| 
			  
			  
			  
			
  
			by Jon RappoportJune 19, 
			2017
 
			from
			
			JonRappoport Website 
			
			
			Spanish version
 
			  
			  
			  
			
			 
			  
			
 This article recounts key events along a time line that stretches 
			from 1986 to the present. Follow the bouncing ball.
 
 Since Facebook went public with an IPO (Initial Public Offering) of 
			stock in 2012, I've been following the trail of its stock price.
 
 In 2012, I wrote:
 
				
				"But now the Facebook 
				stock has tanked. On Friday, August 17 [2012], it weighed in at 
				half its initial IPO price. For the first time since the IPO, 
				venture-capital backers were legally permitted to sell off their 
				shares, and some did, at a loss."
 "Articles have begun appearing that question Zuckerberg's 
				ability to manage his company. ‘Experts' are saying he should 
				import a professional team to run the business side of things 
				and step away."
 
 "This has the earmarks of classic shakeout and squeeze play…
   
				First, [insiders] 
				drive down the price of the stock, then they trade it at low 
				levels that discourage and demoralize public investors, who sell 
				their shares…As the stock continues to tank, the insiders 
				quietly buy up as much of it as they can.    
				Finally, when the 
				price hits a designated rock bottom, they shoot it up all the 
				way to new highs and win big." 
			In 2013, I followed up 
			and wrote: 
				
				"Facebook launched 
				its IPO and went public on May 18, 2012. The opening stock price 
				was 42 dollars a share."
 "In September 2012, the collapsing stock hit a low of 17.55."
 
 "On October 17, 2013, a year later, after a long climb, the 
				stock reached an all-time high: 52.21."
 
 "So… Facebook, a company with CIA-front connections, a company 
				that encourages people to offer up surveillance data on 
				themselves [and censors politically incorrect news], goes 
				through a financial transformation. Its IPO price collapses like 
				ice in a heat wave. It keeps trading at its new low prices, 
				scaring lots of investors."
 
 "They sell their shares. Insiders buy up those shares at 
				delicious discounts."
 
 "Then, when the insiders have scooped up enough, they begin to 
				move the price. Up. The long climb begins."
 
			Now, in June of 2017, 
			it's time to check in again.  
			  
			What's happened to 
			Facebook's stock price since the high of $54 a share in 2013?
 From October 2016 to December 2016, there was another shakeout that 
			convinced many shareholders to dump their stocks - and of course, 
			insiders gobbled up those shares for themselves.
 
			  
			The shakeout took the 
			stock price down from an all-time high of $127.88 a share to 
			$115.05.
 Then, once again, the relentless climb resumed. On June 2nd of this 
			year, the stock reached a new all-time high of $153.61.
 
 All in all, quite a ride. From the IPO price of $42, down to $17… 
			and now $150.
 
 Are some of the insiders who have been engineering Facebook's 
			long-term stock-rise front-men for the CIA?
 
 I ask that question because of Facebook's CIA connections:
 
				
				The big infusion of 
				cash that sent Mark Zuckerberg and his fledgling college 
				enterprise on their way came from Accel Partners, in 2004.
 Jim Breyer, head of Accel, attached a $13 million rocket to 
				Facebook, and nothing has ever been the same.
 
 Earlier that same year, a man named Gilman Louie joined the 
				board of the National Venture Capital Association of America (NVCA). 
				The chairman of NVCA? Jim Breyer.
 
				
				Gilman Louie happened 
				to be the first CEO of the important CIA start-up, In-Q-Tel.
 In-Q-Tel was founded in 1999, with the express purpose of 
				funding companies that could develop technology the CIA would 
				use to "gather data."
 
			That's not the only 
			connection between Facebook funder Jim Breyer and the CIA's 
			man, Gilman Louie.  
			  
			In 2004, Louie went to 
			work for BBN Technologies, headed up by Breyer. Dr. Anita Jones 
			also joined BBN at that time. Jones had worked for In-Q-Tel and was 
			an adviser to DARPA, the Pentagon's technology department that 
			helped develop the Internet.
 With these CIA/DARPA connections, it's no surprise that Jim Breyer's 
			jackpot investment in Facebook is not part of the popular 
			mythology of Mark Zuckerberg. Better to omit it.
 
			  
			Who can fail to realize 
			that Facebook, with its endless stream of personal data, and its 
			tracking capability, is an ideal
			CIA 
			asset?
 From the time Mark Zuckerberg was a child and attended the summer 
			camp for "exceptional children," CTY (Center for Talented Youth), 
			run by Johns Hopkins University, he, like other CTY students, 
			Sergey Brin (co-founder of Google), and Lady Gaga, have 
			been easy to track.
 
 CTY and similar camps filter applications and pick the best and 
			brightest for their accelerated learning programs. Tracing the later 
			progress of these children in school and life would be a walk in the 
			park for agencies like the CIA.
 
 When Zuckerberg founded an interesting little social network at 
			Harvard, and then sought to turn it into a business, the data-mining 
			possibilities were obvious to CIA personnel.
 
			  
			Through their cutouts, as 
			described above, they stepped in and lent a helping hand.
 During the 2016 presidential campaign, Facebook/CIA presented an 
			anti-Trump 
			stance, which meant a pro-Hillary 
			stance.
 
			  
			Is that a pro-CIA stance?
			 
			  
			Let's look at a 
			fascinating piece of history involving the CIA and the other 
			Clinton: 
				
				Bill. 
			The source here is the 
			explosive 1995 book,
			
			Compromised - Clinton, Bush and the CIA, 
			by Terry Reed and John Cummings.
 According to the authors, Bill Clinton, way back in the 1980s, was 
			involved with the CIA in some very dirty dealings in Arkansas - and 
			I'm not just talking about the cocaine flights landing at the 
			Mena airport (see 
			The Mena operation).
 
 It seems Bill had agreed to set up CIA weapons-making factories in 
			his home state, under the radar.
 
			  
			But because Arkansas, 
			when it comes to money, is all cronies all the time, everybody and 
			his brother found out about the operation and wanted in. Also, Bill 
			was looking for a bigger cut of the action.
 This security breach infuriated the CIA, and a meeting was held to 
			dress down Bill and make him see the error of his ways. His CIA 
			handlers told him they were going to shut down the whole weapons 
			operation, because Bill had screwed up royally.
 
			  
			A screaming match ensued 
			- but the CIA people backed off a bit and told Bill, 
				
				HE WAS STILL THEIR 
				MAN FOR AN EVENTUAL RUN FOR THE PRESIDENCY. 
			Of course, there are 
			people who think Reed and Cumming's book contains fiction, but John 
			Cummings was a top-notch reporter for Newsday.  
			  
			He co-authored the 1990 
			book,
			
			Goombata, about the rise and fall 
			of John Gotti.  
			  
			He exposed US operations 
			to destroy Cuban agriculture with bio-weapons. It's highly doubtful 
			he would have put his name on Compromised without a deep 
			conviction he was correctly adding up the facts.
 Here, from Compromised, is an account of the extraordinary 
			meeting, in Arkansas, between Bill Clinton and his CIA handlers, in 
			March of 1986, six years before Clinton would run for the 
			Presidency.
 
			  
			Author Terry Reed, 
			himself a CIA asset at the time, was there. So was Oliver North, 
			and a man named "Robert Johnson," who was representing CIA 
			head Bill Casey.
 Johnson said to Bill Clinton:
 
				
				"Calm down and 
				listen… We are all in this together. We all have our personal 
				agendas… but let's not forget, both the Vice President and Mr. 
				Casey want this operation to be a success.    
				We need to get these 
				assets and resources in place and get them self-sustaining and 
				prospering on their own while we have the chance. This is a 
				golden opportunity. The timing is right.    
				We have communists 
				taking over a country in this hemisphere. We must all pull 
				together and play as a team. This is no time for lone wolves…
 "I'm not here to threaten you [Bill Clinton]. But there have 
				been mistakes. The Mena operation survived undetected and 
				unexposed only because Mr. [Barry] Seal carried with him a 
				falsely created, high-level profile of a drug runner. All the 
				cops in the country were trying to investigate a drug operation.
   
				That put the police 
				in a position where we could control them.    
				We fed them what we 
				wanted to feed them, when we wanted to feed them; it was our 
				restaurant and our menu… now we have to shut it down…
 "Bill, you are Mr. Casey's fair-haired boy. But you do have 
				competition for the job you seek. We would never put all eggs in 
				one basket. You and your state have been our greatest asset.
   
				The beauty of this, 
				as you know, is that you're a Democrat, and with our ability to 
				influence both parties, this country can get beyond partisan 
				gridlock.   
				Mr. Casey wanted me 
				to pass on to you that unless you fuck up and do something 
				stupid, you're No. 1 on the short list for a shot at the job 
				you've always wanted.
 "That's pretty heady stuff, Bill. So why don't you help us keep 
				a lid on this and we'll all be promoted together. You and guys 
				like us are the fathers of the new government.
   
				Hell, we are the new 
				covenant." 
			By this account, 
			
			Bill Clinton was the CIA's boy 
			back in 1986, long before he launched himself into his first 1992 
			Presidential campaign. That speaks of major planning. 
			  
			In 1992, an obscure 
			governor from a rather obscure state suddenly gains national 
			prominence and vaults to the head of the line in the race for the 
			White House.
 Now, consider the role of the
			
			CIA-connected Facebook in
			
			the 2016 presidential election.
 
				
					
					
					Did Facebook's 
					strategy of cutting off pro-Trump postings/information and 
					instead supporting ANOTHER CLINTON, HILLARY, signal the 
					continuation of a long-running covert CIA op to put and keep 
					the Clintons in power?
					
					Since 1986, have 
					the Clintons been a package deal for the CIA?
					
					Was the most 
					recent incarnation of that deal the Facebook op to put 
					Hillary in the White House? 
			Most people have a 
			problem looking at long-term ops. 
			  
			They conceive of covert 
			actions taking place along severely limited time lines. That's 
			exactly what major operatives count on. They can plan in the dark 
			for two or three decades ahead (or longer) and feel they're in the 
			clear.
 And when a little social networking company comes along and needs an 
			infusion of cash, they can step in, help, and, seeing the 
			possibilities, they can help push the stock to new highs and 
			accomplish elite surveillance and censor true information and 
			support their favored presidential candidate - all during the same 
			dozen years.
 
 It's an easy program.
 
 All sorts of cards can be played from the bottom of the deck.
 
   |