in the world, which ‘goings-on’ seem so to confuse us.

Namely, that matters civic (politics, government, intelligence, military, whatever) have, since the Eighties, and with a huge boost during the alleged ‘War on Terror,’ and particularly in what we so charmingly still refer to as the ‘developed world,’ they have gone into business, and have been subsumed by that business, most of which is off-the-books stuff (drugs, arms, money-laundering), and has been engaged in primarily to line pockets, and not those of the taxpayer.

At which point, I stop. And cast my mind all the way back to the early stages of my own investigation. There was one aspect which was raised, stuck in my mind, but never actually went anywhere. Not at the time. And I’m now gently looking at ways to advance it further.

I was told by my Israeli Intelligence source in the Nineties that my mate had been involved with the late Robert Maxwell, himself a controversial British billionaire, in Eastern Europe, before the collapse of Communism.

My source never explained further. That source wrote his own book about how Maxwell had been responsible for setting up money-laundering activities in Eastern Europe, for the hundreds of millions of dollars in profits from Mossad and CIA involvement in illegal arms dealing in the Eighties (cf. civic bodies going into ‘business’). Even though Maxwell himself had no expertise in setting up money-laundering routes.

Much of that money went missing. There were hints of Russian involvement. Suggestions of association with the collapse of communism itself. With the Vatican. With strange fraternal orders. My British Intelligence source told me that my mate had been involved with money in Eastern Europe in the Eighties. My mate turned up dead in a woodland glade in 1988. Maxwell turned up dead in the sea in 1991.

I can say no more about all of that at this time.

But. Since the collapse of communism. And following what has essentially been the takeover of the Russian economy by the Russian mob (another, although slightly different, instance of a government going into ‘business’). There has been a need for tens of billions of dollars of Russian money to be laundered abroad.

Which brings us back to those City of London banks. Existing money-laundering activities and networks in the UK. Trump’s business ties with Russia. And his inventory of companies around the world. New York real estate. The strange things people, companies and civic entities do to ‘make money’ when they hit hard times. And what they might do to hide those activities. Perhaps even embed them, within the safety of government protection.

Trump is elected. PsyOps may or may not have been involved (go to my blog). Better people than me have chronicled their belief that the US Presidency has been hand-in-glove with a US military-intelligence-political-industrial complex (not unlike the ‘Savoy Mafia’) for decades.

Maybe that ‘hand-in-glove,’ the associated secret disinformation campaigns, maybe all that went digital with Google, Facebook and the like (as has been suggested in recent weeks)? Maybe involving the likes of Cambridge Analytica, the British-based company that handled much of Trump’s online targeted political campaigning (also suggested)?

In any event. We have all sorts of allegations about Trump and Russia. But, here’s the thing. For all the shuffling, hinting, sniffing, coughing, spluttering. For all the talk of hacking and e-mails and backroom meetings. No-one can (or is prepared to) produce a shred of evidence of what is causing so much anxiety.

Trump, in this regard at least, is correct. Where is the beef? The latest protagonist is James Clapper, former US Director of National Intelligence.

He steps forward. Allegedly to make deeply injurious revelations. Only then to present the supposedly explosive revelations in such couched terms that they, once again, amount to next-to-nothing.

I’ve seen this behavior before. I have experienced it first-hand, more than once. It is the behavior demonstrated by people who know something deep, dark and ugly, but cannot or will not bring themselves to be the ones to reveal the knowledge, since its revelation will be so devastating.

All of which. For all of the reasons set out in this note-to-beat-all-notes-for-length. All of which just has my alarm bells ringing.

What if this man Trump has simply taken a leaf out of the book of underhand, covert, secret, government dealings for the past hundred years. And is turning it to his own advantage. To hide, expand and embed his own dirty dealings?

What if this is all as simple and as terrible as that?

[Facebook comments here.]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s