The "Resistance" -- the loose affiliation of liberals, progressives and neo-conservatives
dedicated to opposing Donald Trump -- is NOT a grass-roots movement. They don't speak for the
everyman or the poor or the oppressed. They are a distraction, nothing more. A parlor game. The
face
to Trump's heel .
The Resistance is the voice of the Deep State -- Pro-war, pro-globalisation,
pro-Imperialism. It just hides its true face behind a mask of "progressive values". They prove
this with their own actions -- opposing Trump's moves toward peace with North Korea and finding
common ground with Russia.
In fact, though the resistance lives to criticize the Trump administration, they have been
notably quiet -- even in favour of -- three key issues: The bombing of Syria, the tearing up of
the INF treaty and the prosecution of Julian Assange.
They tell us, in clear voices, who they are and what they want and millions of people refuse
to listen. So totally brain-washed by the "Orange Man Bad" hysteria, that they will
side with anyone hitting the same talking points, spouting the right buzzwords, using the same
hashtags.
The painful prose paints a blurry picture of Mueller. Slapping ounces of vaseline onto the
lens of reality. It praises his hair and his clothes and his 35 dollar watch. It declares him a
soldier "forged in combat", regaling us with tales of the bravery of Mueller's marine regiment
-- "The Magnificent Bastards".
Vietnam is reduced to a movie set -- nothing but a backdrop for Mueller's courage under
fire. He won a bronze star, you know. Apparently while "The Magnificent Bastards" strode around
the Vietnamese jungle, burning villages down and watching the napalm fall from the sky, a
couple of angry farmers shot back and Mueller was wounded.
Taking a bullet in the leg from a terrified peasant who just wants you to sod off out of his
country will always win you medals, but it shouldn't.
Voluntarily signing on to enforce Imperial foreign policy in a war of conquest will always
have the media paint you as a hero, but it shouldn't.
What flaws the author does ascribe to Mueller are those we all happily admit to having
ourselves. He's a "micromanager" and he's "too tough".
Yes, and I'm sure he works himself too hard and doesn't suffer fools gladly
and always speaks his mind aswell.
Read the column if you want, but I'd suggest not eating for a few hours first. A more
nauseating panegyric I have not witnessed, at least since Barack Obama left
office .
Far more telling than what it does say is what it does not say. It mentions Mueller's
role as head of the FBI during the launch of the "war on terror", but doesn't go into any of
the abuse of human rights that accompanied (and still accompanies) the increasingly
authoritarian powers granted to US intelligence agencies by the Patriot Act.
Let's be clear: Mueller's FBI was complicit in rendition, torture, Gitmo. All of it.
Given that, it's rather unsurprising that the article doesn't mention the word "Iraq" once.
A breath-taking omission, considering Mueller's testimony in front of congress played a key
role in spreading the lie of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction":
It doesn't matter how many Vietnamese peasants took pot-shots at him, it doesn't matter how
tidy his hair is, or how cheap his watch. It doesn't matter if he looks like
Cooper or speaks like Eastwood or walks like Wayne. He is a proven liar -- a man culpable
in the greatest crime of the 21st century. He is, and always will be, a servant of the Deep
State.
A proven liar. A proven killer. An Imperialist. A criminal.
Is this the stuff of which political heroes should be made?
Only in "the Resistance".
Obviously, Trump's administration is dangerous -- it still stokes warlike approaches to Iran
and Russia. It has directly threatened Venezuela and Cuba. But you can't fight the right-hand
of the Deep State by clasping the left. They all join in the middle. They're the same
monster.
Anti-Trumpers, all over the world, need to take a good look at WHO they're fighting
alongside, and ask themselves WHAT they are fighting for.
Kit
Knightly is co-editor of OffGuardian. The Guardian banned him from commenting. Twice. He
used to write for fun, but now he's forced to out of a near-permanent sense of
outrage.
Mueller's FBI named their 9/11 investigation PENTTBOM=Pentagon Twin Towers Bombing
There were also numerous media accounts of explosives being used on 9/11–even ABC's
John Miller
stated initial FBI feedback was that there were additional explosives used at WTC on
9/11.
Did FBI test for explosives?
What were the results?
If no tests were done–why the F not?
Why didn't media or Congress ever follow up and ask FBI about the explosions which were
reported?
i was reading that puff-piece yesterday, thinking "i wonder how long off-g's response to
this journalistic offal will be in coming" you haven't disappointed! Kit..sorry, i sound like
a gushing fanboi. most people outside of america don't realise how deep statey Mueller really
is. he's the Harvey Keitel character from pulp fiction. the mob cleanup guy
the Graun is particularly odious at the moment. today's leader is a blatant opinion piece
where the "writer" is practically rubbing their hand on their thighs with glee, telling us
how trump is facing a subpoena cannon from the dems. good too see they're using their newly
re-minted political capital on the important business of running the country resistance my
arse
And with the anthrax investigation (which of course the Guardian doesn't mention), he's
also a proven incompetent.
Have to say though–I'm looking forward to the day when this investigation is
wrapped, the report comes out, and it's not at all what the Maddows wanted to hear. At that
point Mueller will suddenly be a Russian agent himself; incompetent; compromised, and any/all
other smears to explain why his investigation didn't find their irrational hysteria to be
true.
Then maybe a few months later Trump will fire him and he'll be a hero again and get a
Gofund to help this poor unemployed honorable soul.
Wonder how the Grauniad will explain away the Skripal case when it's revealed that
Mueller's Steele dossier was written by Skripal.
No wonder the British Deep State are panicking to prevent the publication of the documents
ordered by the Orange One.
The so-called anti-Trump Resistance(TM) plays the role of Good Cop to the Trump Regime's
Bad Cop. Nothing more.
This is the nature of the political shell game that passes for American democracy, which
in reality is an imperial plutocracy.
In all these Anglo imperialist nations in general like America, Britain, or Australia,
there is only one true party: the party of Anglo American imperialism.
The anti-Trump "Resistance" is merely one faction of the Anglo-American Empire, which is
in conflict with another faction of the Anglo-American Empire.
The supposed differences between them are similar to the differences between Coke and
Pepsi, or McDonald's and Burger King.
("A proven liar. A proven killer. An Imperialist. A criminal.
Is this the stuff of which political heroes should be made?
Only in "the Resistance").
-- - ah, there you go again bringing in reason, a rational argument, the historical
record, common sense, and in short objective – "reality" – into the equation. Of
course if you are using these sort of criteria Mueller isn't going to look so good. You have
to understand that the "Resistance" is, well, more of a "feeling" than anything rational or
intellectually defensible.and valorizing Muller certainly isn't based on his "real-world"
behavior. Simply put, Muller stands in opposition to Trump and that "feels" right to the
"resistance." You know, just like it "feels right" to this same segment of the U.S.
population not to let themselves think about the fact that Obama was illegally and immorally
bombing 8 Muslim countries as he left office.
Of course in the end Mueller as "hero" of the "resistance" is simply the deep state's
slight of hand PR campaign to oppose Trump as the impossibly and unacceptably "bad face" for
U.S. empire that he is.
I mean how are Merkel or Macron or May supposed to rally their even half-awake citizenry into
dutifully following our tweet crazed endlessly offensive "Orange One" into the next all
important battle against the newest deep state defined "Hitler" in Iran, or Syria, or . . .
while maintaining any credibility with their own populations?
It's astonishing how many self professed 'Progressives' swallow the Resistance line. There
certainly is a war within the Administration, Dark State v the President. The latest episode
seems to have centred around cutting off the legs of Trump's big partner in the ME and his
son in law's close friend, Crown Prince bin Salman. What promoted Turkey to release the
information they had on the murder in Istanbul? We can be satisfied it wasn't borne out of
humanitarianism! Were they acting in lock step with the American Agencies like the CIA that
now tells Turkey it has intercepts 'proving' the Crown Prince ordered the killing? The
'bloodless' Regime Change that is underway aims to remove an arrogant and reckless not to say
bloodthirsty man from Absolute Power, a position he might have held for 50 years or more. No
wonder Erdoghan would like to see him sidelined. 50 years of Absolute Power in one of the
richest countries on earth is an awful lot of time! For the Americans it is a case of seizing
control of Foreign Policy in the ME from Trump who keeps talking about 'getting out' of
Syria: the Military and the Agencies regard that as not in American interests; they intend to
stay and control the vast oil wells in the NE. But it requires agreement with Turkey so who
knows what the Agencies promise Turkey in return? It sounds like a deal dividing northern
Syria between the Turks and the Americans; no room for the Kurds (again). It's the most
serious blow to Trump's authority akin to the time the American military disobeyed Obama over
the cease fire with Russia in Syria when instead they 'accidently' bombed Syrian soldiers,
killing 80 of them. President's it seems are not allowed their own Foreign Policy and in
reality that has been the case since the CIA was founded. Only Kennedy seriously tried to
break away
"... Robert Mueller is mentioned where he covered up an investigation tying important government people to the BCCI bank while Poppy Bush was president. ..."
Images remove. to view then please to to the original artilce.
Notable quotes:
"... In July 2017, FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley wrote an article titled " No, Robert Mueller And James Comey Aren't Heroes " in which the author details the not-so-perfect history of both Mueller and Comey, suggesting that those lionizing the pair may be suffering from amnesia. ..."
"... Rowley explains that Mueller and Comey presided over post-9/11 cover-ups, secret abuses against the Constitution, enabled Bush/Cheney fabrications used as the pretext for waging war and demonstrated incompetence. The article also references Mueller's attempts to mislead everyone following 9/11 and Rowley's efforts to challenge Mueller on his silence about what he knew . ..."
"... Going further, Rowley covers Mueller's bungled Amerithrax investigation that targeted an innocent man , violations of privacy , infiltration of non-violent anti-war groups and also references Mueller's history before being director of the FBI ..."
"... (discovered in 2017 and 2018 but largely ignored by the press), ..."
However, history shows us that Mueller investigating anything may, inherently, come with
disadvantages when it comes to the pursuit of truth.
Mueller's Not-So-Stellar Past
According to whistleblowers, under Mueller's leadership, crimes and scandals involving
both government officials and the private-sector were ignored or covered-up by the FBI, and
there are questions about further cover-ups before he became the agency director.
In July 2017, FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley wrote an article titled " No, Robert Mueller And James Comey Aren't Heroes " in
which the author details the not-so-perfect history of both Mueller and Comey, suggesting
that those lionizing the pair may be suffering from amnesia.
Rowley explains that Mueller and Comey presided over post-9/11 cover-ups, secret abuses
against the Constitution, enabled Bush/Cheney fabrications used as the pretext for waging war
and demonstrated incompetence. The article also references Mueller's attempts to mislead
everyone following 9/11 and Rowley's efforts to challenge Mueller on his silence about what he knew .
Long before he became FBI Director, serious questions existed about Mueller's role as Acting U.S.
Attorney in Boston in effectively enabling decades of corruption and covering up of the
FBI's illicit deals with mobster Whitey Bulger and other "top echelon" informants who
committed numerous murders and crimes. When the truth was finally uncovered through
intrepid investigative reporting and persistent, honest judges, U.S. taxpayers footed a
$100 million court award to the four men framed for murders committed by (the FBI operated)
Bulger gang.
The revelations continue, from Mueller being OK with CIA conducting torture programs that
his agents warned against and systematically covering up torture through to working on the
prosecution of NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed illegalities and abuse.
Another article published a few months after Rowley's piece, by author Jeffrey Marty,
titled " Robert Mueller: Dirty Cop
" highlights the list of failures to investigate and bring justice to those responsible of
several high-profile crimes and corruption cases.
The article goes further, highlighting how the FBI and DOJ handled money laundering at
HSBC involving hundreds of billions of dollars (for which they were fined and allowed to
enter a deferred prosecution agreement
) and how Comey joined their board of directors a few months later, followed by Mueller
becoming a partner in the law firm that represented HSBC after he left the FBI.
These whistleblowers are prepared to testify under oath that Mueller committed perjury
and other crimes in his effort to conceal massive off-the-books citizen surveillance
programs rolled out in succession by the Bush and Obama administrations.
The article covers various statements made by Chuck Marler who had previously worked for
the Special Surveillance Group (SSG) at the FBI.
Earlier this year, Republican congressman Louie Gohmert also highlighted various issues in
a report titled " Robert
Mueller Unmasked " that opened with a bold assertion:
"Robert Mueller has a long and sordid history of illicitly targeting innocent people
that is a stain upon the legacy of American jurisprudence. He lacks the judgment and
credibility to lead the prosecution of anyone."
The report covers Mueller and his team's history of indicting innocent parties as well as
FBI abuses under Mueller's leadership and his efforts to punish whistleblowers while
retaining agents that provide false information.
Gohmert's report explains that Mueller and members of his team have various conflicts of
interest and argues that they should have recused themselves. It concludes with covering the
abuse of FISC, the Steele dossier and other aspects of RussiaGate that Mueller's probe seems
to lack interest in.
CrowdStrike is a high-profile cybersecurity firm that worked with the DNC (Democratic
National Committee) in 2016 and was called in due to a suspected breach. However, CrowdStrike appears to have first started working with the DNC approximately five
weeks prior to this and approximately just five days after John Podesta (Hillary Clinton's
campaign manager for the 2016 election) had his Gmail account phished. Nothing was mentioned about this until after the five weeks had passed when the DNC
published a press
release stating that CrowdStrike had been at the DNC throughout that period to investigate
the NGP-VAN issues (that had occurred three months before Podesta was phished).
Upon conclusion of those five weeks, CrowdStrike was immediately called back in to
investigate a suspected breach. CrowdStrike's software was already installed on the DNC network when the DNC emails were
acquired but CrowdStrike failed to prevent the emails from being acquired and didn't publish
logs or incident-specific evidence of the acquisition event either, the latter of which is
odd considering what their product's
features were advertised to be even if they were just running it in a monitoring capacity
.
Mueller's probe was never set up to find the truth about the DNC leak or the Guccifer 2.0
persona. The objective was to find evidence to support the RussiaGate conspiracy theory
rather than to thoroughly investigate all evidence no matter where it leads.
Even if finding the truth was Mueller's objective, there's little reason to believe that
he could have investigated this impartially due to his associations, little reason to expect
him to get conclusive results due to his history and little reason to think he would have the
inclination to investigate fully due to his inaction and lack of interest in what was reported to him over a year ago .
For all we know, Mueller and company could have simply taken names obtained from
intelligence on the OPCW hacking bust
that actually occurred three months prior to the indictment and attributed names of GRU
officers on a 'best-fit' basis to roles identified in their investigation
The bottom line is that Mueller's investigation has not fully investigated RussiaGate and
it appears that his investigation has avoided certain paths including those that would result
in CrowdStrike being investigated or that relate to evidence that contradicts the specific
conspiracy theory he has been tasked to investigate.
There is no point expecting the whole truth to arise from a restrictive probe that only
seeks evidence supporting a single specific conspiracy theory from someone who presided over
a decade of reported cover-ups at the FBI (and alleged framing of Assange), whose personal
associations introduce conflicts of interest and who seems to have selectively disregarded
evidence where it conflicts with the theory being pursued.
If you want the whole truth about what happened in 2016, it seems that an independent
commission may be the only way you'll get close to it.
"... He might call it a "higher loyalty", but it looks to us peons like a true double-standard. Democrats get Wall Street Bankster treatment, while the rabble get tossed in the slammer. ..."
Former FBI Director James Comey appeared December 17th, 2018, for a
second round of questions by a joint House committee oversight probe into the DOJ and FBI
conduct during the 2016 presidential election and incoming Trump administration.
The Joint House Committee just released the transcript online (full pdf below).
Trey Gowdy grilled Comey on his vastly different handling of comments by Trump and Obama.
When Trump asked Comey whether he could see his way clear to easing up on Flynn, Comey
memorialized the conversation in a memo and distributed it to his leadership team, including
Andrew McCabe and James Baker.
However, when President Obama on 60 Minutes publicly exonerated Hillary Clinton's
mishandling of classified information -- setting the stage for true obstruction of justice --
Comey did nothing. He never talked to the president about potential obstruction, he never
memorialized his observations, and he didn't leak anything to the press. These were all things
he did with Trump.
He might call it a "higher loyalty", but it looks to us peons like a true double-standard.
Democrats get Wall Street Bankster treatment, while the rabble get tossed in the
slammer.
2. According to Comey, Flynn had no right to counsel
This is interesting:
Mr. Gowdy. Did Mr. Flynn have the right to have counsel present during that interview?
Mr. Comey. No.
Oooooooookay.
3. Comey confirmed McCabe called Flynn to initiate "entrapment";
contradicts himself on counsel
And:
Mr. Gowdy. Why not advise General Flynn of the consequences of making false statements to
the FBI?
Mr. Comey. ...the Deputy Director [McCabe] called him, told him what the subject matter
was, told him he was welcome to have a representative from White House Counsel there...
So Comey is saying that Flynn didn't have the right to counsel (item 2), and then states
that he does have the right to a White House counsel attending the meeting.
The lies are getting harder and harder to keep straight with this egregious
individual.
4. Comey lied about McCabe's conversation with Flynn
When asked whether McCabe was trying to set Flynn up by asserting no counsel was needed in
the interview, Comey claimed he was unaware of that critical fact. But McCabe, in a written
memo, asserted that he told Flynn, "[i]f you have a lawyer present, we'll need to involve the
Department of Justice".
In other words, McCabe was trying to ensure Flynn had no counsel present during the
interview.
5. Comey still falls back on the Logan Act scam to justify his actions
Yes, the Logan Act. When former secretary of state John Kerry meets with various Mullahs
while President Trump is unwinding the disastrous Iran deal, there's no crime there !
But let Flynn, a member of the Trump transition team, have a perfectly legitimate
conversation with a Russian diplomat, we get:
Mr. Comey. And I hesitate only with "wrong." I think a Department of Justice prosecutor
might say, on its face, it was problematic under the Logan Act because of private citizens
negotiating and all that business.
What a lying sack of gumbo. At the time, Flynn was not a private citizen. He was a member of
the incoming administration, and had anyone bothered to prosecute prior transitions for similar
"crimes", the entire Obama and Clinton posses would be breaking rocks at Leavenworth.
6.
Comey Throws James Clapper Under the Bus
When asked by Jim Jordan about his private meeting with the President to brief him on a very
tiny portion of the "salacious and unverified" (Comey's words under oath) dossier, Comey
claimed ODNI James Clapper had orchestrated the entire fiasco.
Mr. Comey. ...ultimately, it was Clapper's call. I agreed -- we agreed that it made sense
for me to do it and to do it privately, separately. So I don't want to make it sound like I
was ordered to do it.
He wasn't ordered to do it, but it was Clapper's call.
Oooooooookay.
7. Jordan Torches Comey Over His Dossier Comments
I'll just leave this here. Comey may need to put some ice on that.
Mr. Jordan. So that's what I'm not understanding, is you felt this was so important that
it required a private session with you and the President-elect, you only spoke of the
salacious part of the dossier, but yet you also say there's no way any good reporter would
print this. But you felt it was still critical that you had to talk to the President-elect
about it. And I would argue you created the very news hook that you said you were concerned
about...
...it's so inflammatory that reporters would 'get killed' for reporting it, why was it so
important to tell the President? Particularly when you weren't going to tell him the rest of
the dossier -- about the rest of the dossier?
8. Comey Concealed Critical National Security Concerns About Flynn From the
President
This is quite unbelievable: in a private dinner with the president, Comey neglected to
mention that just three days earlier he had directed the interview of Trump's ostensible
National Security Advisor.
Mr. Comey. ...at no time during the dinner was there a reference, allusion, mention by
either of
us about the FBI having contact with General Flynn or being interested in General Flynn
investigatively.
Mr. Jordan. That was what I wanted to know. So this is not just referring to the President
didn't bring it up. You didn't bring it up either.
Mr. Comey. Correct, neither of us brought it up or alluded to it.
Mr. Jordan. Why not? He's talking about General Flynn. You had just interviewed him 3 days
earlier and discovered that he was lying to the Vice President, knew he was lying to the Vice
President, and, based on what we've heard of late, that he lied tyour agents. Why not tell
his boss, why not tell the head of the executive branch, why not tell the President of the
United States, "Hey, your National Security Advisor just lied to us 3 days ago"?
Mr. Comey. Because we had an open investigation, and there would be no reason or a need to
tell the President about it.
Mr. Jordan. Really?
Mr. Comey. Really.
Mr. Jordan. You wouldn't tell the President of the United States that his National
Security Advisor wasn't being square with the FBI? ... I mean, but this is not just any
investigation, it seems to me, Director. This is a top advisor to the Commander in Chief. And
you guys, based on what we've heard, felt that he wasn't being honest with the Vice President
and wasn't honest with two of your agents. And just 3 days later, you're meeting with the
President, and, oh, by the way, the conversation is about General Flynn. And you don't tell
the President anything?
Mr. Comey. I did not.
Mr. Meadows. So, Director Comey, let me make sure I understand this. You were so concerned
that Michael Flynn may have lied or did lie to the Vice President of the United States, but
that once you got that confirmed, that he had told a falsehood, you didn't believe that it
was appropriate to tell the President of the United States that there was no national
security risk where you would actually convey that to the President of the United States? Is
that your testimony?
Mr. Comey. That is correct. We had an --
The more we learn, the dirtier a cop Comey ends up appearing.
9. Gowdy Destroys the
Double Standard of Clinton vs. Flynn
Check this out:
Mr. Gowdy. ...we are going to contrast the decision to not allow Michael Flynn to have an
attorney, or discourage him from having one, with allowing some other folks the Bureau
interviewed to have multiple attorneys in the room, including fact witnesses. Can you see the
dichotomy there, or is that an unreasonable comparison?
Mr. Comey. I'm not going to comment on that. I remember you asking me questions about that
last week. I'm happy to answer them again.
Mr. Gowdy. You will not say whether or not it is an unreasonable comparison to compare
allowing multiple attorneys, who are also fact witnesses, to be present during an interview
but discouraging another person from having counsel present?
Mr. Comey. I'm not going to answer that in a vacuum...
10. Comey May Have Been Involved With the Infamous Tarmac Meeting
Another interesting vignette, this time from John Ratcliffe :
Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So it would appear from this that there had been some type of
briefing the day before, with reference to yesterday, June 27, 2016, where you had requested
a copy of emails between President Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Mr. Comey. I see that it says that.
Mr. Ratcliffe. ...The significance of that is, as we talked about last time, June 27th of
2016 was also the date that Attorney General Lynch and former President Bill Clinton met on a
tarmac in Phoenix, Arizona. Do you recall whether or not this briefing was held at the FBI
because of that tarmac meeting, or was it just happened to be a coincidence that it was held
on that day? Mr. Comey. It would have to have been a coincidence. I don't remember a meeting
in response to the tarmac meeting.
Muh don't know!
11. Comey confirms Obama knew Hillary Clinton was using a compromised,
insecure email server
Well, spank me on the fanny and call me Nancy!
Mr. Ratcliffe. ...Hillary Rodham Clinton and President Obama were communicating via email
through an unsecure, unclassified server?
Mr. Comey. Yes, they were between her Clinton email.com account and his -- I don't know
where his account, his unclassified account, was maintained. So I'm sorry. So, yes, here were
communications unclassified between two accounts, hers and then his cover account.
Mr. Ratcliffe. ...Did your review of these emails or the content of these emails impact
your decision to edit out a reference to President Obama in your July 5th, 2016, press
conference remarks?
If Trump had done 1/1,000,000th of this crap, he'd be -- yes -- breaking rocks in
Leavenworth right now.
But there's no double-standard, rabble! Just keep buying iPhones and playing Call of Duty
!
...Aaaaaaaaand I'm spent.
Okay, done for now.
But let's recap the activities of Dr. "Higher Loyalty" Comey:
Did not investigate the felony leak to the press of the conversation between the Russian
Ambassador and Flynn.
Did not advise Congress of the "investigation" into Trump-Russia collusion as required by
statute.
Lied to the FISA court -- another felony -- about Carter Page being "an agent of a
foreign power".
Wrote an exoneration memo for Hillary Clinton before more than a dozen witnesses,
including Clinton herself, had been interviewed.
But, no, there's no double-standard for the aggressiveness of law enforcement when it comes
to Democrats like Clinton and Obama.
The decision to indict Flynn ruins " esprit de corps " in the USA intelligence community. So
Partaigenosser Mulkler trying to depose Trump oversteped the "norms" of intelligence community.
And if CIA allied with FBI against DIA that's a bad sign. It looks like the US elite was split
into two warring camps that will fight for power absolutely ruthlessly.
As for "In the report, the two agents describe Flynn as being very open and noted said Flynn 'clearly saw the FBI agents
as allies.' " the question arise how he got the to position of the head of DIA with such astounding level of naivety.
If anyone from FBI does not want your lawyer to be present you should probably have a lawyer present.
Notable quotes:
"... "The agents did not provide Gen. Flynn with a warning of the penalties for making a false statement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 before, during, or after the interview," the Flynn memo says. ..."
"... According to the 302, before the interview, McCabe and other FBI officials "decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed , and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport." ..."
"... McCabe, who has since been fired for lying to the DOJ's Office of Inspector General about leaking information to the media, also asked Flynn not to have his lawyer present during the initial meeting with the FBI agents. ..."
"... On Thursday, FBI Supervisory Agent Jeff Danik told SaraACarter.com that Sullivan must also request all the communications between the two agents, as well as their supervisors around the August 2017 time-frame in order to get a complete and accurate picture of what transpired. Danik, who is an expert in FBI policy, says it is imperative that Sullivan also request "the workflow chart, which would show one-hundred percent, when the 302s were created when they were sent to a supervisor and who approved them." ..."
"... Flynn was found guilty by Mueller on one count of lying to the FBI. Supporters of Flynn have questioned Mueller's tactics in getting the retired three-star general to plead guilty to this one count of lying. ..."
"... In the report, the two agents describe Flynn as being very open and noted said Flynn "clearly saw the FBI agents as allies." Flynn is described as discussing a variety of "subjects." The report includes his openness regarding Trump's "knack for interior design," the hotels he stayed at during his campaign, as well as other issues. ..."
"... It would appear that the branch of government that may be out of control (by the Supreme Court) is the judiciary. It is the court rules and failure of the Supreme Court to act and weed its subordinate courts, that allowed much of this to happen. The FISA Court has been a rubber stamp. No judge is held accountable for failure to obtain justice in their court. ..."
"... Could Mueller's whole appointment be meant to protect the Clinton empire? ..."
The Special Counsel's Office released key documents related to former National Security
Advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn Friday. Robert Mueller's office had until 3 p.m. to get the
documents to Judge Emmet Sullivan, who demanded information Wednesday after
bombshell information surfaced in a memorandum submitted by Flynn's attorney's that led to
serious concerns regarding the FBI's initial questioning of the retired three-star general.
The highly redacted documents included notes from former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe
regarding his conversation with Flynn about arranging the interview with the FBI. The initial
interview took place at the White House on Jan. 24, 2017.
The documents also include the FBI's "302" report regarding Flynn's interview with
anti-Trump former FBI Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Agent Joe Pientka when they met with him at
the White House. It is not, however, the 302 document from the actual January, 2017 interview
but an August, 2017 report of Strzok's recollections of the interview.
Flynn's attorney's had noted in their memorandum to the courts that the documents revealed
that FBI officials made the decision not to provide Flynn with his Miranda Rights, which
would've have warned him of penalties for making false statements.
"The agents did not provide Gen. Flynn with a warning of the penalties for making a false
statement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 before, during, or after the interview," the Flynn memo
says.
According to the 302, before the interview, McCabe and other FBI officials "decided the
agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they
wanted Flynn to be relaxed , and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely
affect the rapport."
McCabe, who has since been fired for lying to the DOJ's Office of Inspector General about
leaking information to the media, also asked Flynn not to have his lawyer present during the
initial meeting with the FBI agents.
The July 2017 report, however, was the interview with Strzok. It described his interview
with Flynn but was not the original Flynn interview.
Apparent discrepancies within the 302 documents are being questioned by may former senior
FBI officials, who state that there are stringent policies in place to ensure that the
documents are guarded against tampering.
On Thursday, FBI Supervisory Agent Jeff Danik told SaraACarter.com that Sullivan must also request all the
communications between the two agents, as well as their supervisors around the August 2017
time-frame in order to get a complete and accurate picture of what transpired. Danik, who is an
expert in FBI policy, says it is imperative that Sullivan also request "the workflow chart,
which would show one-hundred percent, when the 302s were created when they were sent to a
supervisor and who approved them."
He stressed, "the bureau policy – the absolute FBI policy – is that the notes
must be placed in the system in a 1-A file within five days of the interview." Danik said that
the handwritten notes get placed into the FBI Sentinel System, which is the FBI's main record
keeping system. "Anything beyond five business days is a problem, eight months is a disaster,"
he added.
In the redacted 302 report Strzok and Pientka said they "both had the impression at the time
that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying." Information that Flynn was not lying
was first published
and reported by SaraACarter.com.
Flynn was found guilty by Mueller on one count of lying to the FBI. Supporters of Flynn have
questioned Mueller's tactics in getting the retired three-star general to plead guilty to this
one count of lying.
In the report, the two agents describe Flynn as being very open and noted said Flynn
"clearly saw the FBI agents as allies." Flynn is described as discussing a variety of
"subjects." The report includes his openness regarding Trump's "knack for interior design," the
hotels he stayed at during his campaign, as well as other issues.
"Flynn was so talkative, and had so much time for them, that Strzok wondered if the
national security adviser did not have more important things to do than have a such a
relaxed, non-pertinent discussion with them," it said.
The documents turned over by Mueller also reveal that other FBI personnel "later argued
about the FBI's decision to interview Flynn." Tags Law Crime
Basically McCabe and others in his unit are totally discredited. He should have this
quashed and the case thrown out of court. No Miranda rights, therefore no lying to FBI.
Why didn't Flynn demand his day in court? He would have won. I am not buying the ********
argument about him being run into bankruptcy. Hell, he could have represented himself and
still won the case at trial. In addition, I am not buying this ******** argument that he
agreed to plead guilty because he was afraid the Mueller would go after his son. Does anyone
know what Flynn's son does for a living? Why would he be afraid?
Flynn was found guilty by Mueller on one count of lying to the FBI.
No! Flynn was not f ound guilty by Mueller on one count of lying. The FBI is an
investigative body (at best) not a judicial body. Only a jury or a judge acting in lieu of a
jury can find someone guilty of anything.
Flynn plead guilty to one count of lying because to have plead innocent would have
bankrupted him in legal fees. However, it's interesting that this ZH article stated that
Mueller found Flynn guilty. In federal courts these days, once you're charged with a crime
you will be found guilty. FBI, DEA, BATF, IRS...whoever, you do not get a fair trial. Federal
judges are hard-wired to find guilt. Vicious and ambitious federal prosecutors have only one
interest, to rack up successful prosecutions. Federal juries are intimidated by the brute
force of the federal system and, I suspect, fear that if they don't bring in a verdict
satisfactory to the prosecutor, they may be investigated themselves. "Investigation" in the
federal sense means that they will be relentlessly harassed forever by the federal
government
My small experience as a juror is that state prosecutors and judges are no different than
what you describe for the federal system. We found a guy non-guilty (not a close call either)
that the judge wanted convicted, and he came back and questioned us about our logic. Casually
of course. I just said the guy was innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Judge wasn't
pleased.
Flynn is an idiot.... why agree to talk to the FBI at all.... as Martha Stewart found
out.... if they can't make the case for what they're investigating... they'll just find some
statement in your "interview" that they claim was not true.... no matter if it was your
intention to lie or just a recollection that was wrong... and charge you with that!
Simple answer is that if law enforcement wants to "talk" to you they're looking to get
information to charge you.... simple reply.... FU... I want a lawyer!
The compromise of classified docs was really sort of candy-assed, everybody knew it . .
.
Rewind the tape, and you will find the contrite Petreaus in front of any and all
microphones confessing to his affair with Broadwell, which he repeatedly stated began on some
certain date . . .conveniently AFTER his confirmation as CIA director . . .
. . .certainly Petreaus was asked in his FBI background interview if he was involved in
any affairs. And he certainly said no.
So, Paula, since I'm on all the networks at the moment, I know you can hear me, our affair
started on X date, in case the FBI gets a notion to ask you (which they did not.)
See, the FBI takes lying seriously. But somebody must have said something along the lines
of: hey, Petreaus is a good guy, I hope you can find a way to let him off easy.
But when faced with financial destruction, your kids being threatened, and false evidence
against you, you sometimes admit to the charges to make a deal...
The military is realizing they are not on the same team with FBI, CIA, DOJ.
Why do you think they have tried so hard to keep NSA under military leadership? Wink,
wink...
Leguran
It would appear that the branch of government that may be out of control (by the Supreme Court) is the judiciary. It
is the court rules and failure of the Supreme Court to act and weed its subordinate courts, that allowed much of this to
happen. The FISA Court has been a rubber stamp. No judge is held accountable for failure to obtain justice in their court.
The Chief Justice has refused to accept that judges can employ personal poliltical beliefs in court. All courts are
subordinate to the US Supreme Court and therefore the Supreme Court has a duty to ensure justice not just to decide whether
cases are 'sufficiently mature' to come before the Supreme Court. In other words, the Judiciary needs to be disturbed from
their lifetime appointments and made conditional appointments. The Supreme Court needs to deal with incapacity within its own
ranks. All told, this shocking miscarriage of justice came about because the Judicial Branch of government allowed it to
happen. The Judicial Branch has run amok.
lizzie dw
IMO, Judge Emmet Sullivan needs to demand and receive the original UNREDACTED 302 about the Strzok/Pientka interview with
General Flynn. But, really, just by reading the pre-interview discussions of the FBI members involved, the whole thing sounds
fishy.
Caloot
Hedge headline:
Could Mueller's whole appointment be meant to protect the Clinton empire?
Like Trump or not, there are serious cracks appearing in the Clintons foundation.
"... Now Judge Emmet Sullivan wants expanded information, and wishes to see the actual notes (FD-302) that were mentioned by Flynn; and Judge Sullivan is directing the special counsel to provide all documents created by the FBI surrounding the Flynn interview: ..."
Re: "The possibility that MAGA was, in fact, a sly misdirection to co-opt the fervour of
re-ignited passions in a disenfranchised segment of the America people - to re-capture the
kind of patriotic commitment and ardor that drove the war effort in two world wars - into a
renewed Imperial adventure was obviated, in my view, by Trump's loud and overt criticism of
past Imperial adventures such as the Iraq war and Obama's inaction regarding ISIS (the
accusation that Obama "created" ISIS was a bombshell, in my opinion).
Trump engaged in a bare, pointed, often crass and bordering on contemptuous criticism of
his predecessors' foreign policy. The irreverent tone was unprecedented in recent campaign
history and was so plain and completely at odds with Hilary's stated positions that it
essentially committed him (in my eyes anyway) to following through, or to make all efforts to
follow through. If not, he would set one of the worst examples of a duplicitous politician,
perhaps ever. The same applies to other bold campaign positions, such as the border wall, for
example.
But when viewed in the context of a deep state "policy change," such a clear and utter
denunciation and discrediting of the former policy would be necessary to shift the National
mindset and would not necessarily preclude Trump from engaging in further Imperial
adventures, as long as they were different from the discredited policy."
Retired Lt. General Michael Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency who
came up through intelligence positions in Iraq and Afghanistan, says that the George W. Bush
administration's Iraq war was a tremendous blunder that helped to create the self-proclaimed
Islamic State, or ISIS.
"It was a huge error," Flynn said about the Iraq war in a detailed interview with German
newspaper Der Spiegel published Sunday.
"As brutal as Saddam Hussein was, it was a mistake to just eliminate him," Flynn went on
to say. "The same is true for Moammar Gadhafi and for Libya, which is now a failed state. The
historic lesson is that it was a strategic failure to go into Iraq. History will not be and
should not be kind with that decision."
When told by Der Spiegel reporters Matthias Gebauer and Holger Stark that the Islamic
State would not "be where it is now without the fall of Baghdad," Flynn, without
reservations, said: "Yes, absolutely."
Flynn, who served in the U.S. Army for more than 30 years, also said that the American
military response following 9/11 was not well thought-out at all and based on significant
misunderstandings.
Interesting, very interesting. As noted in the Flynn sentencing memo last night there were
some curiously framed explanations of events surrounding his FBI inquisition.
Now Judge Emmet Sullivan wants expanded information, and wishes to see the actual
notes (FD-302) that were mentioned by Flynn; and Judge Sullivan is directing the special
counsel to provide all documents created by the FBI surrounding the Flynn interview:
from the comments:
Curt says:
December 12, 2018 at 9:56 pm
This could be big news! Judge Emmet Sullivan was the same judge that had prosecutors
investigated for criminal actions they took in the Sen. Ted Stevens FALSE prosecution. Some
on Mueller's team, including Weinstein, were held in contempt. One prosecutor committed
suicide. Others threatened with disbarment and some were suspended. "A federal judge
dismissed the ethics conviction of former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska on Tuesday after
taking the extraordinary step of naming a special prosecutor to investigate whether the
government lawyers who ran the Stevens case (2008) should themselves be prosecuted for
criminal wrongdoing.
Mueller was also involved in that horrible attempt by prosecutors to frame Sen. Ted
Stevens. Judge Sullivan has absolutely no use for this group of prosecutors. He smells a
rat here and is asking for all investigative materials, including 302s. This judge will not
hesitate to take action against these crooked prosecutors if he finds evidence of ANY wrong
doing.
Looks like Partigenosse Mueller went a little bit too far.
Notable quotes:
"... Thousands of text messages between Strzok and Page were recovered by the OIG, many indicating that both agents in charge of investigating Donald Trump absolutely hate him. ..."
Mueller Destroyed Messages From Peter Strzok's iPhone; OIG
Recovers 19,000 New "FBI Lovebird" Texts
by Tyler Durden
Sat, 12/15/2018 - 14:25 8.3K SHARES
The Justice Department's internal watchdog revealed on Thursday that special counsel Robert
Mueller's office scrubbed all of the data from FBI agent Peter Strzok's iPhone, while his FBI
mistress Lisa Page's phone had been scrubbed by a different department, according to a
comprehensive
report by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released on Thursday.
After Strzok was kicked off the special counsel investigation following the discovery of
anti-Trump text messages between he and Page, his Mueller's Records Officer scrubbed Strzok's
iPhone after determining "it contained no substantive text messages," reports the
Conservative Review 's Jordan Schachtel.
Mueller's team was unable to locate Page's iPhone, however the DOJ's Justice Management
Division (JMD) similarly scrubbed her phone - resetting it to factory settings.
Meanwhile, the OIG recovered approximately newly found 19,000 Strzok-Page texts from their
Galaxy S5 phones . The messages span a "gap" in text messages between December 15, 2016 and May
17, 2017.
OIG digital forensic examiners used forensic tools to recover thousands of text messages
from these devices, including many outside the period of collection tool failure (December
15, 20 I 6 to May 17, 2017) and many that Strzok and Page had with persons other than each
other. Approximately 9,311 text messages that were sent or received during the period of
collection tool failure were recovered from Strzok's S5 phone, of which approximately 8,358
were sent to or received from Page .
Approximately 10,760 text messages that were sent or
received during the period of collection tool failure were recovered from Page's S5 phone, of
which approximately 9,717 were sent to or received from Strzok .
Thus, many of the text
messages recovered from Strzok's S5 were also recovered from Page's S5. However, some of the
Strzok-Page text messages were only recovered from Strzok's phone while others were only
recovered from Page's phone . -OIG Report
Thousands of text messages between Strzok and Page were recovered by the OIG, many
indicating that both agents in charge of investigating Donald Trump absolutely hate him.
In August 2016, Strzok and Page discussed an "insurance policy" in the event that Trump won
the election which many believe to be in reference to operation Crossfire Hurricane - the DOJ's
counterintelligence investigation into Trump and his campaign.
" I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office - that there's
no way he [Trump] gets elected - but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." wrote Strzok, adding
" It's like a life insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40 ."
In the
home stretch of the 2016 US election, Strzok is fuming at Trump - texting Page: " I am riled
up. Trump is a f*cking idiot, is unable to provide a coherent answer." He then texts "I CAN'T
PULL AWAY, WHAT THE F*CK HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY (redacted)??!?!," to which Page replies "I
don't know. But we'll get it back."
More than two years later, the anti-Trump FBI agents may not have gotten their country back
- but the special counsel's office continues to cast a shadow of doubt Trump's legitimacy.
Democrats could care less about the facts. They are very happy to be ignorant of them.
They don't care about the law or due process. They don't stand for anything except that vague
meaningless concept called "social justice."
They are throwbacks to an era where party is everything and the individual is expendable
in service of that party. History is of no consequence, traditions are junk and highest goal
is to feel good, ramifications are of no concern.
Every little fact that Mueller thinks he has is now tainted. He has engaged in evidence
tampering and ALL OF IT is fruit of the poisoned tree.
This human piece of excrement in a suit, this worthless deep stater and his henchmen
should be hung - but they won't be. Thirty years in a real prison should do the trick.
Confiscate every nickel he charged the citizens of this county and charge him at the same
rate for a year of wasted time.
Like I have said over and over on this blog "Democrats are unfit to govern."
"... One thing that has puzzled me about Trump methods is his constant tweeting of witch hunt with respect to Mueller but his unwillingness to actually disclose what Brennan, Clapper, Comey, et al actually did by declassifying all the documents and communications among them. In your opinion what is he trying to accomplish with his method here? ..."
I believe you are spot on in your analysis of the Trump methods. No doubt based on your
personal observations up close of similar sole proprietor business hustlers. I think one
problem that Trump methods face is that he needs people around him who can make things happen
despite the byzantine ways of the vast federal bureaucracy who have their own agenda.
One thing that has puzzled me about Trump methods is his constant tweeting of witch
hunt with respect to Mueller but his unwillingness to actually disclose what Brennan,
Clapper, Comey, et al actually did by declassifying all the documents and communications
among them. In your opinion what is he trying to accomplish with his method here?
"The last two Democratic presidencies largely involved talking progressive while serving
Wall Street and the military-industrial complex. The obvious differences in personalities and
behavior of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama diverted attention from their underlying political
similarities. In office, both men rarely fought for progressive principles -- and routinely
undermined them."
After Democratic party was co-opted by neoliberals there is no way back. And since Obama the trend of Democratic Party is
toward strengthening the wing of CIA-democratic notthe wing of the party friendly to workers. Bought by Wall Street leadership is
uncable of intruting any change that undermine thier current neoliberal platform. that's why they criminally derailed Sanders.
Notable quotes:
"... When you think about the issue of how exactly a clean-energy jobs program would address the elephant in the room of private accumulation and how such a program, under capitalism, would be able to pay living wages to the people put to work under it, it exposes how non threatening these Green New Deals actually are to capitalism. ..."
"... To quote Trotsky, "These people are capable of and ready for anything!" ..."
"... "Any serious measures to stop global warming, let alone assure a job and livable wage to everyone, would require a massive redistribution of wealth and the reallocation of trillions currently spent on US imperialism's neo-colonial wars abroad." ..."
"... "It includes various left-sounding rhetoric, but is entirely directed to and dependent upon the Democratic Party." ..."
"... "And again and again, in the name of "practicality," the most unrealistic and impractical policy is promoted -- supporting a party that represents the class that is oppressing and exploiting you! The result is precisely the disastrous situation working people and youth face today -- falling wages, no job security, growing repression and the mounting threat of world war." - New York Times tries to shame "disillusioned young voters" into supporting the Democrats ..."
"... It is an illusion that technical innovation within the capitalist system will magically fundamentally resolve the material problems produced by capitalism. But the inconvenient facts are entirely ignored by the corporate shills in the DSA and the whole lot of establishment politicians, who prefer to indulge their addiction to wealth and power with delusions of grandeur, technological utopianism, and other figments that serve the needs of their class. ..."
"... First it was Obama with his phoney "hope and change" that lured young voters to the Dumbicrats and now it's Ocacia Cortez promising a "green deal" in order to herd them back into the Democratic party--a total fraud of course--totally obvious! ..."
"... from Greenwald: The Democratic Party's deceitful game https://www.salon.com/2010/... ..."
they literally ripped this out of the 2016 Green Party platform. Jill Stein spoke repeatedly
about the same exact kind of Green New Deal, a full-employment, transition-to-100%-renewables
program that would supposedly solve all the world's problems.
When you think about the issue of how exactly a clean-energy jobs program would address
the elephant in the room of private accumulation and how such a program, under capitalism,
would be able to pay living wages to the people put to work under it, it exposes how non
threatening these Green New Deals actually are to capitalism.
In 2016, when the Greens made
this their central economic policy proposal, the Democrats responded by calling that platform
irresponsible and dangerous ("even if it's a good idea, you can't actually vote for a
non-two-party candidate!"). Why would they suddenly find a green new deal appealing now
except for its true purpose: left cover for the very system destroying the planet.
To quote
Trotsky, "These people are capable of and ready for anything!"
"Any serious measures to stop global warming, let alone assure a job and livable wage to
everyone, would require a massive redistribution of wealth and the reallocation of trillions
currently spent on US imperialism's neo-colonial wars abroad."
Their political position not only lacks seriousness, unserious is their political
position.
"It includes various left-sounding rhetoric, but is entirely directed to and dependent
upon the Democratic Party."
For subjective-idealists, what you want to believe, think and feel is just so much more
convincing than objective reality. Especially when it covers over single-minded class
interests at play.
"And again and again, in the name of "practicality," the most unrealistic and impractical
policy is promoted -- supporting a party that represents the class that is oppressing and
exploiting you! The result is precisely the disastrous situation working people and youth
face today -- falling wages, no job security, growing repression and the mounting threat of
world war." - New York Times tries to shame "disillusioned young voters" into supporting
the Democrats
It is an illusion that technical innovation within the capitalist system will magically
fundamentally resolve the material problems produced by capitalism. But the inconvenient
facts are entirely ignored by the corporate shills in the DSA and the whole lot of
establishment politicians, who prefer to indulge their addiction to wealth and power with
delusions of grandeur, technological utopianism, and other figments that serve the needs of
their class.
First it was Obama with his phoney "hope and change" that lured young voters to the
Dumbicrats and now it's Ocacia Cortez promising a "green deal" in order to herd them back
into the Democratic party--a total fraud of course--totally obvious!
Only an International Socialist program led by Workers can truly lead a "green revolution" by
expropriating the billionaire oil barons of their capital and redirecting that wealth into
the socialist reconstruction of the entire economy.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal" is a nice laugh. Really, it sure is funny hearing
these lies given any credence at all. This showmanship belongs in a fantasy book, not in real
life. The Democratic Party as a force for good social change Now that's a laugh!
Lies, empty promises, meaningless tautologies and morality plays, qualified and conditional
declarations to be backpedalled pending appropriate political expediencies, devoid any
practical content that is what AOC, card carrying member of DSA, and in fact young energetic
political apparatchik of calcified political body of Dems establishment, duty engulfs. And
working for socialist revolution is no one of them.
What kind of socialist would reject socialist revolution, class struggle and class
emancipation and choose, as a suppose socialist path, accommodation with oligarchic ruling
elite via political, not revolutionary process that would have necessarily overthrown ruling
elite.
What socialist would acquiesce to legalized exploitation of people for profit, legalized
greed and inequality and would negotiate away fundamental principle of egalitarianism and
working people self rule?
Only National Socialist would; and that is exactly what AOC campaign turned out to be all
about.
National Socialism with imperial flavor is her affiliation and what her praises for
Pelosi, wife of a billionaire and dead warmonger McCain proved.
Now she is peddling magical thinking about global change and plunge herself into falacy of
entrepreneurship, Market solution to the very problem that the market solutions were designed
to create and aggravate namely horrific inequality that is robbing people from their own
opportunities to mitigate devastating effects of global change.
The insidiousness of phony socialists expresses itself in the fact that they lie that any
social problem can be fixed by current of future technical means, namely via so called
technological revolution instead by socialist revolution they deem unnecessary or
detrimental.
The technical means for achieving socialism has existed since the late 19th century, with the
telegraph, the coal-powered factory, and modern fertilizer. The improvements since then have
only made socialism even more streamlined and efficient, if such technologies could only be
liberated from capital! The idea that "we need a new technological revolution just to achieve
socialism" reflects the indoctrination in capitalism by many "socialist" theorists because it
is only in capitalism where "technological growth" is essential simply to maintain the
system. It is only in capitalism (especially America, the most advanced capitalist nation,
and thus, the one where capitalism is actually closest towards total crisis) where the dogma
of a technological savior is most entrenched because America cannot offer any other kind of
palliative to the more literate and productive sections of its population. Religion will not
convince most and any attempt at a sociological or economic understanding would inevitably
prove the truth of socialism.
"... For decades, it has been rumored that the Clintons have FBI files on most members of Congress and use these files for blackmail purposes. Given the events of the past few years, I actually believe this rumor to be grounded in truth. ..."
"... For decades, it has been rumored that the Clintons have FBI files on most members of Congress and use these files for blackmail purposes. Given the events of the past few years, I actually believe this rumor to be grounded in truth. ..."
Somehow I doubt that this Christmas will win the Bing Crosby star of approval. Rather, we
see the financial markets breaking under the strain of sustained institutionalized fraud, and
the social fabric tearing from persistent systemic political dishonesty. It adds up to a nation
that can't navigate through reality, a nation too dependent on sure things, safe spaces, and
happy outcomes. Every few decades a message comes from the Universe that faking it is not good
enough.
The main message from the financials is that the global debt barge has run aground, and with
it, the global economy. That mighty engine has been chugging along on promises-to-pay and now
the faith that sustained those promises is dissolving. China, Euroland, and the USA can't
possibly meet their tangled obligations, and are running out of tricks for rigging, gaming, and
jacking the bond markets, where all those promises are vested. It boils down to a whole lot of
people not getting paid, one way or the other -- and it's really bad for business.
Our President has taken full credit for the bubblicious markets, of course, and will be
Hooverized as they gurgle around the drain. Given his chimerical personality, he may try to put
on an FDR mask -- perhaps even sit in a wheelchair -- and try a few grand-scale policy tricks
to escape the vortex. But the net effect will surely be to make matters worse -- for instance,
if he can hector the Federal Reserve to buy every bond that isn't nailed to some deadly
derivative booby-trap. But then he'll only succeed in crashing the dollar. Remember, there are
two main ways you can go broke: You can run out of money; or you can have plenty of worthless
money.
On the social and political scene, I sense that some things have run their course. Is a
critical mass of supposedly educated people not fatigued and nauseated by the regime of "social
justice" good-think, and the massive mendacity it stands for , starting with the idea that
"diversity and inclusion" require the shut-down of free speech. The obvious hypocrisies and
violations of reason emanating from the campuses -- a lot, but not all of it, in response to
the Golden Golem of Greatness -- have made enough smart people stupid to endanger the country's
political future. A lot of these formerly-non-stupid people work in the news media. It's not
too late for some institutions like The New York Times and CNN to change out their editors and
producers, and go back to reporting the reality-du-jour instead of functioning as agit-prop
mills for every unsound idea ginned through the Yale humanities departments.
Shoehorned into the festivity of the season is the lame-duck session in congress, and one of
the main events it portends is the end of Robert Mueller's Russia investigation. The
Sphinx-like Mueller has maintained supernatural silence about his tendings and intentions. But
if he'd uncovered anything substantial in the way of "collusion" between Mr. Trump and Russia,
the public would know by now, since it would represent a signal threat to national security. So
it's hard not to conclude that he has nothing except a few Mickey Mouse "process" convictions
for lying to the FBI. On the other hand, it's quite impossible to imagine him ignoring the
well-documented evidence trail of Hillary Clinton colluding with Russians to influence the 2016
contest against Mr. Trump -- and to defame him after he won. There's also the Hieronymus Bosch
panorama of criminal mischief around the racketeering scheme known as the Clinton Foundation to
consider. Do these venal characters get a pass on all that?
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) has announced plans to call Federal Attorney John Huber (Utah
District) to testify about his assignment to look into these Clinton matters. It's a little
hard to see how that might produce any enlightenment, since prosecutors are bound by law to not
blab about currently open cases. The committee has also subpoenaed former Attorney General
Loretta Lynch, former FBI Director James Comey, and others who have some serious 'splainin' to
do. But if both Huber and Mueller come up empty-handed on the Clintons it will be one of the
epic marvels of official bad faith in US history.
There is a core truth to the 2016 Russia collusion story, and the Clintons are at the heart
of it. Failure to even look will have very dark consequences for the public interest.
It ought to be obvious to just about everyone who is paying attention and not a
Corporate-Whore Democrat that the "The Russians Did It" delusion and the accompanying Mueller
"investigation" is only a distraction to draw attention away from the obvious and numerous
crimeS of H. Clinton, including running an electronic drop-box for U.S. state secrets using a
server in her basement, charity fraud, pay-to-play bribe-taking, the uranium to Russia case,
etc. And, that's not counting the inexcusable Unprovoked War of Aggression WAR CRIME against
Libya. (Of course, she had an excuse: "Destroy a country in order to save a few
"protesters".
Mueller is the Deep State (Corporations [especially Military Industrial Complex
Death-Merchants, who direct the politicians and foreign policy actions (continual
War-For-Humongous-Profits that has taken and takes multiple trillions of dollars away from
potential domestic programs & Wall Street bankster-fraudsters who bankrupted the country
with the lead-up to and aftermath of the 2008-2009 financial fiasco and who sent U.S.
industrial production jobs to other countries] and Oligarchs who reap the profits of such
crimes and their results) operative who apparently was brought in the head the FBI to fail to
prevent and to coverup the real actors and actions that occurred in association with the
downing of buildings at the New York City World Trade center on 9/11.
Sorry, nobodies going to jail and all will be swept under the rug. We will have war to
cover their tracks along with all the other frauds. The political buddy buddy system at the
upper levels is set up to protect the guilty, and nobody has to pay the price lest the whole
thing crumble. It's built that way.
Our only way out is a crash and a reset, with no guarantee what happens on the other
side.
I used to be optimistic, but the level of lies, double speak and university factories
pumping out marxist leftists portends a bleak future. How anyone thinks we can reason our way
out of this situation is fooling themselves about human nature.
Nice to see Kunstler focusing on some serious issues like the Uranium One scandal for a
change. He seems to be on the concluding end of a cold-turkey or other rehab from some
long-term unholy influence. As a result, he has been producing increasingly readable articles
for the past several months. Congratulations are due him but with the warning that recovery
is always one day at a time.
" Remember, there are two main ways you can go broke: You can run out of money; or you can
have plenty of worthless money". Both pretty much sums up America's predicament. Americans
are deep in debt, and their money is worthless.
Mueller isn't going to touch the Clintons - they have way too much criminal dirt on him.
And Huber is an unknown lightweight with no Malicious Seditious Media support.
Sooooo . . . there is only one thing to do once the new Congress takes its oath: Trump
gets DOJ Acting AG to appoint the long-awaited Special Prosecutor.
There are more than enough recognized felonies to go after - unlike the Mueller fishing
expedition. That will put the Democrat investigation on ice - mainly because lots of Demo
chairs and members will be part of the investigation.
Any serious investigation of the Clinton Foundation would reveal that "Russian Collusion"
has everything to do with distraction from the crimes of the Clinton family. The fact that
Bill and Hillary have escaped accountability for their heinous crimes is one of the greatest
miscarriages of justice in US history. It is truly quite frightening.
There is a reason why the DOJ, Congress (both parties), MSM, the MIC, the Deep State don't
want ANYONE to look into corruption ... because they are ALL ******* guilty as sin and buried
neck deep in ****. Its long past time for the whole ******* thing to come down. We're all
fucked.
Weiner laptop For The Win. Give us that hard drive, Mr. President! We'll have it all
analyzed in one weekend.
Meanwhile, Seth Rich awaits Mueller's OH SO DILIGENT investigation.
Can you believe that the 'core' of Mueller's 'case' ends up being about WIKILEAKS?
What the serious ****.
If he's done zero serious looks at Seth Rich all Mueller's work will just be thrown out
of court anyway.
Ham sandwich my fat turkey-enriched ***.
For decades, it has been rumored that the Clintons have FBI files on most members of
Congress and use these files for blackmail purposes. Given the events of the past few years,
I actually believe this rumor to be grounded in truth.
This guy is dreaming if he thinks anything is going to happen to the clintons, the MSM/DOJ
is protected those 2 scumbags with the line that if they are investigated trump is going
after his political opponents, just like a banana republic. But truthfully nothing reaks more
of banana repubicism more then letting the high and mighty of on crimes.
If they weren't all on the same side, that of the international bankster cabal, Trump
would order his justice department to prosecute those people you mentioned.
The purpose of the Russia investigation is to fool you into thinking there are two sides,
and to demonized Russia to create public opinion in favor of attacking Russia because it is
not on board with the jwo totalitarian world government. WTFU.
For decades, it has been rumored that the Clintons have FBI files on most members of
Congress and use these files for blackmail purposes. Given the events of the past few years,
I actually believe this rumor to be grounded in truth.
Mueller long ago gave up the fruitless hunt for Russian collusion involving President
Trump and is now desperately seeking overdue library books or unpaid parking tickets on
anyone remotely connected to President Trump to justify his mooching taxpayer dollars.
Comey knows where all the skeletons are buried and has nothing to fear, apart from a
stitch-up behind closed doors hanging, where nobody gets to see. We all know Comey is a Deep
State puppet. This hearing is all for show, to give the dunces the illusion of a functioning
dumbocracy.
Pretty rich that he's worried about leaks....but then again, he would know.
He is damned worried about private testimony as doing so would open him up to suspicion
from guilty parties concerned he might rat them out to save his hide.
Select leaks, even if untrue (fake news turned against them) could bring great pressure
upon his life.
Former
FBI Director James Comey announced over Twitter on Thursday that he has been subpoenaed by
House Republicans.
He has demanded a public testimony (during which legislators would be unable to ask him
questions pertaining to classified or sensitive information), saying that he doesn't trust the
committee not to leak and distort what he says.
"Happy Thanksgiving. Got a subpoena from House Republicans," he tweeted " I'm still happy to
sit in the light and answer all questions. But I will resist a "closed door" thing because I've
seen enough of their selective leaking and distortion . Let's have a hearing and invite
everyone to see." In October Comey rejected a request by the House Judiciary Committee to
appear at a closed hearing as part of the GOP probe into allegations of political bias at the
FBI and Department of Justice, according to Politico
.
"Mr. Comey respectfully declines your request for a private interview," said Comey's
attorney, David Kelly, in a repsonse to the request.
The Judiciary Committee, chaired by Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) didn't appreciate Comey's
response.
" We have invited Mr. Comey to come in for a transcribed interview and we are prepared to
issue a subpoena to compel his appearance ," said a committee aide.
Goodlatte invited Comey to testify as part of a last-minute flurry of requests for
high-profile Obama administration FBI and Justice Department leaders, including former
Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. He threatened
to subpoena them if they didn't come in voluntarily. -
Politico
The House committee has been investigating whether overwhelming anti-Trump bias with in the
FBI and Department of Justice translated to their investigations of the President during and
after the 2016 US election.
Didn't Gowdy deal with this already? "When did the FBI conduct an interview limited to 5
minutes?" "When did the FBI ever conduct an interview in public?" And the rest. Sauce for the
goose is sauce for the gander.
(I happen to think Gowdy is compromised, but the points remain.)
The crook knows a public hearing will allow him to defer answering EVERY question because
it "involves a current investigation", "it's classified", "I don't recall" and every other
dodge under the sun. Put this creep away for good!
Comey knows he can't withstand real questioning. He will be forced to take the 5th. A lot
of desperation showing here. He won't show and time will run out on the House, so Lindsay
Graham needs to take up the cause.
"... Shadow IT broadly refers to technology introduced into an organisation that has not passed through the IT department. ..."
"... The result is first; no proactive recommendations from the IT department and second; long approval periods while IT teams evaluate solutions that the business has proposed. Add an over-defensive approach to security, and it is no wonder that some departments look outside the organisation for solutions. ..."
Shadow IT broadly refers to technology introduced into an organisation that has not passed
through the IT department. A familiar example of this is BYOD but, significantly, Shadow IT now
includes enterprise grade software and hardware, which is increasingly being sourced and
managed outside of the direct control of the organisation's IT department and CIO.
Examples
include enterprise wide CRM solutions and marketing automation systems procured by the
marketing department, as well as data warehousing, BI and analysis services sourced by finance
officers.
So why have so many technology solutions slipped through the hands of so many CIOs? I
believe a confluence of events is behind the trend; there is the obvious consumerisation of IT,
which has resulted in non-technical staff being much more aware of possible solutions to their
business needs – they are more tech-savvy. There is also the fact that some CIOs and
technology departments have been too slow to react to the business's technology needs.
The reason for this slow reaction is that very often IT Departments are just too busy
running day-to-day infrastructure operations such as network and storage management along with
supporting users and software. The result is first; no proactive recommendations from the IT
department and second; long approval periods while IT teams evaluate solutions that the
business has proposed. Add an over-defensive approach to security, and it is no wonder that
some departments look outside the organisation for solutions.
A federal judge has ordered Hillary Clinton to respond to further questions, under oath,
about her private email server.
Following a lengthy Wednesday court hearing, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (who is also presiding
over fmr. National Security adviser Michael Flynn's case), ruled that Clinton has 30 days to
answer two additional questions about her controversial email system in response to a lawsuit
from Judicial Watch .
Hillary must answer the following questions by December 17 (via
Judicial Watch )
Describe the creation of the clintonemail.com system, including who decided to create the
system , the date it was decided to create the system, why it was created, who set it up, and
when it became operational .
During your October 22, 2015 appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives Select
Committee on Benghazi, you testified that 90 to 95 percent of your emails "were in the
State's system" and "if they wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do
so." Identify the basis for this statement, including all facts on which you relied in
support of the statement, how and when you became aware of these facts, and, if you were made
aware of these facts by or through another person, identify the person who made you aware of
these facts.
Sillivan rejected Clinton's assertion of attorney-client privilege on the question over
emails "in the State's system," however he did give Clinton a few victories:
The court refused Judicial
Watch's and media's requests to unseal the deposition videos of Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills
and other Clinton State Department officials . And it upheld Clinton's objections to
answering a question about why she refused to stop using her Blackberry despite warnings from
State Department security personnel . Justice Department lawyers for the State Department
defended Clinton's refusal to answer certain questions and argued for the continued secrecy
of the deposition videos. -
Judicial Watch
Wednesday's decision is the latest twist in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA)
lawsuit targeting former Clinton deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin. The case seeks records
which authorized Abedin to conduct outside employment while also employed by the Department of
State.
"A federal court ordered Hillary Clinton to answer more questions about her illicit email
system – which is good news," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "It is shameful
that Judicial Watch attorneys must continue to battle the State and Justice Departments, which
still defend Hillary Clinton, for basic answers to our questions about Clinton's email
misconduct."
Allow me to predict Hillary's answers: I really can't recall. Somebody else was in charge
of creating it. I don't recall who that was but I was left out of the loop when it was
created. I don't know anything about computers. Somebody who had knowledge did that. I don't
know who authorized it, I assume it went through standard channels.
As a reminder, all the data to date suggests that Hillary broke the following 11 US CODES.
I provided the links for your convenience. HRC needs to immediacy be Arrested &
Indicted.
CEO aka "President" TRUMP was indeed correct when he said: "FBI Director Comey was the
best thing that ever happened to Hillary Clinton in that he gave her a free pass for many bad
deeds!"
18 U.S. Code § 1905 - Disclosure of confidential information generally
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to
their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty
of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined
under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office
under the United States.
The Preponderance of Evidence suggests that she broke these Laws, Knowingly, Willfully and
Repeatedly. This pattern indicates a habitual/career Criminal, who belongs in Federal
Prison.
If Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath Hillary Clinton would have been
elected. Many if not all of the High Crimes, Crimes & sexual perversion's we see coming
to Light never would have been known off.
The Tyrannical Lawlessness we see before our eyes never would have seen the light of
day.
"... The move means that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will no longer oversee the federal Russia investigation, which he has looked over since Sessions recused himself early last year due to his work on Trump's campaign. ..."
President Trump's pick to replace ousted Attorney General Jeff Sessions plans to take over
oversight of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, the Department of Justice (DOJ)
confirmed Wednesday. "The Acting Attorney General is in charge of all matters under the purview
of the Department of Justice," DOJ spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said in a statement to The
Hill.
The move means that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will no longer oversee the
federal Russia investigation, which he has looked over since Sessions recused himself early
last year due to his work on Trump's campaign.
Trump on Wednesday afternoon announced Matthew
Whitaker, who served as Sessions's chief of staff at the DOJ, as his temporary replacement atop
the department after ousting Sessions.
"... "a group called CARA Family Detention Pro Bono Project" a group that has received funding from Soros, to Pueblo Sin Fronteras through a person named 'Alex Mensing' who works both for CARA and as "an on-the ground coordinator in Mexico for the Pueblo Sin Fronteras". ..."
"... ..A vital part of that expansion has involved money: major donations from some of the nation's wealthiest liberal foundations, including the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Open Society Foundations of the financier George Soros, and the Atlantic Philanthropies. Over the past decade those donors have invested more than $300 million in immigrant organizations, including many fighting for a pathway to citizenship for immigrants here illegally.... ..."
"... US based groups or cutouts are the organizers of the caravan. ..."
"... The list of Democratic Party-connected organizations that might have originated the idea of a caravan from Central America is small. I surmise Clinton Global Initiative because they would have the requisite connections and blaming Soros seems to easy and convenient. But Soros is also rumored to be behind support for European migrants so it's certainly possible. ..."
How did this group of thousands come together to walk to US were Trump has vowed to keep
illegals out. People like this would naturally come together if they were catching a ship, or
at some sort of aid post refugee camp ect.
After a search on caravan starting point, I found this at the Guardian.
"Who organized the caravan?
In interviews, Honduran members of the group said that they learned about the caravan from
Facebook posts, and a report on the local HCH television station, which erroneously suggested
that a former congressman and radio host would cover the costs of the journey.
After that, rumours spread quickly, including the mistaken promise that any member would be
given asylum in the US. Darwin Ramos, 30, said he was desperate to flee threats from a local
drug gang, and when news of the caravan reached his neighbourhood, he seized on it as his
best chance to escape."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/24/caravan-migrants-what-is-it-where-from-guatemala-honduras-immigrants-mexico
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pueblo_Sin_Fronteras
"Pueblo Sin Fronteras (en: People without Borders) is an immigration rights group known for
organizing several high profile migrant caravans in Mexico and Central America. The
organization's efforts to facilitate immigration and calls for open borders attracted
considerable amounts of coverage in the Mexican and American media."
Pueblo Sin Fronteras website. Zero information there other than the have bases or offices
in San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Tijuana in Mexico. https://www.pueblosinfronteras.org/commitees.html
No information on who they are or who funds them. Very much a political organization.
On two caravans like this have occurred, both organized by this shadowy group.
Slow moving lots of press coverage that can last for weeks so long as the peasant suckers
stay suckers and don't pull out. Very much an anti Trump political show put on by whoever
funds and controls this Pueblo Sin Fronteras organisation.
Centro Sin Fronteras is the parent group to Pueblo Sin Fronteras. https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/centro-sin-fronteras/
"Elvira Arellano, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, former fugitive from U.S. immigration
authorities, and activist for illegal immigrants in the U.S., formed the activist group La
Familia Latina Unida ("The United Latin Family") as an expansion of the Centro Sin Fronteras.
[7] La Familia Latina Unida runs Pueblo Sin Fronteras ("People Without Borders"), a group
that organizes "migrant caravans" from Mexico and Latin America to cross the U.S. border
illegally"
The majority of people in the caravan may be leaving their own countries due to violence
poverty ect, but the caravan itself is a manufactured political event. left to their own
devices, some may have moved towards the US in small groups, others would have been deterred
due to Trumps immigration policy, but they have joined this so called caravan on false
promises made by the organisers. Nothing better than kids, women and oldies doing it tough or
better yet dying for political media coverage.
As for the politically organized caravan, the peasants have officially been offered a home
in Mexico, but the organizers prefer them to go on to the US. As they have been offered a
place in mexico, they are now economic migrants wanting greener pastures in the US rather
than refugees.
The peasants themselves, I think are mostly genuine though organizers are mixed through
the group. The peasants are no more than consumables in a political action.
. ..A vital part of that expansion has involved money: major donations from some of
the nation's wealthiest liberal foundations, including the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie
Corporation of New York, the Open Society Foundations of the financier George Soros, and the
Atlantic Philanthropies. Over the past decade those donors have invested more than $300
million in immigrant organizations, including many fighting for a pathway to citizenship for
immigrants here illegally.... https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/us/obama-immigration-policy-changes.html
How can people not see this caravan march as the obvious false flag it is to influence the
election. The actors are being paid and busses have been mobilized and paid for to move them
forward. The right says Soros money might be behind it and they may be right. Surprised the
left has not blamed Putin. Which proves my point that the left is actively conspiring with
the right the keep them in power. Why wouldnt they care?. As Caitlin Johnstone says, after I
said it, they get paid the same no matter what. As part of a 2 party monopoly,with 2 parties
the minimum to serve the illusion of a representative Democracy,the oiligarchs will continue
to throw money to the loser.
This has been scripted well in advance. Republicans need to maintain both houses for the
2nd stage of Trumps destruction of America (credibility and finance), especially its
government and middle class as the elite will be protected from the damage. Democrats are
standing on the sidelines rambling about Russia Gate or Khashoggi Gate or mobilizing their
forces to support gay marriages and transgender access to bathrooms. And to boot they bring
out Hillary and Obama at the last moment to bash Trump to galvanize the rights voters even
more. No other purpose for doing so.
To be sure, a Democratic win means nothing except perhaps as a poor proxy for a lack of
support for Trump. 40% of their candidates come from the military or intelligence services.
They are owned by the oligarchs as much as tbe Republicans. The only difference in the
parties is the costumes they wear and the rhetoric the speak
Or perhaps its as simple as not wanting to share responsibility for what is to come as
their best shot to win in 2020
Frankly the best outcome would be the decimation of the Democrat Party and its subsequent
dissolution. Lets end the farce of a Democracy. One party for all. Hail Trump or whomever he
appoints as his successor, or just let the elites vote and announce who they voted for every
4 years. Thats pretty much what the constitution meant for us to be doing anyways. The idea
of a Direct vote by all citizens for President and Senate would have horrified them. Seeing
the results of elections these past 40 years I have concluded they are right.
Invaders or Dupes? Have the caravan migrants been misled?
While it's true that anyone can request asylum, the caravan migrants appear to be under
the impression that they have a legitimate claim to asylum in USA because they are fleeing
gang violence in their home country. That is very likely to be untrue.
Such a claim MIGHT be valid in countries that have signed the Cartagena Declaration
and ratified it into law - but the US has not. The Declaration expands the definition of
refugees to include:
"persons who have fled their country because their lives, security or freedom have been
threatened by generalized violence, foreign aggression, internal conflicts, massive
violation of human rights or other circumstances which have seriously disturbed public
order".
FYI
The 1951 UN Convention as amended defines a refugee as someone with a "well-founded fear
of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular
social group or political opinion" . The caravan stories I have heard are unlikely to
qualify under this definition.
Some countries that have loads of asylum seekers have set up camps to hold them. Some,
like Australia, even have camps in foreign countries. Trump's talk of setting up tents
implies that USA will also establish such camps. Life in these camps is likely to be
uncomfortable and unproductive. Only those will genuine asylum claims would tough it out.
How telling it is that when we disagree on the nature of the Caravan, we fall into an
either-or choice between 2 absolutes. Either it is a complete hoax from the ground up, or
it's a completely authentic grass-roots happening.
But we have seen enough color revolutions to understand that there is always an authentic
component to each one. I have commented several times on how delicately the CIA and other
organizers of color revolutions symbiotically fuse with good and authentic people who have a
noble cause. How these bad people can merge with such good people is a wonder to me.
But this itself is the fact that must demolish the partisan thinking of "one side or the
other". It's clear that the people who run things and their henchmen who arrange things are
marvelously nuanced when it comes to good and evil. They'll be good when it suits them and
evil for the same reason, and treat people well and badly, all depending on the exigencies of
the mission.
In simple words, there undoubtedly is a core heart to the population of the caravan that
is good, hopeful, enterprising and industrious, and that hopes to receive just one little
break from the world, and a sliver of social justice. This radiating core of goodness and
humanity, which would break open the hearts of ordinary people like you and me, to the
organizers and their fixers is simply the perfect place to hide, concealed by superb
protective coloration.
Take a look at the Maidan in Ukraine, and see how many good people thought they were
fighting to create a wonderful new world, until the snipers fired on both sides and brought
off the color revolution with superb skill and complete amoral ruthlessness - all as a result
of long planning and preparation, not to mention the cash to hire mercenaries and provide the
best logistics.
So I personally will stand by my thought that we will see what this is when the shooters
begin to provoke the violence. And if that happens, then sadly, it will be the innocents who
again, as always, are massacred.
But if the US handles it well, and permits controlled entry under the supervision of the
border authorities, and there are no shooters and no provocations coming either from the
Caravan people - or from some other force off to the side that doesn't seem to belong to
anyone, but which seems to be the cause of death to both sides - then this will all fizzle
out as another political skirmish of short duration, and the Democrats and Republicans will
move on to their next diversions.
You wrote: "Either it is a complete hoax from the ground up, or it's a completely
authentic grass-roots happening."
I am inclined to believe that it is both, to wit an authentic grass-roots happening that
has been hijacked (like so many others) by interested parties for their own ends.
Grieved 97
That's the way I'm seeing it. "But we have seen enough color revolutions to understand that
there is always an authentic component to each one. I have commented several times on how
delicately the CIA and other organizers of color revolutions symbiotically fuse with good and
authentic people who have a noble cause. How these bad people can merge with such good people
is a wonder to me."
Well put, not only the above paragragh but the whole comment. Not much most of us can do
to help the naive perhaps desperate people sucked in to the US political caravan but we
should at least be exposing those who are exploiting and furthingf their misery for political
purposes.
Requirement for any President or political leader is to be a good actor. I believe they
simply follow a script prepared by the real rulers operating in the shadows. Maybe I am
wrong. Its like fake wrestling as Caitlin Johnstone pointed out. You have to be a good actor
and pretend to care while actually making sure you qlose if the script calls for it
Jackrabbit@100
Its true they have been duped but the point is that desparate and poor people rarely work
together spontaneously in an organized fashion and a caravan such as this must be organized
and paid for. Someone is feeding them. The timing is too good to be true. Obviously they have
been promised something, asylum, money or whatever and assured of their safety. To determine
who is behind it you simply need to look at who benefits.
When discussing this caravan "false flag", many people will dismiss "conspiracy theories"
that involve paid actors.
RJPJR @98 thought the caravan an an "authentic grass-roots happening that has been
hi-jacked" . But that theory is also unsatisfying. As you point out (Pft), it is strange
that ordinary people organize themselves to make a march like the caravan.
The best explanation is that people were organized to make the march by local groups
[connected to Clinton Global Initiative?] which got PAID to do so. These trusted local groups
then told the marchers that: 1) they would get support along the way, and 2) that they have a
good/great chance of actually getting asylum.
Organizers would not want a member of the caravan to tell a reporter that the march was
fake, or that they are paid. But it has been reported that "well wishers" have given the
marchers food and money. And the press has not questioned that support. And the marchers seem
to have a genuine belief that they qualify for asylum. Such a belief would be easy to instill
in poor, uneducated people who can be easily duped into believing that an international
treaty like the Cartegena Declaration applies to all countries.
Jackrabbit, in my post @67 I linked the Pueblo Sin Fronteras website. When I found out about
this group I looked for their website which I was able to access, and although information
was sparse on this shadowy group, they proudly advertised their work on this caravan.
Since posting a link here I am now censored from that website - security exceptions blah
blah.
Not local globalist groups but US based groups or cutouts are the organizers of the
caravan.
But my hunch is that the trail ends with a one or more local groups that are known to
people in the area. These poor people basically had to be sold a 'bill of goods'. That's
difficult unless you are known/trusted (have a "brand" like Coca-Cola).
There would be several intermediary groups. Maybe a large in-country charity with US
connections? And one or more groups outside the country (US, Mexico, even EU) that are
connected to / get funding and direction from a major US group.
Let's face it, whoever was behind this would not want the caravan to be connected to back
to group with US political connections. And it's probably unlikely that we will find any
'smoking gun' that does that.
The list of Democratic Party-connected organizations that might have originated the
idea of a caravan from Central America is small. I surmise Clinton Global Initiative because
they would have the requisite connections and blaming Soros seems to easy and convenient. But
Soros is also rumored to be behind support for European migrants so it's certainly
possible.
It really the same reasoning that led b to suspect that it was CIA/MI6 that foiled
assassination plot in Denmark, not Mossad.
"... The Democratic Party split into a four-headed monster comprised of Wall Street patrons seeking favors, war hawks and their corporate allies looking for new global rumbles, the permanent bureaucracy looking to always expand itself, and the various ethnic and sexual minorities whose needs and grievances are serviced by that bureaucracy. It's the last group that has become the party's most public face while the party's other activities – many of them sinister -- remain at least partially concealed. ..."
"... the Republicans are being forced to engage on some real issues, such as the need for a coherent and effective immigration policy and the need to redefine formal trade relations. (Other issues like the insane system of medical racketeering and the deadly racket of the college loan industry just skate along on thin ice. And then, of course, there's the national debt and all its grotesque outgrowths.) ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has become the party of bad ideas and bad faith, starting with the position that "diversity and inclusion" means shutting down free speech, an unforgivable transgression against common sense and common decency. It's a party that lies even more systematically than Mr. Trump, and does so knowingly (as when Google execs say they "Do no Evil"). Its dirty secret is that it relishes coercion, it likes pushing people around, telling them what to think and how to act. Its idea of "social justice" is a campus kangaroo court, where due process of law is suspended. And it is deeply corrupt, with good old-fashioned grift, new-fashioned gross political misconduct in federal law enforcement, and utter intellectual depravity in higher education. ..."
"... I hope that the party is shoved into an existential crisis and is forced to confront its astounding dishonesty. I hope that the process prompts them to purge their leadership across the board. ..."
Back in the last century, when this was a different country, the Democrats were the "smart"
party and the Republicans were the "stupid" party.
How did that work?
Well, back then the Democrats represented a broad middle class, with a base of factory
workers, many of them unionized, and the party had to be smart, especially in the courts, to
overcome the natural advantages of the owner class.
In contrast, the Republicans looked like a claque of country club drunks who staggered
home at night to sleep on their moneybags. Bad optics, as we say nowadays.
The Democrats also occupied the moral high ground as the champion of the little guy. If not
for the Dems, factory workers would be laboring twelve hours a day and children would still be
maimed in the machinery. Once the relationship between business and labor was settled in the
1950s, the party moved on to a new crusade on even loftier moral high ground: civil rights,
aiming to correct arrant and long-lived injustices against downtrodden black Americans. That
was a natural move, considering America's self-proclaimed post-war status as the world's Beacon
of Liberty. It had to be done and a political consensus that included Republicans got it done.
Consensus was still possible.
The Dems built their fortress on that high ground and fifty years later they find themselves
prisoners in it. The factory jobs all vamoosed overseas. The middle class has been pounded into
penury and addiction.
The Democratic Party split into a four-headed monster comprised of Wall Street patrons
seeking favors, war hawks and their corporate allies looking for new global rumbles, the
permanent bureaucracy looking to always expand itself, and the various ethnic and sexual
minorities whose needs and grievances are serviced by that bureaucracy. It's the last group
that has become the party's most public face while the party's other activities – many of
them sinister -- remain at least partially concealed.
The Republican Party has, at least, sobered up some after getting blindsided by Trump and
Trumpism. Like a drunk out of rehab, it's attempting to get a life. Two years in, the party
marvels at Mr. Trump's audacity, despite his obvious lack of savoir faire. And despite a
longstanding lack of political will to face the country's problems,the Republicans are being
forced to engage on some real issues, such as the need for a coherent and effective immigration
policy and the need to redefine formal trade relations. (Other issues like the insane system of
medical racketeering and the deadly racket of the college loan industry just skate along on
thin ice. And then, of course, there's the national debt and all its grotesque outgrowths.)
Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has become the party of bad ideas and bad faith, starting
with the position that "diversity and inclusion" means shutting down free speech, an
unforgivable transgression against common sense and common decency. It's a party that lies even
more systematically than Mr. Trump, and does so knowingly (as when Google execs say they "Do no
Evil"). Its dirty secret is that it relishes coercion, it likes pushing people around, telling
them what to think and how to act. Its idea of "social justice" is a campus kangaroo court,
where due process of law is suspended. And it is deeply corrupt, with good old-fashioned grift,
new-fashioned gross political misconduct in federal law enforcement, and utter intellectual
depravity in higher education.
I hope that Democrats lose as many congressional and senate seats as possible.I hope that
the party is shoved into an existential crisis and is forced to confront its astounding
dishonesty. I hope that the process prompts them to purge their leadership across the board. If
there is anything to salvage in this organization, I hope it discovers aims and principles that
are unrecognizable from its current agenda of perpetual hysteria. But if the party actually
blows up and disappears, as the Whigs did a hundred and fifty years ago, I will be content. Out
of the terrible turbulence, maybe something better will be born.
Or, there's the possibility that the dregs of a defeated Democratic Party will just go
batshit crazy and use the last of its mojo to incite actual sedition. Of course, there's also a
distinct possibility that the Dems will take over congress, in which case they'll ramp up an
even more horrific three-ring-circus of political hysteria and persecution that will make the
Spanish Inquisition look like a backyard barbeque. That will happen as the US enters the most
punishing financial train wreck in our history, an interesting recipe for epic political
upheaval.
The FBI is looking into claims that women have been asked to make false accusations of
sexual harassment against Special Counsel Robert Mueller in exchange for money -- but all may
not be as it seems. The alleged scheme aimed at Mueller, who has been investigating unproven
ties between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russia, came to the attention of his
office after several journalists and news outlets, including RT, were contacted by a woman
claiming that she had been approached by a man offering money if she would fabricate claims
against him.
13 days ago I received this tip alleging an attempt to pay off women to make up
accusations of sexual misconduct against Special Counsel Bob Mueller. Other reporters
received the same email. Now the Special Counsel's office is telling us they've referred the
matter to the FBI pic.twitter.com/oqh4Fnel5u
So intelligence agencies are now charged with protection of elections from undesirable candidates; looks like a feature of neofascism...
Notable quotes:
"... The Department of Justice admitted in a Friday court filing that the FBI used more than one "Confidential Human Source," (also known as informants, or spies ) to infiltrate the Trump campaign through former adviser Carter Page, reports the Daily Caller ..."
"... Included in Hardy's declaration is an acknowledgement that the FBI's spies were in addition to the UK's Christopher Steele - a former MI6 operative who assembled the controversial and largely unproven "Steel Dossier" which the DOJ/FBI used to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Page. ..."
"... In addition to Steele, the FBI also employed 73-year-old University of Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, a US citizen, political veteran and longtime US Intelligence asset enlisted by the FBI to befriend and spy on three members of the Trump campaign during the 2016 US election . Halper received over $1 million in contracts from the Pentagon during the Obama years, however nearly half of that coincided with the 2016 US election. ..."
"... In short, the FBI's acknowledgement that they used multiple spies reinforces Stone's assertion that he was targeted by one. ..."
"... Stefan Halper's infiltration of the Trump campaign corresponds with the two of the four targets of the FBI's Operation Crossfire Hurricane - in which the agency sent former counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and others to a London meeting in the Summer of 2016 with former Australian diplomat Alexander Downer - who says Papadopoulos drunkenly admitted to knowing that the Russians had Hillary Clinton's emails. ..."
"... Interestingly Downer - the source of the Papadopoulos intel, and Halper - who conned Papadopoulos months later, are linked through UK-based Haklyut & Co. an opposition research and intelligence firm similar to Fusion GPS - founded by three former British intelligence operatives in 1995 to provide the kind of otherwise inaccessible research for which select governments and Fortune 500 corporations pay huge sums ..."
"... Downer - a good friend of the Clintons, has been on their advisory board for a decade, while Halper is connected to Hakluyt through Director of U.S. operations Jonathan Clarke, with whom he has co-authored two books. (h/t themarketswork.com ) ..."
The Department of Justice admitted in a
Friday court filing that the FBI used
more than one "Confidential Human Source," (also known as informants, or spies ) to infiltrate the Trump campaign through former
adviser Carter Page, reports the Daily Caller
.
"The FBI has protected information that would identify the identities of other confidential sources who provided information or
intelligence to the FBI" as well as "information provided by those sources," wrote David M. Hardy, the head of the FBI's Record/Information
Dissemination Section (RIDS), in court
papers submitted Friday.
Hardy and Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys submitted the filings in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit
for the FBI's four applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against Page. The DOJ released heavily
redacted copies of the four FISA warrant applications on June 20, but USA Today reporter Brad Heath has sued for full copies of
the documents. - Daily Caller
Included in Hardy's declaration is an acknowledgement that the FBI's spies were in addition to the UK's Christopher Steele
- a former MI6 operative who assembled the controversial and largely unproven "Steel Dossier" which the DOJ/FBI used to obtain a
FISA warrant to spy on Page.
The DOJ says it redacted information in order to protect the identity of their confidential sources, which "includes nonpublic
information about and provided by Christopher Steele," reads the filing, " as well as information about and provided by other confidential
sources , all of whom were provided express assurances of confidentiality."
Government lawyers said the payment information is being withheld because disclosing specific payment amounts and dates could
"suggest the relative volume of information provided by a particular CHS. " That disclosure could potentially tip the source's
targets off and allow them to "take countermeasures, destroy or fabricate evidence, or otherwise act in a way to thwart the FBI's
activities." - Daily Caller
Steele, referred to as Source #1, met with several DOJ / FBI officials during the 2016 campaign, including husband and wife team
Bruce and Nellie Ohr. Bruce was the #4 official at the DOJ, while his CIA-linked wife Nellie was hired by Fusion GPS - who also employed
Steele, in the anti-Trump opposition research / counterintelligence effort funded by Trump's opponents, Hillary Clinton and the DNC.
In addition to Steele, the FBI also employed 73-year-old University of Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, a US citizen, political
veteran and longtime US Intelligence asset enlisted by the FBI to befriend and spy on three members of the Trump campaign during
the 2016 US election . Halper received over $1 million in contracts from the Pentagon during the Obama years, however nearly half
of that coincided with the 2016 US election.
Stefan Halper
Halper's involvement first came to light after the Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross reported on his involvement with Carter Page and
George Papadopoulos, another Trump campaign aide. Ross's reporting was confirmed by the NYT and WaPo .
In June, Trump campaign aides Roger Stone and Michael Caputo claimed that a meeting Stone took in late May, 2016 with a Russian
appears to have been an " FBI sting operation " in hindsight, following
bombshell reports in May
that the DOJ/FBI used a longtime FBI/CIA asset, Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, to perform espionage on the Trump campaign.
Roger Stone
When Stone arrived at the restaurant in Sunny Isles, he said, Greenberg was wearing a Make America Great Again T-shirt and
hat. On his phone, Greenberg pulled up a photo of himself with Trump at a rally, Stone said. -
WaPo
The meeting went nowhere - ending after Stone told Greenberg " You don't understand Donald Trump... He doesn't pay for anything
." The Post independently confirmed this account with Greenberg.
After the meeting, Stone received a text message from Caputo - a Trump campaign communications official who arranged the meeting
after Greenberg approached Caputo's Russian-immigrant business partner.
" How crazy is the Russian? " Caputo wrote according to a text message reviewed by The Post. Noting that Greenberg wanted "big"
money, Stone replied: "waste of time." -
WaPo
In short, the FBI's acknowledgement that they used multiple spies reinforces Stone's assertion that he was targeted by one.
Further down the rabbit hole
Stefan Halper's infiltration of the Trump campaign corresponds with the two of the four targets of the FBI's Operation Crossfire
Hurricane - in which the agency sent former counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and others to a London meeting in the Summer of
2016 with former Australian diplomat Alexander Downer - who says Papadopoulos drunkenly admitted to knowing that the Russians had
Hillary Clinton's emails.
Interestingly Downer - the source of the Papadopoulos intel, and Halper - who conned Papadopoulos months later, are linked
through
UK-based Haklyut & Co. an opposition research and intelligence firm similar to Fusion GPS - founded by three former British intelligence
operatives in 1995 to provide the kind of otherwise inaccessible research for which select governments and Fortune 500 corporations
pay huge sums .
Alexander Downer
Downer - a good friend of the Clintons, has been on their advisory board for a decade, while Halper is connected to Hakluyt
through Director of U.S. operations Jonathan Clarke, with whom he has
co-authored two books. (h/t
themarketswork.com )
Alexander Downer, the Australian High Commissioner to the U.K. Downer said that in May 2016, Papadopoulos told him during a
conversation in London about Russians having Clinton emails.
That information was passed to other Australian government officials before making its way to U.S. officials. FBI agents flew
to London a day after "Crossfire Hurricane" started in order to interview Downer.
It is still not known what Downer says about his interaction with Papadopoulos, which TheDCNF is told occurred around May 10,
2016.
Also interesting via
Lifezette - " Downer is not the only Clinton fan in Hakluyt. Federal contribution records show several of the firm's U.S. representatives
made large contributions to two of Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign organizations ."
Halper contacted Papadopoulos on September 2, 2016 according to The Caller - flying him out to London to work on a policy paper
on energy issues in Turkey, Cyprus and Israel - for which he was ultimately paid $3,000. Papadopoulos met Halper several times during
his stay, "having dinner one night at the Travellers Club, and Old London gentleman's club frequented by international diplomats."
They were accompanied by Halper's assistant, a Turkish woman named Azra Turk. Sources familiar with Papadopoulos's claims about
his trip say Turk flirted with him during their encounters and later on in email exchanges .
...
Emails were also brought up during Papadopoulos's meetings with Halper , though not by the Trump associate, according to sources
familiar with his version of events. T he sources say that during conversation, Halper randomly brought up Russians and emails.
Papadopoulos has told people close to him that he grew suspicious of Halper because of the remark. -
Daily Caller
Meanwhile, Halper targeted Carter Page two days after Page returned from a trip to Moscow.
Page's visit to Moscow, where he spoke at the New Economic School on July 8, 2016, is said to have piqued the FBI's interest
even further . Page and Halper spoke on the sidelines of an election-themed symposium held at Cambridge days later. Former Secretary
of State Madeleine Albright and Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6 and a close colleague of Halper's, spoke at the event.
...
Page would enter the media spotlight in September 2016 after Yahoo! News reported that the FBI was investigating whether he
met with two Kremlin insiders during that Moscow trip.
It would later be revealed that the Yahoo! article was based on unverified information from Christopher Steele, the former
British spy who wrote the dossier regarding the Trump campaign . Steele's report, which was funded by Democrats, also claimed
Page worked with Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort on the collusion conspiracy. -
Daily Caller
A third target of Halper's was Trump campaign co-chairman Sam Clovis, whose name was revealed by the Washington Post on Friday.
In late August 2016, the professor reached out to Clovis, asking if they could meet somewhere in the Washington area, according
to Clovis's attorney, Victoria Toensing.
"He said he wanted to be helpful to the campaign" and lend the Trump team his foreign-policy experience, Toensing said.
Clovis, an Iowa political figure and former Air Force officer, met the source and chatted briefly with him over coffee, on
either Aug. 31 or Sept. 1, at a hotel cafe in Crystal City, she said. Most of the discussion involved him asking Clovis his views
on China.
"It was two academics discussing China," Toensing said. " Russia never came up. " -
WaPo
Meanwhile, Bruce Ohr is still employed by the Department of Justice, and Fusion GPS continues its hunt for Trump dirt after having
partnered with former Feinstein aide and ex-FBI counterintelligence agent, Dan Jones.
It's been nearly three years since an army of professional spies was unleashed on Trump - and he's still the President, Steele
and Downer notwithstanding.
by Tyler Durden
Thu, 10/18/2018 - 12:50 1.3K SHARES
The noose appears to be tightening further around the law-less behaviors of the Obama
administration in their frantic efforts to protect former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
from lawsuits seeking information about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private
email server and her handling of the 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi,
Libya.
As Fox News reports , the transparency group Judicial Watch initially sued the State
Department in 2014, seeking information about the response to the Benghazi attack after the
government didn't respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Other parallel
lawsuits by Judicial Watch are probing issues like Clinton's server , whose existence was
revealed during the course of the litigation.
The State Department had immediately moved to dismiss Judicial Watch's first lawsuit, but
U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth (who was appointed to the bench by President Ronald
Reagan) denied the request to dismiss the lawsuit at the time, and on Friday, he said he was
happy he did, charging that State Department officials had intentionally misled him because
other key documents, including those on Clinton's email server, had not in fact been
produced.
"It was clear to me that at the time that I ruled initially, that false statements were
made to me by career State Department officials , and it became more clear through discovery
that the information that I was provided was clearly false regarding the adequacy of the
search and this – what we now know turned out to be the Secretary's email system."
"I don't know the details of what kind of IG inquiry there was into why these career
officials at the State Department would have filed false affidavits with me. I don't know the
details of why the Justice Department lawyers did not know false affidavits were being filed
with me, but I was very relieved that I did not accept them and that I allowed limited
discovery into what had happened."
In a somewhat stunningly frank exchange with Justice Department lawyer Robert Prince, the
judge pressed the issue, accusing Prince of using "doublespeak" and "playing the same word
games [Clinton] played."
That "was not true," the judge said, referring to the State Department's assurances in a
sworn declaration that it had searched all relevant documents.
"It was a lie."
Additionally,
Fox notes that Judge Lamberth said he was "shocked" and "dumbfounded" when he learned that
FBI had granted immunity to former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills during its investigation
into the use of Clinton's server, according to a court transcript of his remarks.
"I had myself found that Cheryl Mills had committed perjury and lied under oath in a
published opinion I had issued in a Judicial Watch case where I found her unworthy of belief,
and I was quite shocked to find out she had been given immunity in -- by the Justice
Department in the Hillary Clinton email case."
On Friday, Lamberth said he did not know Mills had been granted immunity until he "read the
IG report and learned that and that she had accompanied [Clinton] to her interview."
We give the last word to Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, who was present at the
hearing, as he pushed the White House for answers.
"President Trump should ask why his State Department is still refusing to answer basic
questions about the Clinton email scandal," Fitton said.
"Hillary Clinton's and the State Department's email cover up abused the FOIA, the courts,
and the American people's right to know."
Perhaps the deep state remains in control behind the scenes after all (consider the recent
back-pedal on declassifying the Russian probe documents)?
The vast regime of
torture created by the Bush administration after the 9/11 attacks
continues to haunt
America.
The political class and most of the media have never dealt honestly with the
profound constitutional corruption that such practices inflicted. Instead, torture enablers are
permitted to pirouette as heroic figures on the flimsiest evidence.
Former FBI chief James Comey is the latest beneficiary of the media's "no fault" scoring
on the torture scandal.
In his media interviews for his new memoir,
A Higher Loyalty:
Truth, Lies, and Leadership
, Comey is portraying himself as a Boy Scout who sought only to do
good things. But his record is far more damning than most Americans realize.
Comey continues to use memos from his earlier government gigs to whitewash all of the
abuses he sanctified.
"Here I stand; I can do no other," Comey told George W. Bush in 2004
when Bush pressured Comey, who was then Deputy Attorney General, to approve an unlawful
anti-terrorist policy. Comey was quoting a line supposedly uttered by Martin Luther in 1521, when
he told Emperor Charles V and an assembly of Church officials that he would not recant his sweeping
criticisms of the Catholic Church.
The American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Watch, and other organizations did excellent
reports prior to Comey's becoming FBI chief that laid out his role in the torture scandal. Such
hard facts, however, have long since vanished from the media radar screen.
MSNBC host
Chris Matthews recently declared, "James Comey made his bones by standing up against torture. He
was a made man before Trump came along."
Washington Post columnist Fareed Zakaria, in
a column declaring that Americans should be "deeply grateful" to lawyers such as Comey, declared,
"The Bush administration wanted to claim that its 'enhanced interrogation techniques' were lawful.
Comey believed they were not .
So Comey pushed back as much as he could.
"
Martin Luther risked death to fight against what he considered the scandalous religious
practices of his time. Comey, a top Bush administration policymaker, found a safer way to oppose
the worldwide secret U.S. torture regime widely considered a heresy against American values:
he approved brutal practices and then wrote some memos and emails fretting about the
optics.
Losing Sleep
Comey became deputy attorney general in late 2003 and "had oversight of the legal
justification used to authorize" key Bush programs in the war on terror,
as a Bloomberg
News analysis noted. At that time, the Bush White House was pushing the Justice Department to again
sign off on an array of extreme practices that had begun shortly after the 9/11 attacks. A 2002
Justice Department memo had leaked out that declared that the federal Anti-Torture Act "would be
unconstitutional if it impermissibly encroached on the President's constitutional power to conduct
a military campaign." The same Justice Department policy spurred a secret 2003 Pentagon document on
interrogation policies that openly encouraged contempt for the law: "Sometimes the greater good for
society will be accomplished by violating the literal language of the criminal law."
Photos had also leaked from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq showing the stacking of naked
prisoners with bags over their heads, mock electrocution from a wire connected to a man's penis,
guard dogs on the verge of ripping into naked men, and grinning U.S. male and female soldiers
celebrating the sordid degradation.
Legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh
published extracts in the New Yorker from a March 2004 report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba that
catalogued other U.S. interrogation abuses: "Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric
liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle
and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and
perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with
threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee."
The Bush administration responded to the revelations with a torrent of falsehoods,
complemented by attacks on the character of critics.
Bush declared, "Let me make very
clear the position of my government and our country . The values of this country are such that
torture is not a part of our soul and our being." Bush had the audacity to run for reelection as
the anti-torture candidate, boasting that "for decades, Saddam tormented and tortured the people of
Iraq. Because we acted, Iraq is free and a sovereign nation." He was hammering this theme despite a
confidential CIA Inspector General report warning that post–9/11 CIA interrogation methods might
violate the international Convention Against Torture.
James Comey had the opportunity to condemn the outrageous practices and pledge that the
Justice Department would cease providing the color of law to medieval-era abuses. Instead, Comey
merely repudiated the controversial 2002 memo.
Speaking to the media in a
not-for-attribution session on June 22, 2004, he declared that the 2002 memo was "overbroad,"
"abstract academic theory," and "legally unnecessary." He helped oversee crafting a new memo with
different legal footing to justify the same interrogation methods.
Comey twice gave explicit approval for waterboarding
, which sought to break
detainees with near-drowning. This practice had been recognized as a war crime by the U.S.
government since the Spanish-American War. A practice that was notorious when inflicted by the
Spanish Inquisition was adopted by the CIA with the Justice Department's blessing. (When Barack
Obama nominated Comey to be FBI chief in 2013, he testified that he had belatedly recognized that
waterboarding was actually torture.)
Comey wrote in his memoir that he was losing sleep over concern about
Bush-administration torture polices. But losing sleep was not an option for detainees, because
Comey approved sleep deprivation as an interrogation technique.
Detainees could be
forcibly kept awake for 180 hours until they confessed their crimes. How did that work? At Abu
Ghraib, one FBI agent reported seeing a detainee "handcuffed to a railing with a nylon sack on his
head and a shower curtain draped around him, being slapped by a soldier to keep him awake."
Numerous FBI agents protested the extreme interrogation methods they saw at Guantanamo and
elsewhere, but their warnings were ignored.
Comey also approved "wall slamming"
-- which, as law professor David Cole wrote,
meant that detainees could be thrown against a wall up to 30 times. Comey also signed off on the
CIA's using "interrogation" methods such as facial slaps, locking detainees in small boxes for 18
hours, and forced nudity. When the secret Comey memo approving those methods finally became public
in 2009, many Americans were aghast -- and relieved that the Obama administration had repudiated
Bush policies.
When it came to opposing torture, Comey's version of "Here I stand" had more loopholes
than a reverse-mortgage contract.
Though Comey in 2005 approved each of 13 controversial
extreme interrogation methods, he objected to combining multiple methods on one detainee.
The Torture Guy
In his memoir, Comey relates that his wife told him,
"Don't be the torture guy!"
Comey apparently feels that he satisfied her dictate by writing memos that opposed
combining multiple extreme interrogation methods. And since the vast majority of the American media
agree with him, he must be right.
Comey's cheerleaders seem uninterested in the damning evidence that has surfaced since
his time as a torture enabler in the Bush administration.
In 2014, the Senate Intelligence
Committee finally released a massive report on the CIA torture regime -- including death resulting
from hypothermia, rape-like rectal feeding of detainees, compelling detainees to stand long periods
on broken legs, and dozens of cases where innocent people were pointlessly brutalized.
Psychologists aided the torture regime, offering hints on how to destroy the will and resistance of
prisoners. From the start, the program was protected by phalanxes of lying federal officials.
When he first campaigned for president, Barack Obama pledged to vigorously investigate the Bush
torture regime for criminal violations. Instead, the Obama administration proffered one excuse
after another to suppress the vast majority of the evidence, pardon all U.S. government torturers,
and throttle all torture-related lawsuits. The only CIA official to go to prison for the torture
scandal was courageous whistleblower John Kiriakou. Kiriakou's fate illustrates that telling the
truth is treated as the most unforgivable atrocity in Washington.
If Comey had resigned in 2004 or 2005 to protest the torture techniques he now claims to
abhor, he would deserve some of the praise he is now receiving.
Instead, he remained in
the Bush administration but wrote an email summarizing his objections, declaring that "it was my
job to protect the department and the A.G. [Attorney General] and that I could not agree to this
because it was wrong." A 2009 New York Times analysis noted that Comey and two colleagues "have
largely escaped criticism [for approving torture] because they raised questions about interrogation
and the law." In Washington, writing emails is "close enough for government work" to confer
sainthood.
When Comey finally exited the Justice Department in August 2005 to become a lavishly paid senior
vice president for Lockheed Martin, he proclaimed in a farewell speech that protecting the Justice
Department's "reservoir" of "trust and credibility" requires "vigilance" and "an unerring
commitment to truth." But he had perpetuated policies that shattered the moral credibility of both
the Justice Department and the U.S. government. He failed to heed Martin Luther's admonition, "You
are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say."
Comey is likely to go to his grave without paying any price for his role in
perpetuating appalling U.S. government abuses.
It is far more important to recognize
the profound danger that torture and the exoneration of torturers pose to the United States. "No
free government can survive that is not based on the supremacy of the law," is one of the mottoes
chiseled into the façade of Justice Department headquarters. Unfortunately, politicians nowadays
can choose which laws they obey and which laws they trample.
And Americans are supposed
to presume that we still have the rule of law as long as politicians and bureaucrats deny their
crimes.
Tags
Comey was the hand-picked schlub that was placed in a position of
power to be a firewall... Nothing more and he has been rewarded
handsomely for playing this role... One can only hope that one day he
becomes a liability to his handlers and that there is a pack of
hungry, wild dogs that will rips him apart... Hopefully on PPV...
The Absolute, Complete,
Open, in our Faces Tyrannical Lawlessness began.
Unabated. Like a malignant Cancer.
Growing to Gargantuan proportions.
Irrefutable proof of the absolute, complete, open Lawlessness by
the Criminal Fraud UNITED STATES, CORP. INC., its CEO & Board of
Directors.
1. Torture .
2. WMD lie to the American People.
3. Lying the American People into War.
4. Illegal Wars of Aggression.
5. Arming, funding & training of terror organizations by the State
Dept. / CIA & members of CONgress.
6. BENGAZI
7. McCain meets with ISIS (Pics available).
8. Clapper lies to CONgress.
9. Brennan lies to CONgress & taps Congressional phones / computers.
10. Lynch meets Clinton on tarmac.
11. Fast & Furious deals with the Sinaloa Cartel.
12. Holder in Contempt of CONgress.
13. CIA drug / gun running / money laundering through the tax payer
bailed out TBTFB.
14. Illegal NSA Spying on the American People.
15. DNC Federal Election Crime / Debbie Wasserman Shultz.
16. Hillary Clinton email Treason.
17. Clinton Foundation pay to play RICO.
18. Anthony Weiner 650,000 #PizzaGate Pedo Crimes.
19. Secret Iran deal.
20. Lynch takes the Fifth when asked about Iran deal
21. FBI murders LaVoy Finicum
At the current moment we're completely Lawless.
We have been for quite some time. In the past, their Criminality
was "Hidden in plain view."
Now it's out in the open, in your face Criminality & Lawlessness.
Complete debachary.
Thing is, the bar & precedent has been set so high among these
Criminals I doubt we will ever see another person arrested in our
lifetime.
Comey thinks he is above the law. He and his associates feel they are
not bound by the rules and laws of the US, they are the ELITE. Comey
should go to JAIL, HARD CORE not Country Club, along with his
associates, Yates, Rosenstein, Brennan, McCabe, Stzrock, Paige and
etc. Lock him up
"... Yet last year, notably without success, the Clinton campaign devoted plenty of its messaging to the Trump-Russia theme. As the "Shattered" book notes, "Hillary would raise the issue herself repeatedly in debates" with Trump. For example, in one of those debates she said: "We have seventeen – seventeen ..."
"... In early spring, the former communications director of the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri, summed up the post-election approach neatly in a Washington Post ..."
"... The inability of top Clinton operatives to identify with the non-wealthy is so tenacious that they still want to assume "the public will be with us" the more they talk about Russia Russia Russia. Imagine sitting at a kitchen table with average-income voters who are worried sick about their financial futures – and explaining to them that the biggest threat they face is from the Kremlin rather than from US government policies that benefit the rich and corporate America at their expense ..."
"... One of the most promising progressives to arrive in Congress this year, Rep. Jamie Raskin from the Maryland suburbs of D.C., promptly drank what might be called the "Klinton Kremlin Kool-Aid." His official website features an article about a town-hall meeting that quotes him describing Trump as a "hoax perpetrated by the Russians on the United States of America. ..."
"... Like hundreds of other Democrats on Capitol Hill, Raskin is on message with talking points from the party leadership. That came across in an email that he recently sent to supporters for a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fundraiser. It said: "We pull the curtain back further each day on the Russian Connection, forcing National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to resign, Attorney General Sessions to recuse, and America to reflect on who's calling the shots in Washington. ..."
A new book about Hillary Clinton's last campaign for president – Shattered
, by journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes – has gotten a lot of publicity since it appeared two weeks ago. But major
media have ignored a revealing passage near the end of the book.
Soon after Clinton's defeat, top strategists decided where to place the blame. "Within 24 hours of her concession speech," the
authors report, campaign manager Robby Mook and campaign chair John Podesta "assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters
to engineer the case that the election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering
the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of
the argument."
Six months later, that centerpiece of the argument is rampant – with claims often lurching from unsubstantiated overreach to outright
demagoguery.
A lavishly-funded example is the "Moscow Project," a mega-spin effort that surfaced in midwinter as a project of the Center for
American Progress Action Fund. It's led by Neera Tanden, a
self-described "loyal soldier" for Clinton
who also runs the Center for American Progress (where she succeeded Podesta as president). The Center's board includes several billionaires.
The "Moscow Project" is expressly inclined to go over the top, aiming to help normalize ultra-partisan conjectures as supposedly
factual. And so, the homepage of the "Moscow Project" prominently
declares: "Given Trump's obedience to Vladimir Putin and the deep ties between his advisers and the Kremlin, Russia's actions are
a significant and ongoing cause for concern."
Let's freeze-frame how that sentence begins: "Given Trump's obedience to Vladimir Putin." It's a jaw-dropping claim; a preposterous
smear.
Echoes of such tactics can be heard from many Democrats in Congress and from allied media. Along the way, no outlet has been more
in sync than MSNBC, and no one on the network has been more promotional of the Russia-runs-Trump meme than Rachel Maddow,
tirelessly promoting the line and sometimes connecting dots in
Glenn Beck fashion
to the point of journalistic malpractice.
Yet last year, notably without success, the Clinton campaign devoted plenty of its messaging to the Trump-Russia theme. As
the "Shattered" book notes, "Hillary would raise the issue herself repeatedly in debates" with Trump. For example, in one of those
debates she said: "We have seventeen – seventeen – intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded
that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin and they are designed to influence
our election ."
After Trump's election triumph, the top tier of Clinton strategists quickly moved to seize as much of the narrative as they could,
surely mindful of what George Orwell observed: "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the
past." After all, they hardly wanted the public discourse to dwell on Clinton's lack of voter appeal because of her deep ties to
Wall Street. Political recriminations would be much better focused on the Russian government.
In early spring, the former communications director of the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri, summed up
the post-election approach neatly in a Washington Post opinion
article : "If we make plain that what Russia has done is nothing less than an attack on our republic, the public will be with
us. And the more we talk about it, the more they'll be with us."
The inability of top Clinton operatives to identify with the non-wealthy is so tenacious that they still want to assume "the public
will be with us" the more they talk about Russia Russia Russia. Imagine sitting at a kitchen table with average-income voters who
are worried sick about their financial futures – and explaining to them that the biggest threat they face is from the Kremlin rather
than from US government policies that benefit the rich and corporate America at their expense.
Tone deaf hardly describes the severe political impairment of those who insist that denouncing Russia will be key to the Democratic
Party's political fortunes in 2018 and 2020. But the top-down pressure for conformity among elected Democrats is enormous and effective.
One of the most promising progressives to arrive in Congress this year, Rep. Jamie Raskin from the Maryland suburbs of D.C.,
promptly drank what might be called the "Klinton Kremlin Kool-Aid." His official website features an
article about a town-hall meeting that quotes him describing Trump as a "hoax perpetrated by the Russians on the United States
of America. "
Like hundreds of other Democrats on Capitol Hill, Raskin is on message with talking points from the party leadership. That
came across in an email that he recently sent to supporters for a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fundraiser. It said:
"We pull the curtain back further each day on the Russian Connection, forcing National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to resign,
Attorney General Sessions to recuse, and America to reflect on who's calling the shots in Washington. "
You might think that Wall Street, big banks, hugely funded lobbyists, fat-check campaign contributors, the fossil fuel industry,
insurance companies, military contractors and the like are calling the shots in Washington. Maybe you didn't get the memo.
"... James Baker, a former top FBI lawyer, told congressional investigators on Wednesday that the Russia probe was handled in an "abnormal fashion" and was rife with "political bias" according to Fox News , citing two Republican lawmakers present for the closed-door deposition. ..."
"... Lawmakers did not provide any specifics about the interview, citing a confidentiality agreement signed with Baker and his attorneys, however they said that he was cooperative and forthcoming about the beginnings of the Russia probe in 2016, as well as the FISA surveillance warrant application to spy on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page. ..."
"... According to Fox , Baker "is at the heart of surveillance abuse allegations, and his deposition lays the groundwork for next week's planned closed-door interview with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein." ..."
James Baker, a former top FBI lawyer, told congressional investigators on Wednesday that the
Russia probe was handled in an "abnormal fashion" and was rife with "political bias" according
to
Fox News , citing two Republican lawmakers present for the closed-door deposition.
"Some of the things that were shared were explosive in nature," Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C.,
told Fox News. "This witness confirmed that things were done in an abnormal fashion. That's
extremely troubling."
Meadows claimed the "abnormal" handling of the probe into alleged coordination between
Russian officials and the Trump presidential campaign was "a reflection of inherent bias that
seems to be evident in certain circles." The FBI agent who opened the Russia case, Peter
Strzok, FBI lawyer Lisa Page and others sent politically charged texts, and have since left
the bureau. -
Fox News
Baker, who worked closely with former FBI Director James Comey, left the bureau earlier this
year.
Lawmakers did not provide any specifics about the interview, citing a confidentiality
agreement signed with Baker and his attorneys, however they said that he was cooperative and
forthcoming about the beginnings of the Russia probe in 2016, as well as the FISA surveillance
warrant application to spy on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.
"During the time that the FBI was putting -- that DOJ and FBI were putting together the
FISA (surveillance warrant) during the time prior to the election -- there was another source
giving information directly to the FBI, which we found the source to be pretty explosive,"
said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.
Meadows and Jordan would not elaborate on the source, or answer questions about whether
the source was a reporter. They did stress that the source who provided information to the
FBI's Russia case was not previously known to congressional investigators. -
Fox News
According to Fox , Baker "is at the heart of surveillance abuse allegations, and his
deposition lays the groundwork for next week's planned closed-door interview with Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein."
As the FBI's top lawyer, baker helped secure the FISA warrant on Page, along with three
subsequent renewals .
Rosenstein is scheduled to appear on Capitol Hill on October 11 for a closed-door interview,
according to Republican House sources, "not a briefing to leadership," and comes on the heels
of a New York Times report that said Rosenstein had discussed secretly recording President
Trump and removing him from office using the 25th Amendment.
Rosenstein and Trump pushed off a scheduled meeting into limbo amid speculation of his
impending firing.
White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters Wednesday the meeting remains in
limbo.
But in blaming "revenge on behalf of the Clintons" for the sexual misconduct allegations
against him, the Supreme Court nominee is drawing new attention to his time on the Kenneth
Starr team investigating Bill Clinton. And in doing so, he's shown he can deliver a Trump-like
broadside against detractors even if it casts him in a potentially partisan light.
As a young lawyer, Kavanaugh played a key role on Starr's team investigating sexual
misconduct by then-President Bill Clinton, helping to shape one of the most salacious chapters
in modern political history.
Kavanaugh spent a good part of the mid-1990s jetting back and forth to Little Rock,
Arkansas, digging into the Clintons' background, according to documents that were made public
as part of his nomination to the Supreme Court
An interesting hypothesis. CIA definitly became a powerful political force in the USA -- a rogue political force which starting from JFK assasination tries to control who is elected to important offices. But in truth Cavanaugh is a pro-CIA candidate so to speak. So why CIA would try to derail him.
Notable quotes:
"... I think I've figured out why they had to go to couples counseling about an outside door and why she came up with claim that she needed an outside bedroom door because she'd been assaulted 37 years ago. The Palo Alto building codes for single family homes were created to make sure single family homes remained single family and weren't chopped up into apartments. ..."
"... An outside door into a master bedroom with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment ..."
"... So she wants the door. Husband says waste of money and trouble. Contractor says call me when you're ready. So they go to counseling Husband explains why the door's unreasonable. Therapist asks wife why she " really deep down" needs the door. Wife makes up the story about attempted rape 35 years ago flashbacks If only there were 2 doors in that imaginary bedroom she could have escaped. ..."
"... Kacanaugh was nominated. CIA searched for sex problems in his working life. Found nothing Searched law school and college found nothing. In desperation searched high school found nothing. Searched CIA personnel records which go back to grade school and found one of their own employees was about Kavanaugh's age and attended a high school near his and the students socialized. ..."
"... She's 3rd generation CIA. grandfather assistant director. Father CIA contractor who managed CIA unofficial band accounts. And she runs a CIA recruitment office. ..."
I think I've figured out why they had to go to couples counseling about an outside door and why she came up with claim
that she needed an outside bedroom door because she'd been assaulted 37 years ago. The Palo Alto building codes for single family
homes were created to make sure single family homes remained single family and weren't chopped up into apartments.
Outside doors enter public areas kitchen sunroom living rooms not bedrooms. An outside door into a master bedroom with
attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment
There's a unit It's a stove 2 ft counter space and sink. The stoves electric and plugs into an ordinary household electricity.
It's backed against the bathroom wall. Break through the wall, connect the pipes running water for the sink. Add an outside door
and it's a small apartment.
Assume they didn't want to make it an apartment just a master bedroom. Usually the contractor pulls the permits routinely.
But an outside bedroom door is complicated. The permits will cost more. It might require an exemption and a hearing They night
need a lawyer. And they might not get the permit.
So she wants the door. Husband says waste of money and trouble. Contractor says call me when you're ready. So they go to
counseling Husband explains why the door's unreasonable. Therapist asks wife why she " really deep down" needs the door. Wife
makes up the story about attempted rape 35 years ago flashbacks If only there were 2 doors in that imaginary bedroom she could
have escaped.
Kacanaugh was nominated. CIA searched for sex problems in his working life. Found nothing Searched law school and college
found nothing. In desperation searched high school found nothing. Searched CIA personnel records which go back to grade school
and found one of their own employees was about Kavanaugh's age and attended a high school near his and the students socialized.
She's 3rd generation CIA. grandfather assistant director. Father CIA contractor who managed CIA unofficial band accounts.
And she runs a CIA recruitment office.
I also think that former AG Harris should lead off her questioning with "When
investigating President Clinton, did you ask Monica Lewinsky under oath if Mr. Clinton came
in her mouth?"
Then start questioning his sexual history. I'm curious if he ever had sex with two women.
Or a guy and a woman.
What Hillary Knew
Hillary Clinton once tweeted that "every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard,
believed, and supported." What about Juanita Broaddrick?
The letter from the Democrats on the Gang of 8 to Coats, Rosenstein and Wray is
something. Asking them to be insubordinate by refusing the order of the President to
release unredacted documents & communications. What were the verbal assurances these
apparatchiks gave the Democrats? Did they agree to withhold information from their boss?
As Col. Lang has stated numerous times the President is the ultimate classification
authority except for atomic secrets. Coats, Rosenstein & Wray I'm sure know that. If
they disagree with his declassification order they can always resign. Insubordination is
a fireable offense.
Journalist Sara Carter told Sean Hannity during his Wednesday radio show that the FBI has
two sets of records in the Russia investigation, and that "certain people above Peter Strzok
and above Lisa Page" were aware of it - implicating former FBI Director James Comey and his #2,
Andrew McCabe.
Hannity : Sara, I'm hearing it gets worse than this–that there is potentially out
there–if you will, two sets of record among the upper echelon of the FBI–one that
was real one that was made for appearances . Is there any truth to this?
Carter : Absolutely, Sean . With the number of sources that I have been speaking with as
well as some others that there is evidence indicating that the FBI had separate sets of
books.
I will not name names until all of the evidence is out there, but there were certain
people above Peter Strzok and above Lisa Page that were aware of this . I also believe that
there are people within the FBI that have actually turned on their former employers and are
possibly even testifying and reporting what happened inside the FBI to both the Inspector
General and possibly even a Grand Jury.
That's a bold statement but cancerous growth is typical of any intelligence agency, especially CIA: all of them want more and more
budget money and try to influence both domestic and foreign policy. That's signs of cancel.
FBI actually has dual mandate: suppressing political dissent (STASI functions) and fight with criminals and organized crime.
The fact the President does not control his own administration, especially State Department isclearly visible now. He is more like
a ceremonial figura that is allowed to rant on Twitter, but can't change any thing of substance in forign policy. and Is a typucal Repiblican
in domenstic policy, betraying the electorate like Obama did
Notable quotes:
"... Sessions recused himself from the "Russia Collusion" investigation. Now that it is known to have been an extension of Democratic election rigging, and DC bureaucratic "Resistance," he could be initiate a broad sweep investigation into Washington, DC based bureaucratic bias and corruption. ..."
Shifting from Sessions to the much-maligned FBI, Trump said the agency was "a cancer" and that uncovering deep-seated corruption
in the FBI may be remembered as the "crowning achievement" of his administration, per
the Hill .
"What we've done is a great service to the country, really," Trump said in a 45-minute, wide-ranging interview in the Oval
Office.
"I hope to be able put this up as one of my crowning achievements that I was able to ... expose something that is truly a cancer
in our country."
Moreover, Trump insisted that he never trusted former FBI Director James Comey, and that he had initially planned to fire Comey
shortly after the inauguration, but had been talked out of it by his aides.
Trump also said he regretted not firing former FBI Director James Comey immediately instead of waiting until May 2017, confirming
an account his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, gave Hill.TV earlier in the day that Trump was dismayed in 2016 by the way Comey handled
the Hillary Clinton email case and began discussing firing him well before he became president.
"If I did one mistake with Comey, I should have fired him before I got here. I should have fired him the day I won the primaries,"
Trump said. "I should have fired him right after the convention, say I don't want that guy. Or at least fired him the first day
on the job. ... I would have been better off firing him or putting out a statement that I don't want him there when I get there."
The FISA Court judges who approved the initial requests allowing the FBI to surveil employees of the Trump Campaign also came
in for some criticism, with Trump claiming they used "poor Carter Page, who nobody even knew, and who I feel very badly for...as
a foil...to surveil a candidate or the presidency of the United States." Trump added that he felt the judges had been "misled" by
the FBI.
He criticizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court's approval of the warrant that authorized surveillance
of Carter Page, a low-level Trump campaign aide, toward the end of the 2016 election, suggesting the FBI misled the court.
"They know this is one of the great scandals in the history of our country because basically what they did is, they used Carter
Page, who nobody even knew, who I feel very badly for, I think he's been treated very badly. They used Carter Page as a foil in
order to surveil a candidate for the presidency of the United States."
As for the judges on the secret intelligence court: "It looks to me just based on your reporting, that they have been misled,"
the president said, citing a series of columns in The Hill newspaper identifying shortcomings in the FBI investigation. "I mean
I don't think we have to go much further than to say that they've been misled."
"One of the things I'm disappointed in is that the judges in FISA didn't, don't seem to have done anything about it. I'm very
disappointed in that Now, I may be wrong because, maybe as we sit here and talk, maybe they're well into it. We just don't know
that because I purposely have not chosen to get involved," Trump said.
Trump continued the assault on Sessions during a brief conference with reporters Wednesday morning. When asked whether he was
planning to fire Sessions, Trump replied that "we're looking into lots of different things."
To be sure, Sessions has managed to hang on thus far. And if he can somehow manage to survive past Nov. 6, his fate will perversely
rest on the Democrats' success. Basically, if they wrest back control of the Senate (which, to be sure, is unlikely), Sessions chances
of staying on would rise dramatically. But then again, how much abuse can a man realistically endure before he decides that the costs
of staying outweigh the benefits of leaving?
DingleBarryObummer , 19 minutes ago
Sessions works for Trump, because Trump is running the uniparty russia-gate stormy-gate anti-trump show. Sessions was intentionally
placed there to stonewall and make sure the kabuki goes on. Rosenstein is a Trump appointee. This **** garners sympathy for him
as the persecuted underdog, rallies his base; and distracts from the obvious zio-bankster influence over his admin and his many
unfulfilled campaign promises. He's deceiving you. Why do you think Giuliani acts like such a buffoon? It's because that's what
he was hired for. All distractions and bullshit. He will not get impeached, Hillary is not going to jail, nothing will happen.
The zio-Banksters will continue to stay at the top of the pyramid, because that's who trump works for, NOT you and me.
"While Trump's fascination with the White House still burned within him [re: 2011], he also had The Apprentice to deal with--and
it wasn't as easy as you might think. He loved doing the show and was reluctant to give it up. At one point, he was actually thinking
of hosting it from the oval office if he made it all the way to the White House. He even discussed it with Stephen Burke, the
CEO at NBCUniversal, telling Burke he would reconsider running if the network was concerned about his candidacy." -Roger Stone
"To some people the notion of consciously playing power games-no matter how indirect-seems evil, asocial, a relic of the past.
They believe they can opt out of the game by behaving in ways that have nothing to do with power. You must beware of such people,
for while they express such opinions outwardly, they are often among the most adept players at power. They utilize strategies
that cleverly disguise the nature of the manipulation involved. These types, for example, will often display their weakness and
lack of power as a kind of moral virtue. But true powerlessness, without any motive of self-interest, would not publicize its
weakness to gain sympathy or respect. Making a show of one's weakness is actually a very effective strategy, subtle and deceptive,
in the game of power." -Robert Greene
Sparkey , 31 minutes ago
This is why the 'little' people love President 'The Donald' Trump, he says the things they would like to say, but have no platform
to speak from, Mushroom man The Donald has no fear he has got Mushroom power, and he has my support in what ever he does!
Secret Weapon , 43 minutes ago
Is Sessions a Deep State firewall? Starting to look that way.
TrustbutVerify , 48 minutes ago
Sessions recused himself from the "Russia Collusion" investigation. Now that it is known to have been an extension of Democratic
election rigging, and DC bureaucratic "Resistance," he could be initiate a broad sweep investigation into Washington, DC based
bureaucratic bias and corruption.
I suspect Sessions will last until after the mid-term elections. Then Trump will fire him and bring someone like Gowdy in to
head the DOJ and to bring about investigations.
And, my gosh, there seems to be so much to investigate. And to my mind prosecute.
loop, 49 minutes ago
"I've never seen a President - I don't care who he is - stand up to them (Israel). It just boggles the mind. They always
get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down.
If the American people understood what a grip these people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms.
Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on."
- U.S. Navy Admiral and former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Thomas Moorer
mendigo, 59 minutes ago
Cool stuff. But really the cancer goes much deeper. That is the scary part. Trump is now largely controlled by the Borg.
Government employees and elected officials have a choice: can either play along and become wealthy and powerful or have
their careers destroyed, or worse.
'Assume, for the sake of argument, that powerful, connected people in the intelligence community and in politics worried that a
wildcard Trump presidency, unlike another Clinton or Bush, might expose a decade-plus of questionable practices. Disrupt long-established
money channels. Reveal secret machinations that could arguably land some people in prison.
'What exactly might an "insurance policy" against Donald Trump look like?'
All this leads me back to the suspicion that Steele's involvement may have been less in crafting the dossier, than making it
possible to conceal its actual origins while giving it an appearance of credibility. It could also be the case that Nellie Ohr's sudden
interest in radio transmissions had to do with communications inside the United States, rather than with Steele.
Notable quotes:
"... A great deal of evidence, I think, suggests that practically all those involved in 'Russiagate' were caught totally unprepared by Trump's victory, that they then went rushing around like headless chickens, and that part of this process involved a decision being taken to publish the dossier, without consulting British intelligence. If people like Younger were not consulted, then it would seem to me unlikely that Steele was. ..."
"... And I have immense difficulty seeing how any competent media lawyer would not have recommended, at the minimum, the redaction of the names of Aleksej Gubarev and his company from the final December 2016 memorandum. This would have made legal action unlikely, without greatly diminishing the effect of the claims. ..."
"... But if this was so, and if what they thought was accurate information was actually disinformation, the likely conduit would not have been through Steele, but from FSB cybersecurity people to their FBI counterparts. ..."
"... It it is I think material that intelligence agencies commonly include a great variety of people, ranging from very able analysts and operators to complete dolts. So, the CIA has employed both Philip Giraldi and John Brennan, MI6 both Alastair Crooke and also Christopher Steele and Alex Younger. ..."
"... It is however somewhat revealing that one now finds Giraldi and Crooke appearing on a Russian site, 'Strategic Culture Foundation', while Brennan and Younger are treated as authoritative figures by the MSM. ..."
"... My strong suspicion is that 'Russiagate' is a kind of nemesis, arising from the fact that key figures in British and American intelligence have, over a protracted period of time, got involved in intrigues where they are way out of their depth. The unintended consequences of these have meant that people like Brennan and Younger, and also Hannigan, have ended up having to resort to desperate measures to cover their backsides. ..."
"... There are many aspects to this story that don't make any sense to me if one looks at it from a rational perspective. One of course being concerns about libel litigation and the related legal discovery that you note. The second being no real contingency planning in the event Hillary loses the election. Admittedly they must have bought the media line and Nate Silver's forecast of a greater than 75% probability of a Hillary win. ..."
"... The purported "arms length" relationships don't make any sense. There's Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson playing a central role. They hire Nellie Ohr, a possible CIA asset and the wife of Bruce Ohr, the 4th highest ranking official at the DOJ. ..."
"... Glenn Simpson also hires Christopher Steele who he knows from previous "spook" associations. Steele had numerous and continuous communications including telephone, Skype, email and personal meetings with Bruce and Nellie Ohr during all this. ..."
"... Then there is Mifsud and Halper. Apparently both are CIA and FBI assets. ..."
"... You have Brennan ginning up concerns giving super secret and individual briefings to the Gang of 8 in Congress. There's Democratic Senator Mark Warner, the minority leader on the Senate Intelligence Committee texting and calling Adam Waldman, Deripaska's US attorney about setting up clandestine meetings with Steele. ..."
"... Not to be left behind there's Sen. McCain doing the same. His top aide even travels to London to meet Steele. And then there's Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page busily spending every waking moment texting each other about every twist and turn in all the political games being played. Of course there's Admiral Rogers investigating unusual searches by FBI officials and contractors on the NSA database. And he briefs President-elect Trump at Trump Tower which prompts the entire transition team to move to Trump's golf course in NJ. ..."
"... In fact the IG report on the Clinton "investigation" states that many at the FBI were accepting "gifts" from various media personalities for a quid pro quo ..."
"... There's Rod Rosenstein, Bruce Ohr's direct boss who testifies he knew nothing about Ohr being a conduit to Strzok for Steele. Of course he knew nothing but signed the FISA application on Carter Page. ..."
"... At this point I don't buy that Christopher Steele dug up real intelligence from his contacts at the highest levels of the Russian government, which caught Brennan, Clapper, Comey and Lynch's pants on fire, who then launched a formal investigation of Russia collusion with Trump. Many things just don't pass the smell test. Now of course I have no qualifications nor experience in spookdom. ..."
"... I agree that it (and Skripalmania) are almost impossible to make sense of unless you think of a bunch of highly politicised not very bright people sinking deeper and deeper into what looked like a bright idea at the time. ..."
"... I ask because, if one tries to look at it in a non-partisan way, the Western IC seemed to be a failure when it came to predicting Russian reactions in the Donbass, the Crimea, and it seems in Syria. I link this to various comments from Colonel Lang indicating that true experts were replaced over the years by less experienced and knowledgeable people. Does being "highly politicised" mean that they're not up to much when it comes to minding the shop? ..."
"... I thought I detected a protest against the politicisation of the US in the world some years ago. And we must not forget that Gen Flynn (DIA) and Adm Rogers (NSA) acted strongly against this. Flynn was the first casualty of the Trump/Russia hysteria and the Clapper claque tried to fire Rogers. ..."
"... I was born in the Depression and have seen vitriolic politics but never have seen such a massive opposition by the media, the pundits and the establishment of both parties. Over 500 print publications endorsed Hillary. Only some 20 endorsed Trump. Yet he confounds the pundits by winning the election. Clearly many voters are at odds with the political media class. ..."
"... I think there is an ideological background to this, on which the piece by Alastair Crooke – himself former MI6 – to which Patrick Armstrong links, and the piece by James George Jatras to which Crooke links, are both to the point. The 'end of history' crowd thought they were inhabiting a realised utopia, and cannot cope with the fact that their dream is collapsing. ..."
"... In relation to the millenarian undercurrents on which Crooke focuses, however, it is also worth noting that a traditional conservative suspicion has been that millenarianism is naturally linked to antinomianism: the belief that the moral law is not binding on the elect. ..."
"... It is obviously possible that Ohr did not report up the chain of command, and if so, he and his wife become pivotal figures in the conspiracy. Alternatively, it could be that Rosenstein is lying – in which case, we have large questions about who else is implicated, and specifically whether the termination of Steele by the FBI was anything more than a ruse. ..."
"... 'Yet, Simpson allegedly acknowledged that most of the information Fusion GPS and British intelligence operative Christopher Steele developed did not come from sources inside Moscow. "Much of the collection about the Trump campaign ties to Russia comes from a former Russian intelligence officer (? not entirely clear) who lives in the U.S.," Ohr scribbled in his notes.' ..."
"... And it confirms my strong suspicion that the dossier is actually a composite product, much of it assembled at Fusion, which could indeed contain material from a range of people from the former Soviet space, who could living in the United States, Britain, or elsewhere – Ukraine and the Baltics being obvious possibilities. ..."
"... So Sergei Skripal and Sergei Millian, neither of whom fit the description by Simpson, have been mentioned as possible sources, and there is also the very curiously ambiguous role of Rinat Akhmetshin. ..."
"... All these people, obviously, could simply have fabricated material or retailed gossip, and Steele himself was involved in fabricating material on an industrial scale to cover up what actually happened to Alexander Litvinenko. ..."
"... All this leads me back to the suspicion that Steele's involvement may have been less in crafting the dossier, than making it possible to conceal its actual origins while giving it an appearance of credibility. It could also be the case that Nellie Ohr's sudden interest in radio transmissions had to do with communications inside the United States, rather than with Steele. ..."
"... Apparently that organisation is doing rather well in sustaining the claiming that 'fair report privilege' could circumvent any requirement to prove truth – and a key question now is whether documents which the DOJ is being forced to produce will establish that the dossier was being used by officials in ways that would trigger the privilege as of 10 January 2017. ..."
"... That said, what Ohr reports Simpson as telling him raises fundamental questions about how anyone could have relied upon the dossier for anything – and should push people back to actually asking hard questions about its origins. ..."
"... To add: Steele was on the FBI's payroll, in addition to being on Fusion GPS's payroll. And on the payroll of Her Majesty's Government. After he got caught leaking to the media he was apparently "fired" by the FBI. But he was continuing to communicate and brief through Bruce Ohr at the DOJ. ..."
"... I think the circle of Glenn Simpson. Chris Steele, Bruce & Nellie Ohr, Adam Waldman. Peter Strzok, and Sen. Mark Warner will be very interesting to pursue. ..."
"... The other circle that should be investigated is the Brennan, Clapper, Lynch, Comey, Yates, Susan Rice. ..."
"... No investigation can exclude the active participation of key people from the media complex including people like Comey's good friend Benjamin Wittes. ..."
"... In its original version, the 'Statement of Principles' explained, among other things, that the Society: 'Believes that only modern liberal democratic states are truly legitimate, and that any international organization which admits undemocratic states on an equal basis is fundamentally flawed.' ..."
"... Ironically, it was shortly after the publication of the dossier that Anatol Lieven published in the 'National Interest' an article entitled 'Is America Becoming a Third World Country?' (See https://nationalinterest.or... .) ..."
"... Also in June, Sergei Karaganov published a piece in 'Russia in Global Affairs', of which he is publisher, entitled 'Ideology of Eastward Turn.' ..."
"... I do not think Karaganov's article is simply a reflection of changes in Russian attitudes. The changes, it seems to me, are global. ..."
"... I do think that we in the West really blew it. In 1990, we could have said, in all humility, that our way of life (IMO the key word is pluralism) had proven more survivable. So we should welcome the others into the tent. Instead, we were right and that was that. ..."
"... Just as you're asking about the origins of the dossier I wonder if it was orchestrated or something that evolved organically? If it was orchestrated, then who was the mastermind? Did Brennan, Clapper and Come sit down and hatch it or was Simpson the brains? What is astounding is the scale. So many people involved. Were they all motivated by ideology or by the need to protect their racket? ..."
"... It seems there are many sub-plots. There's the Deripaska, Steele, Waldman, Mueller, Sen. Warner angle. Then there's the Simpson, Steele, Ohr, Strzok, Page, McCabe angle. There's also the Simpson, Steele, media reporters angle. Then there's the whole Mifsud, Halper, Carter Page, Papadopolous, Downer bit. There's the Comey, Rosenstein, Yates, Strzok FISA application piece. Then there's all the stuff happening in the UK including Hannigan's resignation as soon as Trump is elected. Of course the whole Mueller appointment and the obstruction of justice thread to tie Trump's hand. There are so many elements. Who initiated and coordinated? Was each element separate? ..."
"... Together, these methods are likely to have produced a mass of information. It is important to remember, for example, that at the time of his mysterious death on 23 March 2013 Boris Berezovsky was negotiating to return to Russia, and that his head of security, Sergei Sokolov did return, with a 'cache' of documents. ..."
"... The purpose was to demonstrate that Alexei Navalny was the instrument of a 'régime change' plot in which William Browder was acting as an agent of MI6. ..."
"... An important role in the Apelbaum piece is played by the private security company Hakluyt. A quick look at the entries on Wikipedia and Powerbase will make clear that, if there is a British 'deep state', this is likely to be at its core. ..."
"... It is against this background that on has to see a specific claim which Apelbaum makes, for which I do not think any evidence is produced, about two figures whose role in 'Russiagate' is clearly central. So Luke Harding is described as 'A Guardian reporter and a Hakluyt and Orbis contractor' (note word.) Meanwhile, Edward Baumgartner is described as 'Co-founder of Edward Austin. Contractor at Orbis and Hakluyt.' ..."
"... That Harding is corrupt, as also Sir Robert Owen's 'Inquiry' into the death of the late Alexander Litvinenko, I can prove. When Owen's report was published in January 2016, a preliminary response by me was posted here on SST, which among other things listed some of the evidence establishing that the interviews supposedly recorded with Litvinenko by Detective Inspector Brent Hyatt immediately before his death were blatant forgeries. ..."
"... In relation to that part of the evidence discussed in my January 2016 post which exposes the fumbling attempts by Steele and his colleagues to cover up the truth about when and how Litvinenko travelled into central London on the day he was supposedly killed, most of this had been among a mass of material submitted by me to the Inquiry Team, which I have e-mails to prove was read. ..."
"... Further study of Owen's report has confirmed my suspicion that a strong 'prima facie case' of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice exists against very many of those involved in it. ..."
"... At the same time, materials produced on the Russian side have confirmed my suspicion that the reason why Steele and others have been able to get away with their cover-up is that the Russian intelligence services are no more enthusiastic than their British counterparts about having anything like the whole truth about how Litvinenko lived and died made public. ..."
"... Additionally, the text itself displays an odd parallelism with his assertion regarding the Steele Dossier- that is, the likelihood of multiple authors, of diverse origins. ..."
"... My curiosity about who Apelbaum might be is reinforced by the fact that the intimations he gives about his background in his responses to comments, while not incompatible with what he has said in the past, do not sit so easily with it. ..."
"... So, questions naturally arise about Apelbaum's intelligence career, in particular, who he is likely to have been employed by, and associated with, in the past, and whether he is still involved with any of those agencies which have employed him. ..."
"... 'Also, there is a large Hakluyt/Orbis "commercial intelligence" network in the US that regularly services political and federal agencies and has the power to summon Nazgûls the likes of John Brennan. So Steele is not the new kid on the block, he has been doing this type of work long before 2016. This is also why he has such a cozy relationship with the brass at the DOJ and state.' ..."
"... This is that he, the Ukrainian nationalist former KGB person Yuri Shvets, the convicted Italian disinformation peddler Mario Scaramella, and quite possibly the sometime key FBI expert on Mogilevich, Robert 'Bobby' Levinson, were involved in trying to suggest that Mogilevich was an instrument of a plot by Putin to equip Al Qaeda with a 'mini nuclear bomb.' ..."
"... In his prepared statement, Lugovoi claimed that his supposed victim used to say that everyone in Britain were ''retards', to use the translation submitted in evidence to Owen's Inquiry, or 'idiots', to use that by RT. And according to this version, the British believed in everything that 'we' – that is, the Berezovky group – said was happening in Russia. ..."
"... Whether or not Litvinenko expressed this cynical contempt, the credulity with which the claims of the 'information operations' people around Berezovsky have been accepted – well illustrated by Owen's report and perhaps most ludicrous in Harding's journalism – makes clear it is justified. ..."
"... Perhaps then, cartoons about Trump as a puppet, with the strings pulled by another puppet representing Manafort, whose strings are in turn pulled by Putin, should be replaced by ones in which Mueller is seen as a puppet manipulated by the ghost of Boris Berezovsky. ..."
"... But that is the irony. The relationship with Berezovsky blew up in the faces of all concerned, when in the wake of the successsful corruption of the investigation into the death of Litvinenko by him and his 'information operations' people, he attempted to recoup his fortunes by suing Roman Abramovich, and got taken to pieces by Lord Sumption. ..."
"... The 'Vesti Nedeli' piece uses what Elizaveta Berezovskaya says in support of the claim that Berezovsky was murdered by British 'special forces', because he was planning to return to Russia, and he 'knew too much about them.' ..."
"... One of the things I've never understood about the Trump Dossier story is the lack of any forensic analysis of its content and style anywhere in the media, even the alt media. Who was supposed to have actually written it? Steele? The style does not match someone of his background and education, and the formatting and syntax were atrocious. The font actually varied from "report" to "report." It certainly did not give me the impression of being the product of a high-end, Belgravia consultancy. ..."
"... I wonder whether it was produced by an American of one sort or another and then "laundered" by being accorded association with the UK firm. Given that Steele just happened to be hired by the USG to help in the anti-FIFA skulduggery, he and his firm seem very much to be a concern that does dirty little jobs that need discretely to be done, though in this case, the discretion was undermined. ..."
"... Most of the memos were issued before October and Fusion/Simpson authorized Steele to release information to the FBI starting in July. The question is why the memos were released after the election when a release before the election would have been enough to sink Trump. Instead the FBI and presumably those paying Fusion on Hillarys behalf sat on it, and Comey comes out days before the election ..."
"... Kind of looks like they all wanted Trump in office and the disclosure was to give Trump the excuse needed to back track on his promises to improve relations with Russia and blame that on pressure from the Deep State and Russia Gate. ..."
"... Looking at Trumps history with Sater (FBI/CIA asset) and his political aspirations that began following his Moscow visit in 1987 it seems likely Trump has been a Deep State asset for 30 years and fed intelligence to CIA/FBI on Russian oligarchs and mafia . Indeed he may well have duped Russians into believing he was working for them when in fact it was the CIA/FBI who had the best Kompromat with US RICO laws that could have beggared him ..."
"... One thing to remember about the FBI is Sy Hersh. Hersh claims the FBI has been sitting on a report for two years that fingers murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich as the Wikileaks DNC email leaker (or one of them, at least.) ..."
"... I suspect the decision to publish the dossier was political. It was required to enable Clapper, Brennan, and others to opine on national media and create further media hysteria prior to the vote as well as to justify the counter-intelligence investigations underway. They were throwing the kitchen sink to sink Trump's electoral chances. I don't think a lot of thought was given about the legal ramifications. ..."
"... This seems to be a pattern. Leak information. Then use the leaked story to justify actions like apply for a FISA warrant or fan the media flames. ..."
"... I find it incredulous that former leaders of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies have gained paid access to powerful media platforms and they have used it to launch vicious attacks on a POTUS. ..."
"... I find it amazing that McCabe and Peter Strzok are raising hundreds of thousands of dollars on social media platforms. ..."
"... If the GOP retains the House and Jim Jordan becomes speaker, then there may be a possibility that Sessions, Rosenstein and Wray may be fired and another special counsel appointed who will then convene a grand jury. ..."
My strong impression is that nobody on the British side vetted the dossier for publication. A striking feature of the early news
coverage is that there appeared to be total confusion, with some of the reporting suggesting that the sources quoted wanted to hang
him out to dry, others that they wanted to defend him.
An interesting aspect is that not only were anonymous sources linked to MI6 quoted on both sides of the argument -- which could
have been explained by disagreements within the organisation: in different stories, not however far apart in date, its head, Sir
Alex Younger, was portrayed as holding radically different views.
When CNN publicised the existence of the dossier on 10 January 2017, the same day that it was published by 'BuzzFeed', it suggested
that the author was British. The following day, the WSJ named Steele.
On 13 January, Martin Robinson, UK Chief Reporter for 'Mail Online', published a report whose headlines seem worth quoting in
full:
'I introduced him to my wife as James Bond': Former spy Chris Steele's friends describe a "show-off" 007 figure but MI6 bosses
brand him "an idiot" for an "appalling lack of judgement" over the Trump "dirty dossier": Intelligence expert Nigel West says friend
is like Ian Fleming's famous character; He said: "He's James Bond. I actually introduced him to my wife as James Bond'; Mr West says
Steele dislikes Putin and Kremlin for ignoring rules of espionage; Angry spy source calls him 'idiot' and blasts decision to take
on the Trump work; Current MI6 boss Sir Alex Younger is said to be livid about reputation damage.'
On 15 January, however, Kim Sengupta, Defence Editor of the 'Independent', produced a report headlined: 'Head of MI6 used information
from Trump dossier in first public speech; Warnings on cyberattacks show ex-spy's work is respected.'
A great deal of evidence, I think, suggests that practically all those involved in 'Russiagate' were caught totally unprepared
by Trump's victory, that they then went rushing around like headless chickens, and that part of this process involved a decision
being taken to publish the dossier, without consulting British intelligence. If people like Younger were not consulted, then it would
seem to me unlikely that Steele was.
This leads me on to another puzzle about the dossier to which I have been having a difficulty finding a solution. Long years
ago I was reasonably familiar with libel law in relation to journalism. Anyone who 'served indentures', as very many of us did in
those days, had to study it. Later, I got involved in a protracted libel suit -- successfully, I hasten to add -- in relation to
a programme I made, and had the sobering experience of having a top-class libel barrister requiring me to justify every assertion
I had made.
In the jargon then, a crucial question when an article, or programme, was being 'vetted' before publication was whether it represented
a 'fair business risk.' This involved both the technical legal issues, and also judgements as to whether people were likely to sue,
and how if they did the case would be likely to pan out.
On the face of things, one would not have expected that people at 'BuzzFeed' would have gone ahead and make the dossier public,
without having it 'vetted' by competent lawyers. And I have difficulty seeing how, if they did, the advice could have been to publish
what they published.
I have some difficulty seeing how the advice could have been to include the memorandum with the claims about the Alfa Group oligarchs,
unless either these could be seriously defended or it was assumed that contesting them effectively would involve revealing more 'dirty
linen' than these wanted to see aired in public.
And I have immense difficulty seeing how any competent media lawyer would not have recommended, at the minimum, the redaction
of the names of Aleksej Gubarev and his company from the final December 2016 memorandum. This would have made legal action unlikely,
without greatly diminishing the effect of the claims.
Trying to make sense of why such an obvious precaution was not taken, I find myself wondering whether, in fact, the reason may
have been that the people responsible for the dossier may have actually believed this part of it at least.
If that is so, however, the most plausible explanation I can see is that while other claims in the dossier may well be total fabrication,
either by the people at Fusion and Steele or by some of their questionable contacts, this information at least did come from what
Glenn Simpson, Nellie Ohr et al thought were reliable Russian government sources.
But if this was so, and if what they thought was accurate information was actually disinformation, the likely conduit would
not have been through Steele, but from FSB cybersecurity people to their FBI counterparts.
I think that the cases involving Karim Baratov and Dmitri Dokuchaev and his colleagues may be much more complex than is apparent
from what looks to me like patent disinformation put out both on the Western and Russian sides.
It it is I think material that intelligence agencies commonly include a great variety of people, ranging from very able analysts
and operators to complete dolts. So, the CIA has employed both Philip Giraldi and John Brennan, MI6 both Alastair Crooke and also
Christopher Steele and Alex Younger.
It is however somewhat revealing that one now finds Giraldi and Crooke appearing on a Russian site, 'Strategic Culture Foundation',
while Brennan and Younger are treated as authoritative figures by the MSM.
If you want to get a clear picture of quite how low-grade the latter figure is, incidentally, it is worth looking at the speech
to which Kim Sengupta refers.
A favourite line of mine comes in Younger's discussion of the -- actually largely mythical -- notion of 'hybrid warfare': 'In
this arena, our opponents are often states whose very survival owes to the strength of their security capabilities; the work is complex
and risky, often with the full weight of the State seeking to root us out.'
Leaving aside the fact that this is borderline illiterate, what it amazing is Younger's apparent blindness to clearly unintended
implications of what he writes. If indeed, the 'very survival' of the Russian state 'owes to the strength of [its] security capabilities',
the conclusions, seen from a Russian point of view, would seem rather obvious: vote Putin, and give medals to Patrushev and Bortnikov.
My strong suspicion is that 'Russiagate' is a kind of nemesis, arising from the fact that key figures in British and American
intelligence have, over a protracted period of time, got involved in intrigues where they are way out of their depth. The unintended
consequences of these have meant that people like Brennan and Younger, and also Hannigan, have ended up having to resort to desperate
measures to cover their backsides.
There are many aspects to this story that don't make any sense to me if one looks at it from a rational perspective. One
of course being concerns about libel litigation and the related legal discovery that you note. The second being no real contingency
planning in the event Hillary loses the election. Admittedly they must have bought the media line and Nate Silver's forecast of
a greater than 75% probability of a Hillary win.
The purported "arms length" relationships don't make any sense. There's Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson playing a central
role. They hire Nellie Ohr, a possible CIA asset and the wife of Bruce Ohr, the 4th highest ranking official at the DOJ.
Glenn Simpson also hires Christopher Steele who he knows from previous "spook" associations. Steele had numerous and continuous
communications including telephone, Skype, email and personal meetings with Bruce and Nellie Ohr during all this. They even
have discussions about Deripaska and about his visa application to visit the US. Bruce is a conduit to Strzok at FBI. Glenn Simpson
also is part of these discussions with Steele and the Ohrs.
Simpson also arranges for Steele to brief "reporters" like David Corn and others at the NY Times, WaPo, WSJ, Politico and others.
Then there is Mifsud and Halper. Apparently both are CIA and FBI assets. They are communicating with Carter Page and
Papadopolous, who in turn is drinking and yapping with Aussie ambassador Downer.
You have Brennan ginning up concerns giving super secret and individual briefings to the Gang of 8 in Congress. There's
Democratic Senator Mark Warner, the minority leader on the Senate Intelligence Committee texting and calling Adam Waldman, Deripaska's
US attorney about setting up clandestine meetings with Steele. There's Sen. Harry Reid passing on the Steele "dossier" to
Comey.
Not to be left behind there's Sen. McCain doing the same. His top aide even travels to London to meet Steele. And then
there's Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page busily spending every waking moment texting each other about every twist and turn in
all the political games being played. Of course there's Admiral Rogers investigating unusual searches by FBI officials and contractors
on the NSA database. And he briefs President-elect Trump at Trump Tower which prompts the entire transition team to move to Trump's
golf course in NJ.
Oh, there is also Nellie Ohr setting up ham radio to avoid detection in her communications with Steele. Then we have everyone
leaking and spinning to their "cohorts" in the premier media like the NY Times, CNN and WaPo.
Comey even has his buddy a professor and ostensibly his legal counsel on the payroll of the FBI as a contractor with access
to all the sensitive databases leaking to the media.
Andy McCabe has his legal counsel Lisa Page spin stories around his wife's huge campaign contributions from Clinton consigliere
McAuliffe.
In fact the IG report on the Clinton "investigation" states that many at the FBI were accepting "gifts" from various media
personalities for a quid pro quo.
As if all this was not enough there's AG Loretta Lynch, meeting with Bill Clinton on a tarmac ostensibly to discuss their grandkids.
Not to forget there were these "unmaskings" of surveillance information by Susan Rice, Samantha Power.
There's Rod Rosenstein, Bruce Ohr's direct boss who testifies he knew nothing about Ohr being a conduit to Strzok for Steele.
Of course he knew nothing but signed the FISA application on Carter Page. Then there are the FISC judges who never believed
their mandate required them to verify the evidence before issuing sweeping surveillance warrants. Now all this is what I as an
old farmer and winemaker have read. Those more in tune would easily add to these convoluted machinations.
I don't know how to make sense of all this. All I see is the extent of effort to prevent Donald Trump from being elected and
after he won from governing. The most obvious observation is that the leadership in our law enforcement and intelligence agencies
are so busy politicking spinning and leaking they have neither the time or the inclination let alone competence to do their real
job for which they get paid a handsome wage and sterling benefits.
At this point I don't buy that Christopher Steele dug up real intelligence from his contacts at the highest levels of the
Russian government, which caught Brennan, Clapper, Comey and Lynch's pants on fire, who then launched a formal investigation of
Russia collusion with Trump. Many things just don't pass the smell test. Now of course I have no qualifications nor experience
in spookdom.
If you have any speculative theories that connects some of the dots it would be my great pleasure to read.
I agree that it (and Skripalmania) are almost impossible to make sense of unless you think of a bunch of highly politicised
not very bright people sinking deeper and deeper into what looked like a bright idea at the time.
Confident that their horse is going to win the race and that the media will cover it all up and nobody will ever hear anything
about anything. Now that the unexpected happened, they're just spinning and denying faster hoping the Dems win in Nov and stop
all the investigations. And, they're getting nervous wondering who's going to sell out whom next. Up and down, around and around.
Gerbils -- there really isn't anything very consistent, planned or thought-out.
"I agree that it (and Skripalmania) are almost impossible to make sense of unless you think of a bunch of highly politicised
not very bright people sinking deeper and deeper into what looked like a bright idea at the time."
I believe your summary of what's happening is more accurate than Alastair Crooke's as set out in the article linked to.
But bright or not, what are these people in the IC doing being "highly politicised"? Does that not render them considerably
less efficient?
I ask because, if one tries to look at it in a non-partisan way, the Western IC seemed to be a failure when it came to
predicting Russian reactions in the Donbass, the Crimea, and it seems in Syria. I link this to various comments from Colonel Lang
indicating that true experts were replaced over the years by less experienced and knowledgeable people. Does being "highly politicised"
mean that they're not up to much when it comes to minding the shop?
I thought I detected a protest against the politicisation of the US in the world some years ago. And we must not forget
that Gen Flynn (DIA) and Adm Rogers (NSA) acted strongly against this. Flynn was the first casualty of the Trump/Russia hysteria
and the Clapper claque tried to fire Rogers.
Usually the incumbent party loses the mid-term election. The Democrats lost big in Obama's first mid-term. The Republicans
won the House and gained six senators. While the punditry claims a Blue Wave and Nate Silver is giving the Dems the odds. I'm
not so sure. I think the GOP will increase their majority in the Senate putting any conviction of Trump out of question.
I was born in the Depression and have seen vitriolic politics but never have seen such a massive opposition by the media,
the pundits and the establishment of both parties. Over 500 print publications endorsed Hillary. Only some 20 endorsed Trump.
Yet he confounds the pundits by winning the election. Clearly many voters are at odds with the political media class.
Yeah. My bet is that the Repubs hold onto both. 1) the economy is getting better 2) what do the Dems have to offer other than
this crazy Trump/Russia thing?
Economy will slow down sharply in 2019 but there should be enough momentum to help with the mid-terms. Trump needs to stop
with the endless sanction stuff. The House does look like a close one.
At a very general level, a 'speculative theory' which I have been mulling over for some time was rather well set out in a commentary
in 'The Hill' on 9 August by Sharyl Attkisson, which opens:
'Let's begin in the realm of the fanciful.
'Assume, for the sake of argument, that powerful, connected people in the intelligence community and in politics worried that
a wildcard Trump presidency, unlike another Clinton or Bush, might expose a decade-plus of questionable practices. Disrupt long-established
money channels. Reveal secret machinations that could arguably land some people in prison.
'What exactly might an "insurance policy" against Donald Trump look like?'
And Attkisson goes on to outline precisely the developments that appear to have happened.
I think there is an ideological background to this, on which the piece by Alastair Crooke – himself former MI6 – to which
Patrick Armstrong links, and the piece by James George Jatras to which Crooke links, are both to the point. The 'end of history'
crowd thought they were inhabiting a realised utopia, and cannot cope with the fact that their dream is collapsing.
In relation to the millenarian undercurrents on which Crooke focuses, however, it is also worth noting that a traditional
conservative suspicion has been that millenarianism is naturally linked to antinomianism: the belief that the moral law is not
binding on the elect. And in turn, according to a familiar skeptical view, antinomianism can easily end up in in straightforward
rascality.
On the rascality – to which Attkisson is pointing – I am working on how parts of the picture can be fleshed out. A few preliminary
points raised by your remarks.
As you note, 'There's Rod Rosenstein, Bruce Ohr's direct boss who testifies he knew nothing about Ohr being a conduit to Strzok
for Steele.' So, we know that Ohr and Steele were conspiring together to ensure that the latter could continue to be intimately
involved in the Mueller investigation, despite the FBI termination,
It is obviously possible that Ohr did not report up the chain of command, and if so, he and his wife become pivotal figures
in the conspiracy. Alternatively, it could be that Rosenstein is lying – in which case, we have large questions about who else
is implicated, and specifically whether the termination of Steele by the FBI was anything more than a ruse.
If, as seems to me likely, although not certain, the second possibility is closer to the truth than the former, then before
Ohr testifies on 28 August before the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees he will have to consider whether he is prepared
to 'take the rap' for his superiors, or 'sing sweetly.'
The fact that in a report in 'The Hill', I think on the same day as the Attkisson piece, John Solomon was quoting from Ohr's
handwritten notes of a meeting with Glenn Simpson in December 2016 makes me wonder whether he may not already have made a decision.
A key paragraph from the report:
'Yet, Simpson allegedly acknowledged that most of the information Fusion GPS and British intelligence operative Christopher
Steele developed did not come from sources inside Moscow. "Much of the collection about the Trump campaign ties to Russia comes
from a former Russian intelligence officer (? not entirely clear) who lives in the U.S.," Ohr scribbled in his notes.'
There is I think a need for caution here. There is no guarantee that Simpson was telling the literal truth to Ohr, or indeed
the latter reproducing with absolute accuracy with he was told (handwritten notes can be disposed of easily, but they can also
be rewritten.)
One is I think on firmer ground in relation to what it suggests was not the case – that there is any substance whatsoever in
the ludicrous story of someone running a private security company in London sending out hired employees who then gain access to
top Kremlin insiders, with these, of course, telling them precisely what they actually think.
And it confirms my strong suspicion that the dossier is actually a composite product, much of it assembled at Fusion, which
could indeed contain material from a range of people from the former Soviet space, who could living in the United States, Britain,
or elsewhere – Ukraine and the Baltics being obvious possibilities.
So Sergei Skripal and Sergei Millian, neither of whom fit the description by Simpson, have been mentioned as possible sources,
and there is also the very curiously ambiguous role of Rinat Akhmetshin.
All these people, obviously, could simply have fabricated material or retailed gossip, and Steele himself was involved
in fabricating material on an industrial scale to cover up what actually happened to Alexander Litvinenko.
That said, I continue to think it possible that both the second and final memoranda may incorporate some 'glitter', as well
as 'chickenfeed' fed from FSB cybersecurity people to their FBI counterparts, to hark back to George Smiley says to the Minister,
quite possibly included in the hope that the BS involved would be reproduced in contexts where it could provoke legal action.
All this leads me back to the suspicion that Steele's involvement may have been less in crafting the dossier, than making
it possible to conceal its actual origins while giving it an appearance of credibility. It could also be the case that Nellie
Ohr's sudden interest in radio transmissions had to do with communications inside the United States, rather than with Steele.
It could then be that Steele has been, in effect, hoist with his own petard, in that he is having to sustain the fiction that
he had some kind of grounds for making the claims about Aleksej Gubarev and XBT. How far this matters, at least in relation to
the action bought against 'BuzzFeed' in Florida, remains moot at the moment.
Apparently that organisation is doing rather well in sustaining the claiming that 'fair report privilege' could circumvent
any requirement to prove truth – and a key question now is whether documents which the DOJ is being forced to produce will establish
that the dossier was being used by officials in ways that would trigger the privilege as of 10 January 2017.
That said, what Ohr reports Simpson as telling him raises fundamental questions about how anyone could have relied upon
the dossier for anything – and should push people back to actually asking hard questions about its origins.
Mr Habakkuk, you mention "ambiguous role of Rinat Akhmetshin" - I am not sure if you meant Akhmetov.
I am surprised and curious about you mentioning him - if you meant Akhmetov - because that is one name among all the oligarchs
which has so far not been prominent. Thank you for your posts, these posts and the SST comments could and should serve as help
to the congressional investigations and hearings.
To add: Steele was on the FBI's payroll, in addition to being on Fusion GPS's payroll. And on the payroll of Her Majesty's
Government. After he got caught leaking to the media he was apparently "fired" by the FBI. But he was continuing to communicate
and brief through Bruce Ohr at the DOJ.
I think the circle of Glenn Simpson. Chris Steele, Bruce & Nellie Ohr, Adam Waldman. Peter Strzok, and Sen. Mark Warner
will be very interesting to pursue.
The other circle that should be investigated is the Brennan, Clapper, Lynch, Comey, Yates, Susan Rice.
No investigation can exclude the active participation of key people from the media complex including people like Comey's
good friend Benjamin Wittes.
Younger isn't the brightest bulb in the box, is he?
"If you doubt the link between legitimacy and effective counter-terrorism, then – albeit negatively – the unfolding tragedy
in Syria will, I fear, provide proof. I believe the Russian conduct in Syria, allied with that of Assad's discredited regime,
will, if they do not change course, provide a tragic example of the perils of forfeiting legitimacy. In defining as a terrorist
anyone who opposes a brutal government, they alienate precisely that group that has to be on side if the extremists are to
be defeated. Meanwhile, in Aleppo, Russia and the Syrian regime seek to make a desert and call it peace. The human tragedy
is heart-breaking"
Those were indeed some of the most inane comments in an inane piece.
But then, if you read an interview given to Jay Elwes of 'Prospect' magazine in May last year by Younger's predecessor Sir
Richard Dearlove, who looks to have been a significant background presence in what has been going on, you will find that, although
he is much more coherent than than his successor, it is almost as inane.
As it happens, Dearlove was one of the signatories of the 'Statement of Principles' of something called the 'Henry Jackson
Society.'
This was founded in 2005, in Cambridge, by a group in whom acolytes of an historian called Maurice Cowling were prominent –
Dearlove is himself a graduate in history from that university.
In its original version, the 'Statement of Principles' explained, among other things, that the Society: 'Believes that
only modern liberal democratic states are truly legitimate, and that any international organization which admits undemocratic
states on an equal basis is fundamentally flawed.'
Ironically, it was shortly after the publication of the dossier that Anatol Lieven published in the 'National Interest'
an article entitled 'Is America Becoming a Third World Country?' (See
https://nationalinterest.or...
.)
Among other things, he harked back to the way that, in 1648, a century and a half of bloody ideological strife in Europe had
been ended with a recognition that the legitimacy of different state forms had to be accepted, if a kind of 'war of all against
all' was to be avoided.
And Lieven went on to reflect on the way that, at what was then widely seen as the end of the Cold War, the abandonment of
universalisitic pretensions by Russia and China was interpreted as justifying an embrace of these by the the West.
This, he went on to argue, had actually had the paradoxical effect of relegitimising 'régimes' which do not conform to Western
'democratic' models, concluding by noting what appears to our new, quasi-Soviet, preference for not letting experience interfere
with ideological dogma:
'Finally – even after the catastrophes of Iraq and Libya – there is almost no awareness among US policymakers of the fact that
US attempts to change the regimes of other countries are likely to be seen not only by the elites of those countries but also
by their populations as leading to – and intended to lead to – the destruction of the state itself, leading to disaster for its
society and population. When the Communist regime in the USSR collapsed (though only in part under Western pressure), it took
the Soviet state with it. The Russian state came close to following suit in the years that followed, Russia was reduced to impotence
on the world stage, and large parts of the Russian and other populations suffered economic and social disaster. Remembering their
own past experiences with state collapse, warlordism, famine and foreign invasion, Chinese people looked at this awful spectacle
and huddled closer to the Chinese state – one that they may dislike in many ways, but which they certainly trust more than anything
America has to offer – especially given the apparent decay of democracy throughout the West.'
I read with interest your piece back in June entitled 'Putin Once Dreamed the American Dream', reprinting Charles Heberle's
account of the 'Transforming Subjects Into Citizens' project, and the attitude of some people close to Putin to it.
One of the things which struck me was that the question why the American Revolution succeeded, and so many others failed, which
was concerning the intellectuals to whom Heberle talked, is one of the central questions of modern political thought, from Tocqueville
on.
(Indeed, the question of the preconditions for what might be called 'constitutional' government, has been central to 'republican'
thought, ever since it was revived by Italian thinkers, including prominently Machiavelli, when the 'Renaissance' made them reactivate
and rework debates from ancient Rome and Greece.)
However, to hark back to the anxieties expressed by Lieven, nothing in the analysis of the great French thinker necessary guarantees
that the success of 'Democracy in America' is stable and permanent, or indeed that the relatively civilised order of the post-war
'Pax Americana' is necessarily durable in Western Europe.
Also in June, Sergei Karaganov published a piece in 'Russia in Global Affairs', of which he is publisher, entitled 'Ideology
of Eastward Turn.' A paragraph that struck me:
'Russian society should by no means abdicate from its mostly European culture. But it should certainly stop being afraid,
let alone feel ashamed, of its Asianism. It should be remembered that from the standpoint of prevailing social mentality and
society's attitude to the authorities Russia, just as China and many other Asian states, are offspring of Chengiss Khan's Empire.
This is no reason for throwing up hands in despair or for beginning to despise one's own people, contrary to what many members
of intelligencia sometimes do. It should be accepted as a fact of life and used as a strength. The more so, since amid the
harsh competitive environment of the modern world the authoritarian type of government – in the context of a market economy
and equitable military potentials – is certainly far more effective than modern democracy. This is what our Western partners
find so worrisome. Of course, we should bear in mind that authoritarianism – just like democracy – may lead to stagnation and
degradation. Russia is certainly confronted with such a risk.'
Unlike you, I cannot claim serious expertise on Russia. But, as a reasonably alert generalist television current affairs producer,
I took note of the indications which were emerging in the course of 1987 that the Gorbachev 'new thinking' was underpinned by
a realisation that Soviet institutions and ideas had become fundamentally dysfunctional, to which you have referred repeatedly
over the years.
And, after long tedious months trying interest the powers that were in British broadcasting in what was happening, I ended
up producing a couple of programmes for BBC Radio in February/March 1989 in which we interviewed some of the leading 'new thinkers',
among them Karaganov's then immediate superior at the Institute of Europe, Vitaly Zhurkin.
At the Institute for the USA and Canada, by contrast, we did not interview its head, Georgiy Arbatov, but his deputy, Andrei
Kokoshin, and one of the latter's mentors on military matters and collaborators General-Mayor Valentin Larionov, who I later realised
had earlier been one of the foremost Soviet nuclear strategists. (At the Institute for World Economy and International Relations,
we interviewed Arbatov's son, Alexei.)
Talking to these people we got a sense, although it had to be fleshed out later, of the scale of the disillusion with Soviet
models, and indeed – which began to frighten me not long after – of the way many of them were romanticising the West.
What Karaganov now writes is I think a hardly very surprising reaction to the way that the Western powers responded to the
'new thinking.' Moreover, it seems to me that the disillusionment involved is in no sense particular Russian, but rather global.
If one regards 'democracy' as though it were quoted on the stock exchange, before 1914 there were very many buyers, including
among the Russian élite. By 1931, in very many places, including large sections of the 'intelligentsia' in Western countries,
it was a sellers' market, to put it mildly.
After 1945, a kind of long 'bull market' in 'democracy' started: for very good reasons.
The – largely but very far from entirely – peaceful retreat and collapse of Soviet power was to a very significant extent the
product of this. The subsequent behaviour of Western élites has generated a vicious 'bear market', a fact they appear unable to
understand.
I do not think Karaganov's article is simply a reflection of changes in Russian attitudes. The changes, it seems to me,
are global.
I do think that we in the West really blew it. In 1990, we could have said, in all humility, that our way of life (IMO
the key word is pluralism) had proven more survivable. So we should welcome the others into the tent. Instead, we were right and
that was that.
PS, in light of the Henry Jackson society and all Younger's references to "values" this one rather stands out "A vital lesson
I take from the Chilcot Report is the danger of group think."
Yeah. Group think, the very opposite of what I mean by pluralism.
Sharyl Atkinson describes well the conspiracy. When one steps back and look at all the machinations we know now, it seems incredible.
Just as you're asking about the origins of the dossier I wonder if it was orchestrated or something that evolved organically?
If it was orchestrated, then who was the mastermind? Did Brennan, Clapper and Come sit down and hatch it or was Simpson the brains?
What is astounding is the scale. So many people involved. Were they all motivated by ideology or by the need to protect their
racket?
It seems there are many sub-plots. There's the Deripaska, Steele, Waldman, Mueller, Sen. Warner angle. Then there's the
Simpson, Steele, Ohr, Strzok, Page, McCabe angle. There's also the Simpson, Steele, media reporters angle. Then there's the whole
Mifsud, Halper, Carter Page, Papadopolous, Downer bit. There's the Comey, Rosenstein, Yates, Strzok FISA application piece. Then
there's all the stuff happening in the UK including Hannigan's resignation as soon as Trump is elected. Of course the whole Mueller
appointment and the obstruction of justice thread to tie Trump's hand. There are so many elements. Who initiated and coordinated?
Was each element separate?
There's no doubt a political thriller movie could be made.
I guess the comedy part is that there actually exist people with medically functioning brains, who are somehow able to contort
such a worldview...Aleppo as peaceful 'desert' indeed...who knew that having bearded fanatics in charge is somehow 'better'...[and
not 'heart-breaking']...
Some here may find blogpost from March of this year interesting as it speaks to the production of the Steele dossier. I have
not seen it mentioned here before and a site search produced no results.
https://apelbaum.wordpress....
Some sections seem to have gotten David Cay Johnston's hackles up.
I had seen Yaacov Apelbaum's piece referred to by Clarice Feldman in a post on the 'American Thinker' site a few days back,
but not looked at it properly.
It is indeed fascinating, and clearly repays a closer study than I have so far had time to give it. I was however relieved
to find that what Apelbaum writes 'meshes' quite well with my own views of the likely authorship of the dossier.
A question I have is whether the monumental amount of labour involved in producing it can really be the work of a single IT
person – however wide-ranging his abilities and interests. My suspicion is that there may be input from Russian intelligence.
This is not said in order to discredit Apelbaum's work. In matters where I have had occasion critically to examine claims from
official Russian sources, I have found several unsurprising, but recurring, patterns. Sometimes, the information provided can
be shown to be essentially accurate, and it is reasonably clear how it has been obtained.
At other times, claims are made which information from other sources suggests either are, or may well be, true, but the 'sources
and methods' involved are deliberately obscured, making evaluation more difficult.
And then, there are many occasions when what one gets is quite patently a mixture of accurate information and disinformation.
Analysing these can be very productive, if one can both sift out the accurate information, and attempt to see what the disinformation
is designed to obscure.
One thing of which I am absolutely certain is that the networks which are outlined by Apelbaum are precisely those which Russian
intelligence will have spent a great deal of time and ingenuity penetrating.
This will have been attempted by 'SIGINT' and surveillance methods, and also through infiltrating agents and turning people.
(There are often grounds to suspect that some of those most vociferously denouncing Putin are colluding with Russian intelligence.)
Together, these methods are likely to have produced a mass of information. It is important to remember, for example, that
at the time of his mysterious death on 23 March 2013 Boris Berezovsky was negotiating to return to Russia, and that his head of
security, Sergei Sokolov did return, with a 'cache' of documents.
Some of these were used back in April 2016 in a 'Vesti Nedeli' edition presented by Dmitry Kiselyov, who manages Russia's informational
programming resources, and an accompanying documentary on the 'Pervyi Kanal' station.
The purpose was to demonstrate that Alexei Navalny was the instrument of a 'régime change' plot in which William Browder was
acting as an agent of MI6.
There is a good discussion of this, which highlights some of the problems with the documents, by Gilbert Doctorow, and Sokolov
appears to have been involved in some murky activities since.
But whatever the credibility or lack of it of the material, its appearance illustrates a general pattern, where the political
disintegration of the London-based opposition to Putin has meant that more and more people involved in it have been supplying
information to the Russians.
If, as I strongly suspect, there is fire beneath the smoke in those Russian television programmes, and if a great part of a
series of projects of a related kind orchestrated in conjunction by elements in American and British intelligence were actually
large run from this side, this will be creating headaches for people in Washington, as well as London.
An important role in the Apelbaum piece is played by the private security company Hakluyt. A quick look at the entries
on Wikipedia and Powerbase will make clear that, if there is a British 'deep state', this is likely to be at its core.
It is against this background that on has to see a specific claim which Apelbaum makes, for which I do not think any evidence
is produced, about two figures whose role in 'Russiagate' is clearly central. So Luke Harding is described as 'A Guardian reporter
and a Hakluyt and Orbis contractor' (note word.) Meanwhile, Edward Baumgartner is described as 'Co-founder of Edward Austin. Contractor
at Orbis and Hakluyt.'
That Harding is corrupt, as also Sir Robert Owen's 'Inquiry' into the death of the late Alexander Litvinenko, I can prove.
When Owen's report was published in January 2016, a preliminary response by me was posted here on SST, which among other things
listed some of the evidence establishing that the interviews supposedly recorded with Litvinenko by Detective Inspector Brent
Hyatt immediately before his death were blatant forgeries.
If this is the case, then questions are raised about how much of the apparently compelling forensic evidence is forged – and
close examination suggests that key parts of it are.
In relation to that part of the evidence discussed in my January 2016 post which exposes the fumbling attempts by Steele
and his colleagues to cover up the truth about when and how Litvinenko travelled into central London on the day he was supposedly
killed, most of this had been among a mass of material submitted by me to the Inquiry Team, which I have e-mails to prove was
read.
Likewise, also in January 2016, I sent the key relevant evidence on this crucial matter to Harding and senior figures at the
'Guardian', and have reason to believe it was read.
Further study of Owen's report has confirmed my suspicion that a strong 'prima facie case' of conspiracy to pervert the
course of justice exists against very many of those involved in it.
At the same time, materials produced on the Russian side have confirmed my suspicion that the reason why Steele and others
have been able to get away with their cover-up is that the Russian intelligence services are no more enthusiastic than their British
counterparts about having anything like the whole truth about how Litvinenko lived and died made public.
Given the central role which Steele has now assumed in what looks like one of the biggest political scandals in American history,
and the fact that in his book 'Collusion' Harding was again coming out in support of him, it would be of the greatest possible
interest if indeed the latter had combined being a senior 'Guardian' correspondent with being paid by both Orbis and – even more
important – Hakluyt.
And, particularly given the peculiar ambiguities of the role both of Fusion GPS and Baumgartner in the 'Trump Tower' meeting,
it would be of great interest if the latter could be tied not only to Fusion, but to Orbis and – again even more important – Hakluyt.
This in turn might be relevant in trying to make sense of whether the fact that he and Simpson appear to have been working
against Trump and Browder at the same time was or was not part of an elaborate ploy to give credibility to 'information operations'
against the former.
There are accordingly two possibilities. It may be that, while much else in the Apelbaum material can be shown to be accurate,
such accurate information is being used to give credibility to disinformation.
Alternatively, he is being used as a conduit for accurate and really explosive information about the British end of 'Russiagate',
which he is unlikely to have unearthed all by himself, and the actual sources of which are – for very understandable reasons –
being obscured.
Thank you for your reply. You have given me much to think about and I am very grateful that you took the time to respond in
such a comprehensive manner, and that you have provided me and others here with some really compelling information and notions.
In particular, the issue of sources and methods you note seems spot on. The author(s)'s information gathering methodologies
and expertise are certainly not those of the laiety. In fact in the comments below his post YA mentions intelligence work.
Additionally, the text itself displays an odd parallelism with his assertion regarding the Steele Dossier- that is, the
likelihood of multiple authors, of diverse origins.
One thing that did catch my eye was a response he made to David Cay Johnston's pissy request for a retraction about Jacoby
involvement. YA included a quote in Latin from Cicero's accusations against Cataline. Here is the English: What is there that
you did last night, what the night before -- where is it that you were -- who was there that you summoned to meet you -- what
design was there which was adopted by you, with which you think that any one of us is unacquainted?
While this sort of riposte isn't exactly hyper-erudite, it ain't chopped liver either. What I mean to say is that exceptional
cyber skills, algorithm coding (I'm guessing crawlers) are not commonly coupled with that sort of classical formation. His recourse
to various biblical quotes suggests an unusual level of education as well. And no way is he younger than 38 or so.
At any rate, thank you for the article and your kind and informative reply.
Thanks. I have now read both a good few of Apelbaum's earlier posts, and also the comments on his discussion of the dossier.
Given the importance of his analysis of that document closer study is clearly needed of all this material, but I have some preliminary
reactions.
My curiosity about who Apelbaum might be is reinforced by the fact that the intimations he gives about his background in
his responses to comments, while not incompatible with what he has said in the past, do not sit so easily with it.
In a July 2010 post, he explained that: 'In my previous life, I was a civil engineer. I worked for a large power marine construction
company doing structural design and field engineering.' According to the account he gave then, he subsequently shifted to software
development.
What he now tells us is that: 'As far as how I first started, I do have an intelligence background and have been developing
OSINT/cyber/intelligence platforms for many years.'
That makes sense in terms of the analysis, which – whatever other inputs there may or may not have been – looks to me like
the work of someone who has a serious background in these kinds of methodology, and moreover, is clearly not any kind of 'Fachidiot.'
So, questions naturally arise about Apelbaum's intelligence career, in particular, who he is likely to have been employed
by, and associated with, in the past, and whether he is still involved with any of those agencies which have employed him.
Even if he is not, questions would obviously rise about present connections arising from past work. This is in addition to
the possibility that the logic of events may have provoked him to collaborate with those who might earlier have been his adversaries.
Reading Apelbaum's work, I am reminded of another interesting intervention in an embittered argument relating to the Middle
East and the post-Soviet space, from what turned out to be an unexpected source.
In the period following the 'false flag' sarin attack at Ghouta on 21 August 2013 an incisive demolition of the conventional
wisdom was provided in the 'crowdsourced' investigation masterminded by one 'sasa wawa' on a site entitled 'Who Attacked Ghouta?'
And then, in December 2016, an Israeli high technology entrepreneur called Saar Wilf, a former employee of Unit 8200, that
country's equivalent of the NSA or GCHQ, who had subsequently made a great deal of money when he and his partner sold their company
to Paypal, co-founded a site called 'Rootclaim.'
The site, it was explained, was dedicated to applying Bayesian statistics to 'current affairs' problems. This is a methodology,
whose modern form owes much to work done at Bletchley Park in the war, which is invaluable in 'SIGINT' analysis and also combating
online fraud.
At the outset, 'Rootclaim' posted a recycled version of some of the key material from the 'Who Attacked Ghouta?' investigation.
So, it seems likely, if not absolutely certain, that Saar Wilf and 'sasa wawa' are one and the same.
Following the Salisbury incident on 4 March, a blogger using the name 'sushi' produced a series of eleven posts under the title
'A Curious Incident' on the 'Vineyard of the Saker' blog.
Again, there are some very clear resemblances to 'sasa wawa' and Saar Wilf, which made me wonder whether the same person may
be reappearing under yet another 'moniker.'
While the 'flavour' of Apelbaum seems to be different, the combination of what looks like serious technical expertise in IT
techniques relating to intelligence with broad general intellectual interests looks to me similar.
I was amused by the combination of his quotation of the words from John 8:32 etched into the wall of the original CIA headquarters
– 'And you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free' – and the following remarks:
'The June 2016 start date of Steele's contract with Fusion GPS is the start of the "billable" activity, not the beginning of
the research. Steele and Simpson/Jacoby have been collaborating on Trump/Russia going back to 2009.
'Also, there is a large Hakluyt/Orbis "commercial intelligence" network in the US that regularly services political and
federal agencies and has the power to summon Nazgûls the likes of John Brennan. So Steele is not the new kid on the block, he
has been doing this type of work long before 2016. This is also why he has such a cozy relationship with the brass at the DOJ
and state.'
As it happens, I think that many of the collaborations involved may have started significantly earlier than this. In his response
to David Cay Johnston, Apelbaum links to an April 2007' WSJ' article by Simpon and Jacoby which, among other things, deals with
Semyon Mogilevich.
This is behind a paywall, but, fortunately, the fact that Ukrainian nationalists have had an obvious interest in treating it
as a source of reliable information has meant that it is easily accessible.
It should I think be clear from my January 2016 post why I find this particularly interesting, in that it has to be interpreted
in the context of a crucial 'key' to the mystery of the death of Alexander Litvinenko.
This is that he, the Ukrainian nationalist former KGB person Yuri Shvets, the convicted Italian disinformation peddler
Mario Scaramella, and quite possibly the sometime key FBI expert on Mogilevich, Robert 'Bobby' Levinson, were involved in trying
to suggest that Mogilevich was an instrument of a plot by Putin to equip Al Qaeda with a 'mini nuclear bomb.'
So, I then come back to the question of whether this notion of a 'large Haluyt/Orbis "commercial intelligence" network in the
US', playing the role of Sauron with Brennan, perhaps, as the 'Witch-king of Angmar', does or does not have substance.
If it does, there would be very good reasons for a variety of people, with a range of different attitudes to events in the
post-Soviet space and the Middle East, to think that they had an interest in collaborating with Russian intelligence against a
common enemy.
If it does not, then there is a real possibility that Apelbaum may be involved in using accurate intelligence to disseminate
inaccurate. (It seems to me that he is much too intelligent to be a plausible candidate for the role of 'useful idiot.')
One further point that may, or may not, be relevant. Many of the most influential American and British Jews, for reasons which
I find somewhat hard to understand, seem to have decided that the heirs of the architects of the Lvov pogrom are nice and cuddly.
So, for example, Chrystia Freeland, the unrepentant granddaughter of the notorious Nazi collaborator Michael Chomiak, has been
able to end up as Canadian Foreign Minister because made a successful journalistic career on the London 'Financial Times', a paper
with a strong Jewish presence.
That the editorial staff of such a paper thought it appropriate to have someone like Freeland as their Moscow correspondent
gives you a good insight into how moronic British élites have become. This may well be relevant, in trying to evaluate claims
about Hakluyt and other matters.
In relation to Apelbaum, it may be quite beside the point that other Jews from a Russian/East European background, both in
Russia, Israel, and the United States, have very different views on Ukraine, Russia, and the dangers posed – not least to Israel
– by jihadists. It is however a fact which needs to be born in mind, when one comes across people whose views cut across conventional
dividing lines in the United States and Britain.
Beside the point in relation to Apelbaum, I am confident, but also needing to be kept in mind, is the possibility that elements
in the United States 'intelligence community', seeing the 'writing on the wall', may think it appropriate to shift from trying
to pass the buck by blaming the Russians to doing so by blaming the Brits.
It seems apparent that Putin's reordering of the Russian economy after the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management, Republic
Bank's difficulites and the death of Edmund Safra left a bitter taste in the mouths of many who had hoped to exercise rentier
rights over the Russian economy and resources. Why so much US resources and energy have been committed to recovering a contested
deed is a real conundrum.
I was unaware of Freeland's grandfather and his lamentable CV. Thank you. It's funny that you mentioned both the Ghouta post
and the Vineyard of the Saker. I recall reading those and thinking- this is not like common fare on the intertubes.
Your last points about failings in the quality of elite decision-making is extremely important. This dynamic of the dumb (US,
UK, EU) at the wheel is, for me, the most frightening feature of the current state of play. In the worst moments I fear we are
all on a bus driven by a drunk monkey, careening through the Andes. It's going to hurt all the way to the bottom.
Again, I am very grateful for your replies and all the great information and thought.
I think the question of why large elements in both American and British élites got so heavily invested, in essence, in supporting
the oligarchs who refused Putin's terms in what turned into a kind of 'bare knuckles' struggle they were always likely to lose
is a very interesting one.
It has long seemed to me that, even if one looked at matters from the most self-interested and cynical point of view, this
represented a quite spectacular error of judgement. And, viewing the way in which 'international relations' are rearranging themselves,
I am reasonably confident that this was one matter on which I got things right.
A central reason for this, I have come to think, is that Berezovsky and the 'information operations' people round him – Litvinenko
is important, but the pivotal figure, the 'mastermind', if you will, was clearly Alex Goldfarb, and Yuri Shvets and Yuri Felshtinsky
both played and still play important supporting roles – were telling people in the West what these wanted to hear.
It is a truth if not quite 'universally acknowledged', at least widely recognised by those who have acquired some 'worldly
wisdom', that intellectually arrogant people, with limited experience of the world and a narrow education, can commonly be 'led
by the nose' by figures who have more of the relevant kinds of intelligence and experience, and few scruples.
This rather basic fact is central to understanding the press conference on 31 May 2007 where the figure whom the Berezovsky
group and Christopher Steele had framed in relation to the death of Litvinenko, Andrei Lugovoi, responded to the Crown Prosecution
Service request for his extradition.
In his prepared statement, Lugovoi claimed that his supposed victim used to say that everyone in Britain were ''retards',
to use the translation submitted in evidence to Owen's Inquiry, or 'idiots', to use that by RT. And according to this version,
the British believed in everything that 'we' – that is, the Berezovky group – said was happening in Russia.
Whether or not Litvinenko expressed this cynical contempt, the credulity with which the claims of the 'information operations'
people around Berezovsky have been accepted – well illustrated by Owen's report and perhaps most ludicrous in Harding's journalism
– makes clear it is justified.
What moreover became very evident, when Glenn Simpson testified to the House Intelligence and Senate Judiciary Committees,
was that he was once again recycling the Berezovsky's group's version of Putin 'sistema' as the 'return of Karla.'
Given what has been emerging on the ways in which Fusion GPS and Steele were both integrated into networks involving top-level
people in the FBI, DOJ, State Department and CIA, it seems clear that the 'retards'/'idiots' label is as applicable to people
on your side as to people on ours.
Perhaps then, cartoons about Trump as a puppet, with the strings pulled by another puppet representing Manafort, whose
strings are in turn pulled by Putin, should be replaced by ones in which Mueller is seen as a puppet manipulated by the ghost
of Boris Berezovsky.
But that is the irony. The relationship with Berezovsky blew up in the faces of all concerned, when in the wake of the
successsful corruption of the investigation into the death of Litvinenko by him and his 'information operations' people, he attempted
to recoup his fortunes by suing Roman Abramovich, and got taken to pieces by Lord Sumption.
As to what happened next, a recent item on 'Russian Insider', providing a link to and transcript of a more recent piece presented
by Dmitry Kiselyov on 'Vesti Nedeli is a good illustration of where accurate information and disinformation can be mixed in material
from Russian sources.
The piece, which appeared in July, discusses, and quotes from, an interview given the previous month to Dmitry Gordon, who
runs a Ukrainian nationalist site, by Berezovsky's daughter Elizaveta. Among other things, this deals with Berezovsky's death.
(See
https://gordonua.com/public...
. A little manipulation will get you a reasonably serviceable English translation, although
it becomes comic because Berezovsky is referred to as 'pope'.)
The 'Vesti Nedeli' piece uses what Elizaveta Berezovskaya says in support of the claim that Berezovsky was murdered by
British 'special forces', because he was planning to return to Russia, and he 'knew too much about them.'
As it happens, this is a patently tendentious reading of what she says. However, interesting features of the actual text of
the interview are 1. that it does provide what to my mind is compelling evidence that her father was murdered, and 2. while she
clearly suggests that this was covered up by the British, she is not suggesting that they were responsible – but also not making
Putin 'prime suspect.'
Whether the suggestion by his daughter that her father might have been murdered by people who knew that by so doing they might
get control of assets he might otherwise recoup has any merit I cannot say: I doubt it but cannot simply rule the possibility
out.
What remains the case is that at that point there were very many people, including but in no way limited to elements in Western
intelligence agencies, who had strong interests in avoiding a return by Berezovsky to Russia.
And the same people had the strongest possible interest in avoiding his being treated at the Inquest into Litvinenko's death
by a competent barrister representing the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation in the way he had been treated by
Lord Sumption.
Ironically, it may have been partly because Lugovoi had made a dramatic announcement that he was withdrawing from the proceedings
less than a fortnight before Berezovsky's death that before this happened a lot of people were staring at an absolutely worst-case
scenario.
Time and again, in Owen's report, one finds matters where he recycles patent disinformation, which a well-briefed barrister
acting for the ICRF could have easily ripped to shreds. At the same time, in this situation, the Russians could most probably
have made a reasonable fist of coping with the multiple contradictions in claims made on their own side.
And, crucially, their patent weak suit – the need to obscure the actual role of Russian intelligence in the smuggling of the
polonium into London, which had nothing to do with any murder plot – could have been reasonably well 'covered.'
Precisely because of these facts, the one scenario which can very easily be completely ruled out is that which is basic to
the 'information operations' now coming out of London and Washington. In this, Berezovsky's death is portrayed as a key element
in a systematic attempt by the Putin 'sistema' to eradicate the supposedly heroic opposition, much of it located in London.
That sustaining this fable is critical to defending the credibility of Steele, and therefore of the whole 'Russiagate' narrative,
is quite evident from the 'From Russia With Blood' materials published by 'BuzzFeed' in July last year.
This, however, leads on to a paradox, which is highlighted by a piece posted by James George Jatras on the 'Strategic Culture
Foundation' site on 18 August, entitled 'Have You Committed Your Three Felonies Today?'
Among the points Jatras – who I think is an Orthodox Christian – makes is that the logic of contesting the 'Russiagate' narrative
has had some strange consequences. Among these, there is one on which the actual history of the activities of Berezovsky and his
'information operations' people bears directly:
'Flipping the "Russians did it" narrative: Among the President's defenders, on say Fox News, no less than among his detractors,
Russia is the enemy who (altogether now!) "interfered in our elections" in order to "undermine our democracy." Mitt Romney was
right! The only argument is over who was the intended beneficiary of Muscovite mendacity, Trump or Hillary – that's the variable.
The constant is that Putin is Hitler and only a traitor would want to get along with him. All sides agree that the Christopher
Steele dossier is full of "Russian dirt" – though there's literally zero actual evidence of Kremlin involvement but a lot pointing
to Britain's MI6 and GCHQ.'
For reasons I have already discussed, I think what while Jatras is substantially right, 'zero evidence' is only partially correct:
It seems to me that disinformation supplied by elements in Russian intelligence could quite possibly have found its way into the
second and final memoranda.
That said, Jatras has pointed to a fundamental feature of the current situation, which involves multiple ironies.
The total destruction of Steele's credibility could easily be achieved by anyone who was interested in looking at the evidence
about the life and death of the late Alexander Litvinenko seriously. However, because a central tactic of most of those who are
attacking the 'Russiagate' narrative has generally been 'Flipping the "Russians did it" narrative', they are like people who ought
to be able to see Steele's 'Achilles' heel', but in practice, often end up attacking him where his armour is, without being, not
at its weakest.
Meanwhile, as I have already stressed, the ability of the Russian authorities to undermine the 'narrative' produced by the
'information operations' people around Berezovsky, of whom the most important are Alex Goldfarb and Yuri Shvets, is compromised
by their fear of having to 'own up to' their actual role in the smuggling of the polonium into London in October-November 2007.
The person who had a strong interest in blowing this structure of illusion to pieces was actually Lugovoi. But it seems to
me at least possible that there has been a kind of disguised covert conspiracy by elements in Western and Russian intelligence
to ensure there was no risk of him doing so.
One of the things I've never understood about the Trump Dossier story is the lack of any forensic analysis of its content
and style anywhere in the media, even the alt media. Who was supposed to have actually written it? Steele? The style does not
match someone of his background and education, and the formatting and syntax were atrocious. The font actually varied from "report"
to "report." It certainly did not give me the impression of being the product of a high-end, Belgravia consultancy.
I wonder whether it was produced by an American of one sort or another and then "laundered" by being accorded association
with the UK firm. Given that Steele just happened to be hired by the USG to help in the anti-FIFA skulduggery, he and his firm
seem very much to be a concern that does dirty little jobs that need discretely to be done, though in this case, the discretion
was undermined.
Most of the memos were issued before October and Fusion/Simpson authorized Steele to release information to the FBI starting
in July. The question is why the memos were released after the election when a release before the election would have been enough
to sink Trump. Instead the FBI and presumably those paying Fusion on Hillarys behalf sat on it, and Comey comes out days before
the election
Saying he was reopening the HC email investigation.
Kind of looks like they all wanted Trump in office and the disclosure was to give Trump the excuse needed to back track
on his promises to improve relations with Russia and blame that on pressure from the Deep State and Russia Gate.
Looking at Trumps history with Sater (FBI/CIA asset) and his political aspirations that began following his Moscow visit
in 1987 it seems likely Trump has been a Deep State asset for 30 years and fed intelligence to CIA/FBI on Russian oligarchs and
mafia . Indeed he may well have duped Russians into believing he was working for them when in fact it was the CIA/FBI who had
the best Kompromat with US RICO laws that could have beggared him
One thing to remember about the FBI is Sy Hersh. Hersh claims the FBI has been sitting on a report for two years that fingers
murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich as the Wikileaks DNC email leaker (or one of them, at least.)
Now can we imagine that not everyone in a senior position at the FBI knows about that report? I can't. Literally everyone from
the supervisor of the Special Agent or computer forensic investigator who examined Rich's computer right up to the Director HAD
to know that report exists - and covered it up.
That right there is obstruction of justice and conspiracy. Literally everyone at the FBI who can't PROVE he didn't know about
that report will be going to jail. The entire top administration of the FBI is going to go down.
And how many people at the Department of Justice are aware of that report? Did Rosenstein know? Who else in the Obama administration
knew?
That would be motivation for a lot of desperate maneuvering. Add to that who was really behind the Steele Dossier and even
more people are likely to end up in jail.
You haven't heard that yet? It's the infamous audio tape that Hersh was caught on discussing it. He's since obfuscated what
he said, but the tape stands on its own, and he has never said that anything he said on the tape wasn't true, despite that a lot
of Democrats and Trump-bashers claim he has.
I have told you several times and I will tell you again probably hopelessly that Hersh PERSONALLY has told me that the "tape"
was made without his permission or knowledge when he was aimlessly speculating on possibilities.
I am unaware of your explicitly telling me that he personally told you that the tape was "aimless speculation." My apologies
if I missed that response.
Of course the tape was made without his permission. We all know that. It's irrelevant to what he said on the tape.
What I'm saying is that despite what he may have told you, nothing on that tape sounds like "aimless speculation".
When you consider that he has four good reasons for dissembling about the tape, I view it as far more likely that everything
he said was true.
1) If what he said is true, he may have compromised his FBI contact. Not good for his line of work.
2) If what he said is true, compromising that contact may well make all his other contacts wary about talking to him in the
future - a bad deal for a journalist who relies on his contacts.
3) If what he said is true, he may have compromised his ability to get his "long form journalism" article published - a problem
he already has had in the past.
4) If what he said is true, he's accusing the FBI of sitting on that report for two years, which might well make him a target
of retaliation in some way.
If you believe that everything he said on the tape is untrue and that is what he explicitly told you, fine. I'm waiting for
his "long form journalism" report to explain it. So far everything he has said publicly about it has not contradicted what he
said on the tape, but merely waved his hands about it.
Sy Hersh talks a lot both loudly and profanely. He never intended to tell Buttowski that there was more than a possibility
that the FBI held more than a rumor that this might be true. He talked to Buttowski because a mutual friend of him and me asked
him to do so for no good reason. Please go talk to all the other people you pester and not on SST. You are an argumentative nuisance.
I have no stake in the debate about Rich, DNC, wikileaks. But I do notice some loose ends. Hersh may well have engaged in speculation, but it is interesting speculation:
quote: 55. During his conversation with Butowsky, Mr. Hersh claimed that he had received information from an "FBI report." Mr. Hersh
had not seen the report himself, but explained: "I have somebody on the inside who will go and read a file for me. And I know
this person is unbelievably accurate and careful. He's a very high level guy."
56. According to Mr. Hersh, his source told him that the FBI report states that, shortly after Seth Rich's murder, the D.C.
police obtained a warrant to search his home. When they arrived at the home, the D.C. police found Seth Rich's computer, but were
unable to access it.The computer was then provided to the D.C. police Cyber Unit, who also were unable to access the computer.
At that point, the D.C. police contacted the Cyber Unit at the FBI's Washington D.C. field office. Again, according to the supposed
FBI report, the Washington D.C. field office was able to get into the computer and found that in "late spring early summer [2016],
[Seth Rich][made] contact with Wikileaks." "They found what he had done. He had submitted a series of documents, of emails. Some
juicy emails from the DNC." Mr. Hersh told Butowsky that Seth Rich "offered a sample [to WikiLeaks][,] an extensive sample, you
know I'm sure dozens, of emails, and said I want money." . . . "I hear gossip," Hersh tells NPR on Monday. "[Butowsky] took two and two and made 45 out of it."
. . . The clip is definitely worth listening to in its entirety if you haven't already. Hersh is heard telling Butowsky that he had
a high-level insider read him an FBI file confirming that Seth Rich was known to have been in contact with WikiLeaks prior to
his death, which is not even a tiny bit remotely the same as having "heard rumors". Hersh's statements in the audio recording
and his statement to NPR cannot both be true. endquote https://medium.com/@caityjo...
You may very well be right. There may be a large element of 'amateur night out' about this.
But then I come back to the question of who decided that the dossier be published, and who, if anyone, was consulted before
the decision was made. For the reasons I gave, I am reasonably confident that those on this side who had been in one way or another
complicit in its production and covert dissemination were taken aback by the publication.
It is not clear to me whether anything significant can be inferred from the publicly available evidence about whether those
on your side who had been complicit were involved in the decision to publish without taking even elementary precautions, or whether
the 'Buzzfeed' people just had a rush of blood to the head.
I suspect the decision to publish the dossier was political. It was required to enable Clapper, Brennan, and others to
opine on national media and create further media hysteria prior to the vote as well as to justify the counter-intelligence investigations
underway. They were throwing the kitchen sink to sink Trump's electoral chances. I don't think a lot of thought was given about
the legal ramifications.
This seems to be a pattern. Leak information. Then use the leaked story to justify actions like apply for a FISA warrant
or fan the media flames.
And now they are turning on one another. Hayden just slammed Clapper for making too much of losing the security clearance the
he abuse for political reasons.
Looks like both Clapper and Haydon made the same comment about Brennan. they said "his rhetoric was becoming a problem. Ah,
the USAF intel rats are swimming for the shore. Lets see how many others (not all USAF) decide to try to save themselves.
I find it incredulous that former leaders of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies have gained paid access to powerful
media platforms and they have used it to launch vicious attacks on a POTUS.
I find it amazing that McCabe and Peter Strzok are raising hundreds of thousands of dollars on social media platforms.
IMO, everyone on the list that Sarah Sanders noted, should not just lose their clearance but should be testifying to a grand
jury.
Not really incredulous. Just expected behavior from swamp creatures whose self-assumed importance and "rights" (that the rest
of us peasants don't have) are coming under threat.
It seems to me absolutely appalling, and I am also appalled that people on this side appear to have been playing a central
role in all this.
One question. It seems to me that if what seems likely to be true does prove true, a range of these people must have committed
very serious offences indeed.
However, I am too ignorant to know what precisely those offences might be. If you, or anyone else, had a clear understanding,
I would be interested.
"It seems to me absolutely appalling, and I am also appalled that people on this side appear to have been playing a central
role in all this."
That says it all. We got the more discreditable side of the affair outsourced to us. Ugh. Is that all we're fit for now in
the UK? White helmets and Khan Sheikhoun and Steele, all the scrubby stuff? Is that what the famous "Special Relationship" now
consists of? We get to do the scrubby stuff because it's what we're fit for and we can be relied upon to keep it quiet?
Because at least on the American side there are people concerned about the political/PR involvement of parts of their own Intelligence
Community, and seeking to have it looked into. Here - am I right? - it's dead silence.
I've been permitted to say before on SST that I don't think the Americans are going to resolve this affair satisfactorily until
more light is cast on the UK side. But I also think that, for our own sakes, we should be looking at what exactly our IC does,
and in particular, how much UK political involvement there was in what is now clear was a direct PR attack on an American President.
I'm not a lawyer and have no experience with the federal criminal statutes. Having said that I suspect that the following could
be considered crimes:
intentionally misleading FISC
perjury
leaking classified information
launching investigations on the basis of known false information
surveillance of US citizens on the basis of false information
conspiracy to subvert the constitution
sedition/treason
There may also be certain professional agreements with the government that may have been violated. The only way any of these
people will face a grand jury is if Donald Trump chooses to take action. Left to the natural devices of the law enforcement institutions
nothing will happen and they will sweep everything under the rug. The intensity of Trump's tweets and the accusations therein
are rising. If the GOP retains the House and Jim Jordan becomes speaker, then there may be a possibility that Sessions, Rosenstein
and Wray may be fired and another special counsel appointed who will then convene a grand jury.
Considering what has been uncovered by Congressional investigators and the DOJ IG, I am truly surprised that Sessions has resisted
the appointment of a special counsel. But of course that could go the way of the Owens inquiry in your country.
"... "Let us linger over the perversity," he writes in "Why Millions of Ordinary Americans Support Donald Trump," one of the seventeen component essays in Rendezvous with Oblivion : "Let us linger over the perversity. Left parties the world over were founded to advance the fortunes of working people. But our left party in America -- one of our two monopoly parties -- chose long ago to turn its back on these people's concerns, making itself instead into the tribune of the enlightened professional class, a 'creative class' that makes innovative things like derivative securities and smartphone apps ..."
"... And the real bad news is not that this Creative Class, this Expert Class, this Meritocratic Class, this Professional Class -- this Liberal Class, with all its techno-ecstasy and virtue-questing and unleashing of innovation -- is so deeply narcissistic and hypocritical, but rather that it is so self-interestedly parasitical and predatory. ..."
Thomas Frank's new collection of essays: Rendezvous with Oblivion: Reports from a
Sinking Society (Metropolitan Books 2018) and Listen, Liberal; or,Whatever
Happened to the Party of the People? (ibid. 2016)
To hang out with Thomas Frank for a couple of hours is to be reminded that, going back to
1607, say, or to 1620, for a period of about three hundred and fifty years, the most archetypal
of American characters was, arguably, the hard-working, earnest, self-controlled, dependable
white Protestant guy, last presented without irony a generation or two -- or three -- ago in
the television personas of men like Ward Cleaver and Mister Rogers.
Thomas Frank, who grew up in Kansas and earned his Ph.D. at the University of Chicago, who
at age 53 has the vibe of a happy eager college nerd, not only glows with authentic Midwestern
Nice (and sometimes his face turns red when he laughs, which is often), he actually lives in
suburbia, just outside of D.C., in Bethesda, where, he told me, he takes pleasure in mowing the
lawn and doing some auto repair and fixing dinner for his wife and two children. (Until I met
him, I had always assumed it was impossible for a serious intellectual to live in suburbia and
stay sane, but Thomas Frank has proven me quite wrong on this.)
Frank is sincerely worried about the possibility of offending friends and acquaintances by
the topics he chooses to write about. He told me that he was a B oy Scout back in Kansas, but
didn't make Eagle. He told me that he was perhaps a little too harsh on Hillary Clinton in his
brilliantly perspicacious "Liberal Gilt [ sic ]" chapter at the end of Listen,
Liberal . His piercing insight into and fascination with the moral rot and the hypocrisy
that lies in the American soul brings, well, Nathaniel Hawthorne to mind, yet he refuses to say
anything (and I tried so hard to bait him!) mean about anyone, no matter how culpable he or she
is in the ongoing dissolving and crumbling and sinking -- all his
metaphors -- of our society. And with such metaphors Frank describes the "one essential story"
he is telling in Rendezvous with Oblivion : "This is what a society looks like when the
glue that holds it together starts to dissolve. This is the way ordinary citizens react when
they learn that the structure beneath them is crumbling. And this is the thrill that pulses
through the veins of the well-to-do when they discover that there is no longer any limit on
their power to accumulate" ( Thomas Frank in NYC on book tour https://youtu.be/DBNthCKtc1Y ).
And I believe that Frank's self-restraint, his refusal to indulge in bitter satire even as
he parses our every national lie, makes him unique as social critic. "You will notice," he
writes in the introduction to Rendezvous with Oblivion, "that I describe [these
disasters] with a certain amount of levity. I do that because that's the only way to confront
the issues of our time without sinking into debilitating gloom" (p. 8). And so rather than
succumbing to an existential nausea, Frank descends into the abyss with a dependable flashlight
and a ca. 1956 sitcom-dad chuckle.
"Let us linger over the perversity," he writes in "Why Millions of Ordinary Americans
Support Donald Trump," one of the seventeen component essays in Rendezvous with Oblivion
: "Let us linger over the perversity. Left parties the world over were founded to advance the
fortunes of working people. But our left party in America -- one of our two monopoly parties --
chose long ago to turn its back on these people's concerns, making itself instead into the
tribune of the enlightened professional class, a 'creative class' that makes innovative things
like derivative securities and smartphone apps " (p. 178).
And it is his analysis of this "Creative Class" -- he usually refers to it as the "Liberal
Class" and sometimes as the "Meritocratic Class" in Listen, Liberal (while Barbara
Ehrenreich uses the term " Professional Managerial Class ,"and Matthew Stewart recently
published an article entitled "The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy" in the
Atlantic ) -- that makes it clear that Frank's work is a continuation of the profound
sociological critique that goes back to Thorstein Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class
(1899) and, more recently, to Christopher Lasch's The Revolt of the Elites (1994).
Unlike Veblen and Lasch, however, Frank is able to deliver the harshest news without any
hauteur or irascibility, but rather with a deftness and tranquillity of mind, for he is both in
and of the Creative Class; he abides among those afflicted by the epidemic which he diagnoses:
"Today we live in a world of predatory bankers, predatory educators, even predatory health care
providers, all of them out for themselves . Liberalism itself has changed to accommodate its
new constituents' technocratic views. Today, liberalism is the philosophy not of the sons of
toil but of the 'knowledge economy' and, specifically, of the knowledge economy's winners: the
Silicon Valley chieftains, the big university systems, and the Wall Street titans who gave so
much to Barack Obama's 2008 campaign . They are a 'learning class' that truly gets the power of
education. They are a 'creative class' that naturally rebels against fakeness and conformity.
They are an ' innovation class ' that just can't stop coming up with awesome new stuff" (
Listen, Liberal , pp. 27-29).
And the real bad news is not that this Creative Class, this Expert Class, this
Meritocratic Class, this Professional Class -- this Liberal Class, with all its
techno-ecstasy and virtue-questing and unleashing of innovation -- is so deeply narcissistic
and hypocritical, but rather that it is so self-interestedly parasitical and
predatory.
The class that now runs the so-called Party of the People is impoverishing the people; the
genius value-creators at Amazon and Google and Uber are Robber Barons, although, one must
grant, hipper, cooler, and oh so much more innovative than their historical predecessors. "In
reality," Frank writes in Listen, Liberal ,
.there is little new about this stuff except the software, the convenience, and the
spying. Each of the innovations I have mentioned merely updates or digitizes some business
strategy that Americans learned long ago to be wary of. Amazon updates the practices of
Wal-Mart, for example, while Google has dusted off corporate behavior from the days of the
Robber Barons. What Uber does has been compared to the every-man-for-himself hiring
procedures of the pre-union shipping docks . Together, as Robert Reich has written, all these
developments are 'the logical culmination of a process that began thirty years ago when
corporations began turning over full-time jobs to temporary workers, independent contractors,
free-lancers, and consultants.' This is atavism, not innovation . And if we keep going in
this direction, it will one day reduce all of us to day laborers, standing around like the
guys outside the local hardware store, hoping for work. (p. 215).
And who gets this message? The YouTube patriot/comedian Jimmy Dore, Chicago-born,
ex-Catholic, son of a cop, does for one. "If you read this b ook, " Dore said while
interviewing Frank back in January of 2017, "it'll make y ou a radical" (Frank Interview Part 4
https://youtu.be/JONbGkQaq8Q ).
But to what extent, on the other hand, is Frank being actively excluded from our elite media
outlets? He's certainly not on TV or radio or in print as much as he used to be. So is he a
prophet without honor in his own country? Frank, of course, is too self-restrained to speculate
about the motives of these Creative Class decision-makers and influencers. "But it is ironic
and worth mentioning," he told me, "that most of my writing for the last few years has been in
a British publication, The Guardian and (in translation) in Le Monde Diplomatique
. The way to put it, I think, is to describe me as an ex-pundit."
Frank was, nevertheless, happy to tell me in vivid detail about how his most fundamental
observation about America, viz. that the Party of the People has become hostile to the
people , was for years effectively discredited in the Creative Class media -- among the
bien-pensants , that is -- and about what he learned from their denialism.
JS: Going all the way back to your 2004 book What's the Matter with Kansas? -- I
just looked at Larry Bartels's attack on it, "What's the Matter with What's the Matter with
Kansas?" -- and I saw that his first objection to your book was, Well, Thomas Frank says the
working class is alienated from the Democrats, but I have the math to show that that's false.
How out of touch does that sound now?
TCF: [laughs merrily] I know.
JS: I remember at the time that was considered a serious objection to your
thesis.
TCF: Yeah. Well, he was a professor at Princeton. And he had numbers. So it looked
real. And I actually wrote a response to
that in which I pointed out that there were other statistical ways of looking at it, and he
had chosen the one that makes his point.
JS: Well, what did Mark Twain say?
TCF: Mark Twain?
JS: There are lies, damned lies --
TCF: [laughs merrily] -- and statistics! Yeah. Well, anyhow, Bartels's take became
the common sense of the highly educated -- there needs to be a term for these people by the
way, in France they're called the bien-pensants -- the "right-thinking," the people who
read The Atlantic, The New York Times op-ed page, The Washington Post op-ed page,
and who all agree with each other on everything -- there's this tight little circle of
unanimity. And they all agreed that Bartels was right about that, and that was a costly
mistake. For example, Paul Krugman, a guy whom I admire in a lot of ways, he referenced this
four or five times.
He agreed with it . No, the Democrats are not losing the white working class outside the
South -- they were not going over to the Republicans. The suggestion was that there is
nothing to worry about. Yes. And there were people saying this right up to the 2016
election. But it was a mistake.
JS: I remember being perplexed at the time. I had thought you had written this brilliant
book, and you weren't being taken seriously -- because somebody at Princeton had run some
software -- as if that had proven you wrong.
TCF: Yeah, that's correct . That was a very widespread take on it. And Bartels was
incorrect, and I am right, and [laughs merrily] that's that.
JS: So do you think Russiagate is a way of saying, Oh no no no no, Hillary didn't really
lose?
TCF: Well, she did win the popular vote -- but there's a whole set of pathologies out
there right now that all stem from Hillary Denialism. And I don't want to say that Russiagate
is one of them, because we don't know the answer to that yet.
JS: Um, ok.
TCF: Well, there are all kinds of questionable reactions to 2016 out there, and what
they all have in common is the faith that Democrats did nothing wrong. For example, this same
circle of the bien-pensants have decided that the only acceptable explanation for
Trump's victory is the racism of his supporters. Racism can be the only explanation for the
behavior of Trump voters. But that just seems odd to me because, while it's true of course that
there's lots of racism in this country, and while Trump is clearly a bigot and clearly won the
bigot vote, racism is just one of several factors that went into what happened in 2016. Those
who focus on this as the only possible answer are implying that all Trump voters are
irredeemable, lost forever.
And it comes back to the same point that was made by all those people who denied what was
happening with the white working class, which is: The Democratic Party needs to do nothing
differently . All the post-election arguments come back to this same point. So a couple
years ago they were saying about the white working class -- we don't have to worry about them
-- they're not leaving the Democratic Party, they're totally loyal, especially in the northern
states, or whatever the hell it was. And now they say, well, Those people are racists, and
therefore they're lost to us forever. What is the common theme of these two arguments? It's
always that there's nothing the Democratic Party needs to do differently. First, you haven't
lost them; now you have lost them and they're irretrievable: Either way -- you see what I'm
getting at? -- you don't have to do anything differently to win them.
JS: Yes, I do.
TCF: The argument in What's the Matter with Kansas? was that this is a
long-term process, the movement of the white working class away from the Democratic Party. This
has been going on for a long time. It begins in the '60s, and the response of the Democrats by
and large has been to mock those people, deride those people, and to move away from organized
labor, to move away from class issues -- working class issues -- and so their response has been
to make this situation worse, and it gets worse, and it gets worse, and it gets worse, and it
gets worse! And there's really no excuse for them not seeing it. But they say, believe,
rationalize, you know, come up with anything that gets then off the hook for this, that allows
them to ignore this change. Anything. They will say or believe whatever it takes.
JS: Yes.
TCF: By the way, these are the smartest people! These are tenured professors at Ivy
League institutions, these are people with Nobel Prizes, people with foundation grants, people
with, you know, chairs at prestigious universities, people who work at our most prestigious
media outlets -- that's who's wrong about all this stuff.
JS: [quoting the title of David Halberstam's 1972 book, an excerpt from which Frank uses
as an epigraph for Listen, Liberal ] The best and the brightest!
TCF: [laughing merrily] Exactly. Isn't it fascinating?
JS: But this gets to the irony of the thing. [locates highlighted passage in book] I'm
going to ask you one of the questions you ask in Rendezvous with Oblivion: "Why are
worshippers of competence so often incompetent?" (p. 165). That's a huge question.
TCF: That's one of the big mysteries. Look. Take a step back. I had met Barack Obama.
He was a professor at the University of Chicago, and I'd been a student there. And he was super
smart. Anyhow, I met him and was really impressed by him. All the liberals in Hyde Park --
that's the neighborhood we lived in -- loved him, and I was one of them, and I loved him too.
And I was so happy when he got elected.
Anyhow, I knew one thing he would do for sure, and that is he would end the reign of
cronyism and incompetence that marked the Bush administration and before them the Reagan
administration. These were administrations that actively promoted incompetent people. And I
knew Obama wouldn't do that, and I knew Obama would bring in the smartest people, and he'd get
the best economists. Remember, when he got elected we were in the pit of the crisis -- we were
at this terrible moment -- and here comes exactly the right man to solve the problem. He did
exactly what I just described: He brought in [pause] Larry Summers, the former president of
Harvard, considered the greatest economist of his generation -- and, you know, go down the
list: He had Nobel Prize winners, he had people who'd won genius grants, he had The Best and
the Brightest . And they didn't really deal with the problem. They let the Wall Street
perpetrators off the hook -- in a catastrophic way, I would argue. They come up with a health
care system that was half-baked. Anyhow, the question becomes -- after watching the great
disappointments of the Obama years -- the question becomes: Why did government-by-expert
fail?
JS: So how did this happen? Why?
TCF: The answer is understanding experts not as individual geniuses but as members
of a class . This is the great missing link in all of our talk about expertise. Experts
aren't just experts: They are members of a class. And they act like a class. They have loyalty
to one another; they have a disdain for others, people who aren't like them, who they perceive
as being lower than them, and there's this whole hierarchy of status that they are at the
pinnacle of.
And once you understand this, then everything falls into place! So why did they let the Wall
Street bankers off the hook? Because these people were them. These people are their peers. Why
did they refuse to do what obviously needed to be done with the health care system? Because
they didn't want to do that to their friends in Big Pharma. Why didn't Obama get tough with
Google and Facebook? They obviously have this kind of scary monopoly power that we haven't seen
in a long time. Instead, he brought them into the White House, he identified with them. Again,
it's the same thing. Once you understand this, you say: Wait a minute -- so the Democratic
Party is a vehicle of this particular social class! It all makes sense. And all of a sudden all
of these screw-ups make sense. And, you know, all of their rhetoric makes sense. And the way
they treat working class people makes sense. And they way they treat so many other demographic
groups makes sense -- all of the old-time elements of the Democratic Party: unions, minorities,
et cetera. They all get to ride in back. It's the professionals -- you know, the professional
class -- that sits up front and has its hands on the steering wheel.
* * *
It is, given Frank's persona, not surprising that he is able to conclude Listen,
Liberal with a certain hopefulness, and so let me end by quoting some of his final
words:
What I saw in Kansas eleven years ago is now everywhere . It is time to face the obvious:
that the direction the Democrats have chosen to follow for the last few decades has been a
failure for both the nation and for their own partisan health . The Democrats posture as the
'party of the people' even as they dedicate themselves ever more resolutely to serving and
glorifying the professional class. Worse: they combine self-righteousness and class privilege
in a way that Americans find stomach-turning . The Democrats have no interest in reforming
themselves in a more egalitarian way . What we can do is strip away the Democrats' precious
sense of their own moral probity -- to make liberals live without the comforting knowledge
that righteousness is always on their side . Once that smooth, seamless sense of liberal
virtue has been cracked, anything becomes possible. (pp. 256-257).
"... "Most of the emails were never examined, even though they made up potentially 10 times the evidence" of what was reviewed in the original year-long case that Comey closed in July 2016, said a law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the investigation. ..."
"... "Yet even the "extremely narrow" search that was finally conducted, after more than a month of delay, uncovered more classified material sent and/or received by Clinton through her unauthorized basement server, the official said. Contradicting Comey's testimony, this included highly sensitive information dealing with Israel and the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas. The former secretary of state, however, was never confronted with the sensitive new information and it was never analyzed for damage to national security. ..."
"If neocons and neolibs succeed tearing this president down, than 65 million folks
like me will have absolute, incontrovertible evidence that we no longer live in a democracy
and our vote means nothing, therefore we are powerless unless we take to the streets
with..."
It was incontrovertible long ago, these are just the more blatant latest examples. For
instance, giving just one example, a Sec of State using an unauthorized, unsecured personal
email server in her basement most likely to avoid the ability of FOIA requests to find
anything on a particular topic, a server which contained classified emails up to
TS/SCI/TK/NOFORN (spysat stuff) being given a total pass for what anyone who has ever handled
classified materials would know they'd be put in a small room at Leavenworth for.
Then, the now known to be false claim by Comey that the Weiner laptop which almost
certainly contained even the deleted Clinton emails was thoroughly examined:
"Only 3,077 of the 694,000 emails were directly reviewed for classified or incriminating
information. Three FBI officials completed that work in a single 12-hour spurt the day before
Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges.
"Most of the emails were never examined, even though they made up potentially 10 times
the evidence" of what was reviewed in the original year-long case that Comey closed in July
2016, said a law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the investigation.
"Yet even the "extremely narrow" search that was finally conducted, after more than a
month of delay, uncovered more classified material sent and/or received by Clinton through
her unauthorized basement server, the official said. Contradicting Comey's testimony, this
included highly sensitive information dealing with Israel and the U.S.-designated terrorist
group Hamas. The former secretary of state, however, was never confronted with the sensitive
new information and it was never analyzed for damage to national security.
"Even though the unique classified material was improperly stored and transmitted on an
unsecured device, the FBI did not refer the matter to U.S. intelligence agencies to determine
if national security had been compromised, as required under a federally mandated "damage
assessment" directive.
"The newly discovered classified material "was never previously sent out to the relevant
original classification authorities for security review," the official, who spoke to
RealClearInvestigations on the condition of anonymity, said.
To conclude:
Mark Baum: It's time to call BS.
Vinnie Daniel: BS on what?
Mark Baum: Every-f'ing-thing.
-- film "The Big Short" (2015)
Professor Dershowitz of the Harvard Law School, who is a lawyer's lawyer accurately pointed
out that Mueller and his Democrat Lawyers are really acting illegally.
Mueller is a principal officer of the DoJ not a subordinate officer and according to the
Appointments Clause in the Constitution must be appointed by the President and confirmed by
the senate. He is neither. His activities are supposed to be supervised only by the AG
Sessions as a principal officer. AG Sessions has recused himself from the so called Russian
Collusion investigation only. Rosenstein is only a Deputy AG and was not appointed or
confirmed as the Acting AG so Mueller is also unsupervised. Mueller appointment and his
activities are constitutionally illegal.
No one has ever offered a smidgen of concrete evidence whatsoever that there was ever any
collusion of interference in the election by the Russians and certainly none by the Trump
Campaign.Former CIA head Brennan at the CIA has never offered under oath any proof of any
cyber attacks by the Russians. Obama and Brennan never even pursued the Chinese hacks that
were physically confirmed by server and IP addresses from China under Obama. The Democrats
claim that their DNC server was hacked by the Russians. This has never been confirmed as the
DNC refused to allow it to be taken and examined by the FBI or any other agency. The DNC also
had a lot to hide on it. After all, their foreign IT guy ran off to Pakistan with all the
server data on flash drives. Blackmail? The DNC servers were subpoenaed a year by the House
Judiciary Committee, Somehow they have all disappeared! Felony obstruction of justice.
So here we are a over a year and a half later and still not a single smidgen of proof of
any Russian interference. Not a single one of Mueller's American indictments have had
anything whatsoever to do with the fake Russian collusion claim or anything that occurred in
the campaign period or the transition to office.
This is an obvious attempt at a soft coup to effect the mid terms in favor of the
Democrats. And it is obvious to even a casual observer that Alan Dershowitz exposed
"... China killed or imprisoned 18 to 20 CIA sources from 2010 to 2012, hobbling U.S. spying operations in a massive intelligence breach whose origin has not been identified, the New York Times reported on Saturday. ..."
"... @snoopydawg ..."
"... The most "bizarre thing," Shipp insists, "is the people who protected her from clear felonious activity and violations of the Espionage Act." ..."
"... He said that she not only got away with using her private email server, but from her involvement in the uranium one deal. The FBI was doing an investigation into the Russian actors involved in a Russian company before Obama was working on a deal to sell Russia 20% of our uranium. Guess who put the kabosh on that investigation? None other than Robert Mueller. Bill received $500,000 for giving a speech to Russians and their foundation received millions from Russian oligarchs who were involved in the deal. ..."
"... This shows how far back Comey, Mueller and Rosenstein have been covering up the Clinton's crimes. ..."
Well, well, well. This doesn't bode well for Hillary
ed by snoopydawg on Mon, 09/03/2018 - 10:51pm
The IG report stated that most of Hillary's emails were "sent to another
country" or they were hacked.
A member of the
House Committee on the Judiciary said during a hearing Thursday that
a government watchdog found that nearly all of former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton's emails were sent to a foreign entity and that the FBI
didn't follow-up on that finding.
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) found an "anomaly
on Hillary Clinton's emails going through their private server, and when
they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single
one except four, over 30,000, were going to an address that was not on the
distribution list," Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas said during a
hearing with FBI official Peter Strzok.
Strzok was informed of that and he did nothing about it. The justice department
attorney general Horowitz got 4 calls about it, but he too didn't take any action
on it.
Guess what foreign entity hacked Hillary's emails?
A Chinese-owned company operating in the Washington, D.C., area hacked
Hillary Clinton's private server throughout her term as secretary of state
and obtained nearly all her emails, two sources briefed on the matter told
The Daily Caller News Foundation.
The Chinese firm obtained Clinton's emails in real time as she sent and
received communications and documents through her personal server, according
to the sources, who said the hacking was conducted as part of an intelligence
operation.
The Chinese wrote code that was embedded in the server, which was kept
in Clinton's residence in upstate New York. The code generated an instant
"courtesy copy" for nearly all of her emails and forwarded them to the Chinese
company, according to the sources.
Then what happened with her emails? They were given to the Chinese government.
What happened after that?
Hillary's carelessness and criminal actions may have led to the deaths
of 20 CIA operatives in China.
The Chinese government killed or imprisoned 18 to 20 CIA operatives in
China from 2010 to 2012.
At the same time a Chinese-owned company operating in the Washington,
D.C., area hacked Hillary Clinton's private server throughout her term as
secretary of state.
China killed or imprisoned 18 to 20 CIA sources from 2010 to
2012, hobbling U.S. spying operations in a massive intelligence breach
whose origin has not been identified, the New York Times reported on
Saturday.
Investigators remain divided over whether there was a spy within
the Central Intelligence Agency who betrayed the sources or whether
the Chinese hacked the CIA's covert communications system, the newspaper
reported, citing current and former U.S. officials.
The Chinese killed at least a dozen people providing information
to the CIA from 2010 through 2012, dismantling a network that was years
in the making, the newspaper reported.
One was shot and killed in front of a government building in China,
three officials told the Times, saying that was designed as a message
to others about working with Washington.
The breach was considered particularly damaging, with the number
of assets lost rivaling those in the Soviet Union and Russia who perished
after information passed to Moscow by spies Aldrich Ames and Robert
Hanssen, the report said. Ames was active as a spy in the 1980s and
Hanssen from 1979 to 2001.
The CIA declined to comment when asked about the Times report on
Saturday.
By 2013, U.S. intelligence concluded China's ability to identify its
agents had been curtailed, the newspaper said, and the CIA has been trying
to rebuild its spy network there.
Hillary's tenure ended in 2013. I don't think that it was a coincidence that
the killings stopped then.
So Peter Strzok of the FBI and Horowitz of the justice department knew that
her emails were in China's hands and did nothing about it. Apparently they didn't
inform the CIA about that because they were in the dark about what was happening
to their informants. Eventually after congress found out that she hadn't turned
her emails in when her tenure was over an FBI investigation into her use of
her private email was opened. But we know that they didn't actually bother doing
a real investigation because Comey had already decided that she wasn't going
to be charged before he even began. BTW. All of her emails are on Weiner's laptop
which the NYC FBI office has in their possession. Lynch who was Obama's attorney
general knew about that too when she met with Bill on the tarmac..
But now with this information coming out that China had not only gotten her
emails, but they may killed 18-20 people who were working with the CIA. Did
Comey know that people had been killed because she thought that she didn't have
to follow the rules and still covered for her then I'm thinking that this was
a deliberate act. How else do you explain what has happened? Put this together
with what the Awans were doing and what else can you come up with?
when she released classified information to Wikileaks even though no
one had proof that anyone's life was put in danger. But here's evidence
that Hillary's use of her private email server did get people killed what
will be done about it? I'm sure that we can guess what will happen.
to be some arrests for the people who covered up Hillary's crime of violating
the espionage act. I've read quite a few articles by him and think that
he is credible.
What kind of power and connections does Hillary Clinton have, Former
Central Intelligence Agency operative Kevin Shipp wants to know, "to
get all these members of the deep state shadow government to basically
risk their own criminal penalties." The most "bizarre thing," Shipp
insists, "is the people who protected her from clear felonious activity
and violations of the Espionage Act." A lot of Americans are calling
for a public hanging.
They seem to have been counting on her election to cover up their
own criminal "collusion," then President Trump threw a monkey wrench
into the well-oiled Clinton machine by winning. "Indictments are coming
because of Donald Trump coming into the White House from the outside,"
predicts Shipp.
He said that she not only got away with using her private email server,
but from her involvement in the uranium one deal. The FBI was doing an investigation
into the Russian actors involved in a Russian company before Obama was working
on a deal to sell Russia 20% of our uranium. Guess who put the kabosh on
that investigation? None other than Robert Mueller. Bill received $500,000
for giving a speech to Russians and their foundation received millions from
Russian oligarchs who were involved in the deal.
The short answer is that she had a whole lot of help. "That is what
is so chilling about the whole thing," Shipp declares. "This is deep.
This is dark. This is as dark as it gets, and this is the biggest espionage
case involving government officials in the history of this country."
"James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, was protecting
her and leaking things to the media and lying. You had John Brennan,
Director of the CIA, protecting her by starting a false investigation
(on Trump) and stirring things up with this dossier."
Brennan has a whole list of deep state related crimes of his own,
Shipp details.
James Comey, who was Director of the FBI, protected Hillary by shepherding
the email server investigation, along with Peter Strzok who changed
the recommended criminal charge of "gross negligence" down to a slap
on the wrist allegation of "carelessness."
Comey has been helping the Clintons clean up their messes since the
Whitewater investigation.
Then there is the Grand Inquisitor himself, Robert Mueller. Before
he was put in charge of the plot to discredit the president by manufacturing
a case of collusion with Russia, he was the one in charge of running
the "counterintelligence investigation against Russia during the Uranium
One deal," Shipp explains.
"He knew the Russians were engaged in extortion, bribery, racketeering."
Mueller was well aware that "millions of dollars were going into the
Clinton Foundation, and he ignored the fact that these Russians had
targeted and essentially co-opted Hillary Clinton." The Russians "funneled
money" to the Clinton Foundation and paid Bill Clinton $500,000 to make
a single speech.
...
The money flowing to the Clintons from Uranium One wasn't a one-time
payment. $140,000,000 was just a deposit. The intention was for a cut
of the profits from the deal to follow periodically. One of Shipp's
interviewers asked for clarification. "they were using it as a vehicle
to launder money for Hillary Clinton is that what you're telling me?"
"That's what I'm saying," Shipp replied. "I'm saying that Hillary
Clinton used this to launder money in foreign banks, so it wasn't subject
to U.S. laws, Congressional Subpoenas, or FOIA demands for the evidence.
This was done to launder this money globally through the Clinton Foundation
so the U.S. Government could not examine it at all."
Yep. There is something very fishy about that investigation into her
as well as others going back decades including ones during their time in
Arkansas politics.
... I think that even if there is evidence that Hillary's emails were responsible
for the deaths of the people who were working with the CIA nothing would
be done about it. The IG report was full of evidence that the FBI were deliberately
obtuse in their investigation into her use of private email server and still
nothing has been done about it. But the biggest reason for why I think she
will skate is because the NYC FBI office has every one of her emails that
they found on Weiner's laptop and they haven't done anything even though
they see what they contain. A few of them said that they were literally
sickened by what was in them. BTW. Lynch threatened them not to release
them or she would prosecute the cop that killed Eric Garner. Remember she
was the top law dawg in this country at the time and she too covered for
Herheinous. She could only do that if she knew that she could get away with
it. This means that Obama was protecting Hillary. In my oh so humble opinion.
The crimes of 11 September 2001 have never been judged in your country. I
am writing to you as a French citizen, the first person to denounce the inconsistencies
of the official version and to open the world to the debate and the search for
the real perpetrators.
In a criminal court, as the jury, we have to determine whether the suspect
presented to us is guilty or not, and eventually, to decide what punishment
he should receive. When we suffered the events of 9/11, the Bush Junior administration
told us that the guilty party was Al-Qaïda, and the punishment they should receive
was the overthrow of those who had helped them – the Afghan Taliban, then the
Iraqi régime of Saddam Hussein.
However, there is a weight of evidence which attests to the impossibility
of this thesis. If we were members of a jury, we would have to declare objectively
that the Taliban and the régime of Saddam Hussein were innocent of this crime.
Of course, this alone would not enable us to name the real culprits, and we
would thus be frustrated. But we could not conceive of condemning parties innocent
of such a crime simply because we have not known how, or not been able, to find
the guilty parties.
We all understood that certain senior personalities were lying when the Secretary
of State for Justice and Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, revealed the names
of the 19 presumed hijackers, because we already had in front of us the lists
disclosed by the airline companies of all of the passengers embarked - lists
on which none of the suspects were mentioned.
From there, we became suspicious of the " Continuity of Government ", the
instance tasked with taking over from the elected authorities if they should
be killed during a nuclear confrontation. We advanced the hypothesis that these
attacks masked a coup d'état, in conformity with Edward Luttwak's method of
maintaining the appearance of the Executive, but imposing a different policy.
In the days following 9/11, the Bush administration made several decisions:
the creation of the Office of Homeland Security and the vote for a voluminous
anti-terrorist Code which had been drawn up long beforehand, the USA Patriot
Act. For affairs which the administration itself qualifies as " terrorist ",
this text suspends the Bill of Rights which was the glory of your country. It
unbalances your institutions. Two centuries later, it validates the triumph
of the great landowners who wrote the Constitution, and the defeat of the heroes
of the War of Independence who demanded that the Bill of Rights must be added.
The Secretary for Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, created the Office of Force Transformation,
under the command of Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, who immediately presented a programme,
conceived a long time earlier, planning for the control of access to the natural
resources of the countries of the geopolitical South. He demanded the destruction
of State and social structures in the half of the world which was not yet globalised.
Simultaneously, the Director of the CIA launched the " Worldwide Attack Matrix
", a package of secret operations in 85 countries where Rumsfeld and Cebrowski
intended to destroy the State structures. Considering that only those countries
whose economies were globalised would remain stable, and that the others would
be destroyed, the men from 9/11 placed US armed forces in the service of transnational
financial interests. They betrayed your country and transformed it into the
armed wing of these predators.
For the last 17 years, we have witnessed what is being given to your compatriots
by the government of the successors of those who drew up the Constitution and
opposed at that time - without success – the Bill of Rights. These rich men
have become the super-rich, while the middle class has been reduced by a fifth
and poverty has increased.
We have also seen the implementation of the Rumsfeld-Cebrowski strategy –
phoney " civil wars " have devastated almost all of the Greater Middle East.
Entire cities have been wiped from the map, from Afghanistan to Libya, via Saudi
Arabia and Turkey, who were not themselves at war.
In 2001, only two US citizens denounced the incoherence of the Bush version,
two real estate promoters – the Democrat Jimmy Walter, who was forced into exile,
and yourself, who entered into politics and was elected President.
In 2011, we saw the commander of AfriCom relieved of his mission and replaced
by NATO for having refused to support Al-Qaïda in the liquidation of the Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya. Then we saw NATO's LandCom organise Western support for jihadists
in general and Al-Qaïda in particular in their attempt to overthrow the Syrian
Arab Republic.
So the jihadists, who were considered as " freedom fighters " against the
Soviets, then as " terrorists " after 9/11, once again became the allies of
the deep state, which, in fact, they have always been.
So, with an immense upsurge of hope, we have watched your actions to suppress,
one by one, all support for the jihadists. It is with the same hope that we
see today that you are talking with your Russian counterpart in order to bring
back life to the devastated Middle East. And it is with equal anxiety that we
see Robert Mueller, now a special prosecutor, pursuing the destruction of your
homeland by attacking your position.
Mister President, not only are you and your compatriots suffering from the
diarchy which has sneaked into power in your country since the coup d'état of
11 September 2001, but the whole world is a victim.
Mister President, 9/11 is not ancient history. It is the triumph of transnational
interests which are crushing not only your people, but all of humanity which
aspires to freedom.
Thierry Meyssan brought to the world stage the debate on the real
perpetrators of 11 September 2001. He has worked as a political analyst
alongside Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mouamar Kadhafi. He is today
a political refugee in Syria.
See :
Memoranda for the President on 9/11: Time for the Truth -- False Flag Deep State
Truth! , by : Kevin Barrett; Scott Bennett; Christopher Bollyn; Fred
Burks; Steve De'ak; A. K. Dewdney; Gordon Duff; Aero Engineer; Greg Felton;
James Fetzer; Richard Gage; Tom-Scott Gordon; David Ray Griffin; Sander Hicks;
T. Mark Hightower; Barbara Honegger; Eric Hufschmid; Ed Jewett; Nicholas Kollerstrom;
John Lear; Susan Lindauer; Joe Olson; Peter Dale Scott; Robert David Steele;
and indirectly, Victor Thorn and Judy Wood.
"... For the first 15 months of his presidency, Donald Trump saw no need to appoint members to the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a group of outside advisors who have historically served as watchdogs over the official intelligence community on behalf of the Chief Executive. ..."
"... There's a power struggle between trump and the IC which wants to vet US. presidents like a modern praetorian guard; I don't know who is going to win, but the IC is on the side of pushing policies that risk war with Russia, so I support Trump there. ..."
For the first 15 months of his presidency, Donald Trump saw no need to appoint members to
the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a group of outside advisors who have historically
served as watchdogs over the official intelligence community on behalf of the Chief
Executive. It fit Trump's profile and his skepticism about the USIC that he felt no need
to have more quasi-official advisors peering over his shoulder. And a year-and-a-half into the
first term, the Trump Administration is still suffering from scores of vacancies in important
posts in all the executive branch departments.
Now, lo and behold, some appointments have been made to PFIAB, and it don't look good. The
only two names I have been able to locate as appointees to the PFIAB are: Steve Feinberg, who
was named on May 11, 2018 as the PFIAB chairman, and Samantha Ravich was named more recently as
the Board's vice chairman. To date, there are no indications there are any other members. Back
in January, Peter Thiel, the Silicon Valley billionaire who founded PayPal and was one of the
only Valley big wigs to back Trump for President, rejected the offer to head PFIAB. Thiel's
data mining firm Palantir has extensive contracts with the USIC and he may have felt he'd be
caught up in conflict of interest allegations. He has also expressed concerns to friends that
the Trump Presidency may be headed for oblivion.
So who are the new PFIAB chair and vice chair? Steve Feinberg is a vulture fund magnate,
whose Cerberus Capital Management has wrought havoc across the US economy. The firm, founded in
1992 and named after the mythical three-headed dog that guarded the gates of Hades, Apropos.
After looting GMAC, the financial arm of General Motors, Feinberg bought up a number of arms
manufacturers and defense contractors, including DynCorp. According to his bio on AllGov,
Feinberg was trained by ex-Army snipers and set up his own private "military base" outside of
Memphis, Tennessee.
Ever the hedger, Feinberg backed Jeb Bush for president, then switched to Donald Trump in
the final months of the 2016 campaign, while also bankrolling Chuck Schumer in his Senate
re-election campaign.
Samantha Ravich is pure neocon. She was a national security aide to Vice President Dick
Cheney and was one of the biggest promoters of the "Saddam WMD" hoax, leading to the Iraq
invasion of March 2003. She runs the Foundation for Defense of Democracies' Transformative
Cyber Innovation Lab, is listed on the FDD site as "principal investigator on FDD's
Cyber-Enabled Economic Warfare project" and Board Advisor on FDD's Center on Sanctions and
Illicit Finance. She is an advisor to the Chertoff Group.
You can't get more neocon than Samantha Ravich.
Question: Has President Trump finally caved in to the neocon long march through the
institutions? Is PFIAB another romper room for son-in-law and Netanyahu captive and love slave
Jared Kushner? Will PFIAB actually have a role or simply be a window dressing that Trump
ignores as he relies on a handful of cabinet and White House advisors and his rolodex of
billionaire friends who he chats up most evenings from the East Wing?
What I don't understand is after Iraq, who in the world with any brains would listen to
the Neo-cons again? As a veteran of the NY real estate wars, Trump has run into tons of snake
oil salesmen in his life and survived because he did not listen to them. What arguments are
neo-cons now advancing that would overcome all our previous mistakes and cause Trump to not
boot them out of the room. In my previous job as interim CFO of Prudential I was involved
with the negotiations with Trump and his Japanese partner over selling the ground under the
Empire State Building in 1991. At least back then, Trump did not listen to anyone except what
his gut told him. His mannerisms and personality have not changed one iota from those days to
his Presidency so why would Trump be susceptible to the nwo-cons when it goes against the
grain of everything he has espoused in the past.
Sad, but Trump doesn't pay any attention to groups like that. For him anything like that
is just PR and shareholder relations. He is much more interested in what the true loudmouths
on the boob tube have to say.
It's amazing to me that somebody who has engaged in NYC business and politics for so long
is so oblivious of how and when the strings are pulled when something needs to get done. Is
it even humanly possible that the same person that got himself into the WH can be so
oblivious. It's really an enigma. But then again, you kindly like to point out that sometimes
the most obvious explanations are the ones staring you right in the face
Donald Trump doesn't have an ideology or think tanks backing him; only his family. He is
in his 70s. He will appoint GOP flacks who didn't diss him in the past notwithstanding if
they are neocons or not. What he has done is jump in front of the parade. The FBI ran a sting
on Mayor of Tallahassee who is now the Democrat's Florida candidate for governor. The power
class is trying to contain the parade and direct it in the direction that they want. If it
goes wild, they will jail it.
More on Stephen Feinberg and his military connections:
"Through DynCorp, Feinberg already controls one of the largest military
contractors in the U.S., one which trains Afghanistan's police force and
assists in their narcotics-trafficking countermeasures. According to the
Times, Feinberg proposed an expanded role for such contractors, and
also recommended transferring the command of paramilitary operations in
the country to the C.I.A., increasing their operating footprint while
decreasing both transparency and accountability. He reportedly discussed
Afghanistan with President Trump in person."
same bullshit from the MIC, promoting war in Syria, in the bottles of the democrats and
the republicans. both parties are supporting the Russia bullshit -- look at the politics
swirling around McCain's funeral for example.
Both parties interfere in the middle east, paying off different sides, fighting al Qaida
one place, supporting them in Syria.
Both parties promote people like Bolton, with Bolton's agenda. Trump's main value is as a
destabilizer, which is why the established republicans and the democrats hate him, but the
people he surrounds himself with are very telling.
There's a power struggle between trump and the IC which wants to vet US. presidents
like a modern praetorian guard; I don't know who is going to win, but the IC is on the side
of pushing policies that risk war with Russia, so I support Trump there.
Ok, no insights or insides to offer, Harper, but from my own reading of Trump's Foreign
Policy Speech, scripted it was, I seem to recall I was told then vs earlier ad lib
approaches, I somewhat assumed this more general road into the future under Trump.
Strictly I dislike it deeply to approach anything resembling the, I" told you so" pattern.
It could suggest I only search for bits and pieces that fit in.
Irony/sarcasm alert: How well did the respectively selected PFIAB experts conform under
Bush, Obama? And who but a master in business would fit into let's say Trump's larger
meme-strategy: we have been exploited as a nation by close to everyone for ages?
What a wonderful insightful comment. Other than missing that PFIAB helped sell the Iraq
WMD, just like they were paid to do; and this pair will do the same next time out.
Mueller has resorted to the classic sleazy prosecutor's gambit of resorting to auxiliary
allegations like perjury. All you need is to bully someone into contradicting the President
and you have a perjury charge if you can trap the President into making statements on
oath.
And re the tangled web of Robert Mueller gang corruption:
From 2001 to 2005 the US gov had an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation.
Governments from around the world had donated to the 'Charity', yet many of those donations
were illegally undeclared.
The investigation mysteriously ended after US Justice Dept staffer James Comey took it
over in 2005. He was assisted by Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Rod
Rosenstein, and FBI Director Robert Mueller.
James Comey's brother works for DLA Piper that handles the Clinton Foundation.
When Hillary Clinton was Obama's US Secretary of State, she supported a decision to sell
20% of US Uranium to Russia. Bill Clinton went to Moscow, was paid US $500,000 for a
one-hour speech, and met with Vladimir Putin at his home. Entities connected to the Uranium
One deal then donated US $145 million to the Clinton Foundation
FBI Director Robert Mueller oversaw the Russian 'deal' Rod Rosenstein was placed under
gag order not to speak of it.
Also while Hillary was Secretary of State, her friend James Comey moved from the US
Justice Dept to Lockheed Martin, earning millions himself, with 17 no-bid contracts for
Lockheed Martin with Hillary's State Dept.
When the Benghazi investigations uncovered the Hillary e-mail offences and placement of
Top Secret information on her private servers, the investigation was in the hands of James
Comey, who had returned to gov service as FBI Director, where he 'could not find' any
crimes regarding Hillary.
Lisa Barsoomian is a lawyer who, over time in many cases, was either herself or her
legal partner acting in representation of James Comey, Robert Mueller, Bill Clinton,
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, the FBI and the CIA Lisa Barsoomian is the wife of US
Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Robert Mueller to his current
job.
You could have mentioned Robert Reich's call for the entire Trump presidency to be
annulled, including erasure of all executive orders he has issues and unseating of all judges
and officials he has appointed. In a perfect nod to Stalinism, he is is to be sent down the
memory hole with every shred of evidence of his existence airbrushed out of existence. BTW,
Reich is a great name for one who comments on how to deal with Nazis, nicht war?
The corporate media run these features in the wake of every "Trump Deathwatch" episode
to taper liberals off the effects of the mindless hysteria they have just finished
generating.
Yeah, wouldn't want to those liburls to go cold-turkey and crash on the sidewalk with
blood running out of their ears, noses and eye sockets.
And on and on, and on, it goes and will continue to go until 2020, unless Trump decides
to attack Iran, which I doubt The Resistance® will let him do, because that would get
extremely weird, as they would somehow have to simultaneously support another US war of
aggression and condemn Trump as Adolf Hitler for starting it.
Don't doubt. Doublethink is an integrated feature of liberalism and there would not be any
sort of problem whatsoever in doing both. Like a priest how lies with a sex worker, then has
her whipped and branded for being a temptress.
Inb4 Corvinus proclaiming his fealthy in Mueller and his "extremely complex,
never-had-it-before" investigation that will calve any minute now.
That was the old days. The cold war was playing it safe. The US did coups and wars then
too. Vietnam and South Asia was bombed and destroyed. Coups in Latin America were a regular
thing. Cuba was the only one that managed to keep the US out. After the cold war, the US
branched out to Europe (Yugoslavia, Ukraine), North Africa (Libya) and West Asia (
Afghanistan, Iraq). The US has been going crazy in the middle east since 1991. 1991 Iraq war
ended on Purim 1991. 2003 war on Iraq started on Purim. 2011 war on Libya started on Purim.
Notice the eight year play for the last two. Is Iran in line for the next Purim attack in
2019?
Readjustment!!!!
And so it took two years for Miller and his team of superhero lawyers to find one miserable
tax cheat, who was hiding his money in all the wrong places.
So what is IRS doing anyway? Playing with theirs ?
This is only one, little bit more significant signs of decaying of US hegemonistic
Capitalism.
One way or the other, with Trump or without Trump Us society is standing on the doorsteps of
major readjustment theoretical, practical, and political.
Hypocrisy will end, and somebody will have to tell the American people the naked truth.
Russia had zero influence on US politics by the time of Reagan, the main
source of
subversion in America switched to Israel and is now also the main source of the opposition to
Trump. He can take the mainspring out of the opposition machine by wrong-footing his enemies
in the Jewish community with an attack on Iran. It will only remain to destablise Jordan then
expel the Palestinians from the West Bank and officially annex it, and the anti-Trump
movement will be like the Left after the Six Day War.
Mueller, the man accused on a German site of having perpetrated Lockerby, to kill a rival
secret service, that found out about Mueller's drug trade in Beirut.
It was, if it is true, great for Mueller that he was the USA investigator of Lockerby.
I wonder if it is known in the USA that already during the trial held in the Netherlands,
the father of one of the victims, who was at the trial, that some about the mechanism for the
ignition was inconsistent.
This was later confirmed by the, if I remember correctly, Swiss manufacturer.
The Libyan convicted for Lockerby went to a Scottish jail, quite soon, a Scottish
investigation committee came to the conclusion that he was innocent.
Those who lost relatives in the disaster never got answer to the question how and why it was
possible that shortly before take off in London VIP's were manoevred out of the plane.
As to the Libyan, 'luckily' he got a deadly disease, great smokescreen for letting him
go.
Until now we do not how the cause of the death of Arafat.
If Mueller is as criminal as asserted, I cannot know.
However, three years after Sept 11 I could no longer fool myself, this was not a Muslim
terrorist attack.
The mentioned German site also explained that Sept 11 brought a profit of some $ 5 billion to
thr owners of the Twin Towers, to be paid by Allianz, A German firm, that as a result had to
fire 3000 employees.
The insurance with Allianz dated from three weeks before Sept 11.
So, for who thinks, what is his point, no crime within the USA I judge impossible any
more.
Also not accusing a president of things that never happened.
Wonder if hegemonistic capitalism can decay.
When in Florida I visited the Flagler museum, accompanied by a USA friend who lived in the
vicinity.
He told me some interesting Flagler stories.
The main USA problem, is, in my opinion, that little has changed since the times of Flagler
and Rockefeller.
Rockefeller, BTW, was able in a few years time, by buying a news agency, to change his image
with the USA public from ruthless capitalist to philantropist, Bill Gates and Soros
accomplished something similar, though not here in Europe.
Polish socialists call the Soros followers 'Sorosjugend'.
A Chinese-owned firm with operations in Washington D.C. hacked
Hillary Clinton's private server "
throughout
her term as secretary of state and obtained nearly all her emails
,"
reports the
Daily
Caller
'
s Richard Pollock.
The Chinese firm
obtained
Clinton's emails in real time
as she sent and received
communications and documents through her personal server,
according to the sources, who said the hacking was conducted as
part of an intelligence operation.
The Chinese wrote code that was embedded in the server
,
which was kept in Clinton's residence in upstate New York.
The
code generated an instant "courtesy copy" for nearly all of her
emails and forwarded them to the Chinese company
,
according to the sources. -
Daily
Caller
During a July 12 House Committee on the Judiciary hearing, Texas
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R) disclosed that the Intelligence Community
Inspector General (ICIG) found that virtually all of Clinton's
emails from her homebrew server were
funneled
to a "foreign entity."
Gohmert did not reveal the entity's
identity - however he said it wasn't Russia.
A government staff official briefed on the ICIG's findings told the
Daily
Caller
that the Chinese firm which hacked Clinton's emails
operates
in Washington's northern Virginia suburbs,
and that it was
not a technology firm - but a "front group" for the Chinese
government.
Warnings ignored
Two ICIG officials, investigator Frank Ruckner and attorney Janette
McMillan, repeatedly warned FBI officials of the Chinese intrusion
during several meetings, according to the
Daily
Caller
, citing a "former intelligence officer with expertise in
cybersecurity issues who was briefed on the matter."
Among the FBI officials warned was
Peter
Strzok
-
who
was fired earlier this month from the agency over anti-Trump text
messages he sent while spearheading an investigation of Trump's 2016
campaign. Strzok did not act on the ICIG's warning according to
Gohmert - who added that Strzok and three other top FBI officials
knew
about an "anomaly" on Clinton's server
.
In other words;
Strzok,
while investigating Clinton's email server, completely ignored the
fact that
most
of
Clinton's emails were sent to a foreign entity -
while
IG Horowitz simply didn't want to know about it.
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) found an
"anomaly on Hillary Clinton's emails going through their private
server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found
that her emails,
every
single one except four, over 30,000
, were going to an
address that was not on the distribution list," Republican Rep.
Louie Gohmert of Texas said during a hearing with FBI official
Peter Strzok. -
Daily
Caller
Gohmert: "
It
was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity
unrelated to Russia.
"
Strzok admitted to meeting with Ruckner but said he couldn't
remember the "specific" content of their discussion.
"The forensic examination was done by the ICIG and they can document
that," Gohmert said, "but
you
were given that information and you did nothing with it
."
Meanwhile, four separate attempts were also made to notify DOJ
Inspector General Michael Horowitz to brief him on the
massive
security breach
, however Horowitz "never returned the
call."
Internal Pushback
In November of 2017, IG McCullough - an Obama appointee - revealed
to
Fox
News
that
he
received pushback
when he tried to tell former DNI James Clapper
about
the
foreign entity which had Clinton's emails
and other
anomalies.
Instead of being embraced for trying to expose an illegal act,
seven
senators
including Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca) wrote a letter
accusing him of politicizing the issue.
"It's absolutely irrelevant whether something is marked classified,
it is the character of the information," he said.
McCullough said that from that point forward, he received only
criticism and an "adversarial posture" from Congress when he
tried to rectify the situation.
"I expected to be embraced and protected," he said, adding that
a Hill staffer "chided" him for failing to consider the
"political consequences" of the information he was blowing the
whistle on. -
Fox
News
On one hand you have extensive evidence of criminality, with zero
investigations. On the other hand you have zero evidence of
criminality, with an eternal open ended investigation. And people
think the deep state does not exist?
Shocking that Diane Finestein however she spells it blocked
investigation of Chinese hacking. Her handler/ driver of 20 years also
denies knowledge of hacking.
Yes this was the bombshell at the Strzok testimony, but then Rep.
Gohmert made that crack about Strzok's wife which was all over tee-vee.
Wish he wouldn't have done that - should have said something like "Ya'
mean, the Chinese penetrated Hillary?"
In a few hrs, Orr is going to be testifying behind closed doors because
of national security issues.
So now we know the reason for the behind closed doors hearing it's to
keep this info from We The People and it sure in hell isn't to keep it
from the Russians, Chinese, UK, OZ, or any other 2-bit dictator with an
internet connection.
Former FBI Director Robert Mueller has been in the news lately due to his inquiry into
Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. After a 12-year stint leading the Bureau, the
longest ever since J. Edgar Hoover, Mueller is now seen by many as an honest man serving the
interest of the American public. However, that perception cannot be defended once one knows
about Mueller's past.
What some people don't know about Mueller is that
he has a long history of leading government investigations that were diversions or cover-ups.
These include the investigation into the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, the investigation
into the terrorist financing Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), and the FBI
investigations into the crimes of September 11 th , 2001. Today the public is
beginning to realize that Mueller's investigation into Russian collusion with the Trump
campaign is a similar diversion.
Mueller's talents were noticed early in his career at the Justice Department. As a U.S.
Attorney in Boston during the mid-80s, he helped falsely convict four men for murders they
didn't commit in order to protect a powerful FBI informant -- mobster James "Whitey" Bulger."
According to the Boston Globe , "Mueller was also in that position while Whitey Bulger
was
helping the FBI cart off his criminal competitors even as he buried bodies in shallow
graves along the Neponset."
Mueller was then appointed as chief investigator of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 in
Scotland. The account Mueller produced was a flimsy story that accused a Libyan named Megrahi
of coordinating placement of a suitcase bomb that allegedly traveled unaccompanied through
several airports to find its way to the doomed flight. Despite Mueller's persistent defense of
this unbelievable tale, Megrahi was released from prison in 2009 and died three years later in
Libya.
With the Pan Am 103 case, Mueller was covering up facts related to some of the of victims of
the bombing -- a group of U.S. intelligence specialists led by Major Charles McKee of the
Defense Intelligence Agency. McKee had gone to Beirut to find and rescue hostages and, while
there, learned about CIA involvement in a drug smuggling operation run through an agency
project called COREA. As TIME magazine
reported , the likely explanation for the bombing, supported by independent
intelligence experts, was that U.S. operatives "targeted Flight 103 in order to kill the
hostage-rescue team." This would prevent disclosure of what McKee's team had learned. That
theory was also supported by the fact that the CIA showed up immediately at the scene of the
crash, took McKee's briefcase, and returned it empty.
Mueller's diversions led to his leadership of the Criminal Division at the U.S. Department
of Justice, putting him in charge of investigations regarding BCCI. When Mueller started in
that role, members of Congress and the media were already critical of the government's approach
to the BCCI affair. Mueller came into the picture telling the Washington Post that
there was an "appearance of, one, foot-dragging; two, perhaps a cover-up." Later he denied the
cover-up claim and the suggestion that the CIA may have collaborated with BCCI operatives.
But again, Mueller was simply brought in to accomplish the cover-up. The facts were that
BCCI was used by the CIA to
operate outside of the rule of law through funding of terrorists and other criminal operatives.
The bank network was at the root of some of the greatest
crimes against the public in the last 50 years, including the Savings & Loan scandal,
the Iran-Contra affair, and the creation of the al-Qaeda terrorist network.
Mueller was instrumental in obstructing the BCCI investigation led by Manhattan District
Attorney Robert Morgenthau. During this time, Justice Department prosecutors were instructed
not to cooperate with Morgenthau. Describing Mueller's obstruction of Morgenthau, the
Wall Street
Journal reported that, "documents were withheld, and attempts were made to block other
federal agencies from cooperating."
Describing Mueller's role in the BCCI cover-up more clearly, reporter Chris
Floyd wrote :
"When a few prosecutors finally began targeting BCCI's operations in the late Eighties,
President George Herbert Walker Bush boldly moved in with a federal probe directed by Justice
Department investigator Robert Mueller. The U.S. Senate later found that the probe had been
unaccountably 'botched'–witnesses went missing, CIA records got 'lost,' Lower-ranking
prosecutors told of heavy pressure from on high to 'lay off.' Most of the big BCCI players went
unpunished or, like [Khalib bin] Mahfouz, got off with wrist-slap fines and sanctions. Mueller,
of course, wound up as head of the FBI, appointed to the post in July 2001–by George W.
Bush."
Yes, in the summer of 2001, when the new Bush Administration suspected it would soon need a
cover-up, Mueller was brought in for the job. Although suspect Louis Freeh was FBI Director in the
lead-up to the crimes, Mueller knew enough to keep things under wraps. He also had some
interesting ties to other 9/11 suspects like Rudy Giuliani , whose career paralleled
Mueller's closely during the Reagan and first Bush administrations.
Under Mueller, the FBI began the whitewash of 9/11 immediately. Mueller himself lied
repeatedly in the direct aftermath with respect to FBI knowledge of the accused hijackers. He
claimed that the alleged hijackers left no paper trail , and
suggested that they exercised "extraordinary secrecy" and "discipline never broke down." In
fact, "ring leader" Mohamed Atta went to great lengths to draw attention to himself prior to the
attacks. Moreover, the evidence the accused men supposedly left behind was obvious and implausibly
convenient for the FBI.
Meanwhile, Mueller's FBI immediately seized control of the investigations at the World Trade
Center, the Pentagon, and in Shanksville, PA where United Flight 93 was destroyed.
Under Mueller , leaders of the Bureau went on to arrest and intimidate witnesses, destroy
or withhold evidence, and prevent any independent investigation. With Mueller in the lead, the
FBI failed to cooperate with the government investigations into 9/11 and failed miserably to
perform basic investigatory tasks. Instead, Mueller
celebrated some of the most egregious pre-9/11 failures of the FBI by giving those involved
promotions, awards, and cash bonuses.
As FBI whistleblower Coleen
Rowley later wrote with regard to 9/11, "Robert Mueller (and James Comey as deputy attorney
general) presided over a cover-up." Kristen Breitweiser , one of the four 9/11
widows known as the "Jersey Girls," stated something similar:
"Mueller and other FBI officials had purposely tried to keep any incriminating information
specifically surrounding the Saudis out of the Inquiry's investigative hands. To repeat, there
was a concerted effort by the FBI and the Bush Administration to keep incriminating Saudi
evidence out of the Inquiry's investigation."
Supporting Breitweiser's claims, public watchdog agency
Judicial Watch emphasized Mueller's role in the cover-up.
"Though the recently filed court documents reveal Mueller received a briefing about the
Sarasota Saudi investigation, the FBI continued to publicly deny it existed and it appears that
the lies were approved by Mueller."
Mueller's FBI went on to "botch" the investigation into the October 2001 anthrax attacks. As
expected, the result was a long series of inexplicable diversions that led nowhere. The anthrax
attacks occurred at a time when Mueller himself was warning Americans that another 9/11 could
occur at any time (despite his lack of interest in the first one). They also provided the
emotional impetus for Americans and Congress to accept the Patriot Act, which had been written
prior to 9/11. Exactly why Mueller's expertise was needed is not yet known but examining the evidence suggests
that the anthrax attackers were the same people who planned 9/11.
With knowledge of Mueller's past, people can see that he is not in the news today to reveal
important information about Russia and the Trump Administration. To the contrary, Mueller is in
the news to divert attention away from important information and, most likely, to prevent the
Trump Administration from being scrutinized in any real way.
"... In fact, a technical glitch prevented FBI technicians from accurately comparing the new emails with the old emails. Only 3,077 of the 694,000 emails were directly reviewed for classified or incriminating information. Three FBI officials completed that work in a single 12-hour spurt the day before Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges. ..."
"... "Most of the emails were never examined, even though they made up potentially 10 times the evidence" of what was reviewed in the original year-long case that Comey closed in July 2016, said a law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the investigation. ..."
"... Contradicting Comey's testimony, this included highly sensitive information dealing with Israel and the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas. The former secretary of state, however, was never confronted with the sensitive new information and it was never analyzed for damage to national security. ..."
"... Even though the unique classified material was improperly stored and transmitted on an unsecured device, the FBI did not refer the matter to U.S. intelligence agencies to determine if national security had been compromised, as required under a federally mandated "damage assessment" directive . ..."
"... "There was no real investigation and no real search," said Michael Biasello, a 27-year veteran of the FBI. "It was all just show -- eyewash -- to make it look like there was an investigation before the election." ..."
"... Many Clinton supporters believe Comey's 11th hour reopening of a case that had shadowed her campaign was a form of sabotage that cost her the election. But the evidence shows Comey and his inner circle acted only after worried agents and prosecutors in New York forced their hand. At the prodding of Attorney General Lynch, they then worked to reduce and rush through, rather than carefully examine, potentially damaging new evidence. ..."
"... However, conducting a broader and more thorough search of the Weiner laptop may still have prosecutorial justification. Other questions linger, including whether subpoenaed evidence was destroyed or false statements were made to congressional and FBI investigators from 2014 to 2016, a time frame that is within the statute of limitations. The laptop was not searched for evidence pertaining to such crimes. Investigators instead focused their search, limited as it was, on classified information. ..."
"... The headers indicated that the emails on the laptop included ones sent and/or received by Abedin at her clintonemail.com account, her personal Yahoo! email account as well as a host of Clinton-associated domains including state.gov, clintonfoundation.org, presidentclinton.com and hillaryclinton.com. ..."
"... (McCabe told Horowitz he didn't remember Sweeney briefing him about the Weiner laptop, but personal notes he took during the teleconference indicate he was briefed. Sweeney also updated McCabe in a direct call later that afternoon in which he noted there were potentially 347,000 relevant emails, and that the count was climbing. McCabe was fired earlier this year and referred to the U.S. Attorney's office in Washington, D.C., for possible criminal investigation into allegations he made false statements to federal agents working for Horowitz.) ..."
"... FBI officials in New York assumed that the bureau's brass would jump on the discovery, particularly since it included the missing emails from the start of Clinton's time at State. In fact, the emails dated from the beginning of 2007 and covered the entire period of Clinton's tenure as secretary and thereafter. The team leading the Clinton investigation, codenamed "Midyear Exam," had never been able to find Clinton's emails from her first two months as secretary. ..."
"... Lynch -- who had admonished Comey to call the Clinton case a "matter" and not an investigation, aligning FBI rhetoric with the Clinton campaign, and who inappropriately agreed to meet with Bill Clinton aboard her government plane five days before the FBI interviewed Hillary Clinton -- sought to keep the Weiner laptop search quiet and was opposed to going to Congress with the discovery so close to the election. ..."
"... But this time, Comey made no public show of his announcement. On Oct. 28, 2016, Comey quietly sent a terse and private letter to the chairs and the ranking members of the oversight committees on the Hill, informing them, vaguely, that the FBI was taking additional steps in the Clinton email investigation. ..."
"... The unnamed agent, who is identified in the IG report only as "Agent 1," is now married to another Midyear investigator, who on Election Day IM'd her then-boyfriend to say Clinton "better win," while threatening to quit if she didn't. Known as "Agent 5," she also stated, "fuck trump," while calling his voters "retarded." ..."
"... Also excluded were Abedin's Yahoo emails, even though investigators had previously found classified information on her Yahoo account and would arguably have probable cause to look at those emails, as well. ..."
"... Also removed from the search were the BlackBerry data -- even though the FBI had previously described them as the "golden emails," because they covered the dark period early in Clinton's term. ..."
"... In addition to limiting the scope of their probe, the agents were also under pressure from both Justice Department prosecutors and FBI headquarters to complete the review of the remaining emails in a hurry. ..."
"... Lynch urged Comey to process the Weiner laptop "as fast as you can," according to notes from a high-level department meeting on Oct. 31, 2016, which were obtained by the IG. ..."
"... Advanced new "de-duplicating" technology would allow them to speed through the mountain of new emails automatically flagging copies of previously reviewed material. ..."
"... But according to the IG, FBI's technology division only "attempted" to de-duplicate the emails, but ultimately was unsuccessful. The IG cited a report prepared Nov. 15, 2016, by three officials from the FBI's Boston field office. Titled "Anthony Weiner Laptop Review for Communications Pertinent to Midyear Exam," it found that "[b]ecause metadata was largely absent, the emails could not be completely, automatically de-duplicated or evaluated against prior emails recovered during the investigation." ..."
"... Contrary to Comey's claim, the FBI could not sufficiently determine how many emails containing classified information were duplicative of previously reviewed classified emails. As a result, hundreds of thousands of emails were not actually processed for evidence, law enforcement sources say. ..."
"... Later that evening of Nov. 6, after he announced to Congress that Clinton was in the clear again, an exuberant Comey gathered his inner circle in his office to watch football. ..."
"... Page noted that "Trump is talking about [Clinton]" on Fox News, and how "she's protected by a rigged system." ..."
"... RCI has learned that these highly sensitive messages include a Nov. 25, 2011, email regarding talks with Egyptian leaders and Hamas, and a July 9, 2011, "call sheet" Abedin sent Clinton in advance of a phone conversation she had that month with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The document runs four pages. ..."
"... Another previously unseen classified email, dated Nov. 25, 2010, concerns confidential high-level State Department talks with United Arab Emirates leaders. The note, including a classified "readout" of a phone call with the UAE prime minister, was written by Abedin and sent to Clinton, and then forwarded by Abedin the next day from her [email protected] account to her then-husband's account identified under the rubric "Anthony Campaign." ..."
"... Comey and Strzok also decided to close the case for a second time without interviewing its three central figures: Abedin, Weiner and Clinton. ..."
"... In a statement, Strzok's attorney blamed the delays in processing the new emails on "bureaucratic snafus," and insisted they had nothing to do with Strzok's political views, which he said never "affected his work." ..."
"... "When informed that Weiner's laptop contained Clinton emails, Strzok immediately had the matter pursued by two of his most qualified and aggressive investigators," Goelman said. Still, contemporaneous messages by Strzok reveal he was not thrilled about re-investigating Clinton. On Nov. 5, for example, he texted Page: "I hate this case." ..."
"... A final mystery remains: Where is the Weiner laptop today? ..."
"... Wherever its location, somewhere out there is a treasure trove of evidence involving potentially serious federal crimes -- including espionage, foreign influence-peddling and obstruction of justice -- that has never been properly or fully examined by law enforcement authorities. ..."
When then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was closing the Hillary Clinton email
investigation for a second time just days before the 2016 election, he certified to Congress
that his agency had "reviewed all of the communications" discovered on a personal laptop used
by Clinton's closest aide, Huma Abedin, and her husband, Anthony Weiner.
James Comey, above.
Top photo: His certification to Congress just before Election Day clearing Hillary Clinton a
second time. That certification is challenged by new reporting. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite,
File Top: AP Photo/Jon Elswick
At the time, many wondered how investigators managed over the course of one week to read the
"hundreds of thousands" of emails residing on the machine, which had been a focus of a
sex-crimes investigation of Weiner, a former Congressman.
Comey later
told Congress that "thanks to the wizardry of our technology," the FBI was able to
eliminate the vast majority of messages as "duplicates" of emails they'd previously seen.
Tireless agents, he claimed, then worked "night after night after night" to scrutinize the
remaining material.
But virtually none of his account was true, a growing body of evidence reveals.
In fact, a technical glitch prevented FBI technicians from accurately comparing the new
emails with the old emails. Only 3,077 of the 694,000 emails were directly reviewed for
classified or incriminating information. Three FBI officials completed that work in a single
12-hour spurt the day before Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges.
"Most of the emails were never examined, even though they made up potentially 10 times the
evidence" of what was reviewed in the original year-long case that Comey closed in July 2016,
said a law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the investigation.
Yet even the "extremely narrow" search that was finally conducted, after more than a month
of delay, uncovered more classified material sent and/or received by Clinton through her
unauthorized basement server, the official said. Contradicting Comey's testimony, this included
highly sensitive information dealing with Israel and the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas.
The former secretary of state, however, was never confronted with the sensitive new information
and it was never analyzed for damage to national security.
Even though the unique classified material was improperly stored and transmitted on an
unsecured device, the FBI did not refer the matter to U.S. intelligence agencies to determine
if national security had been compromised, as required under a federally mandated "damage
assessment" directive
.
The newly discovered classified material "was never previously sent out to the relevant
original classification authorities for security review," the official, who spoke to
RealClearInvestigations on the condition of anonymity, said.
Other key parts of the investigation remained open when the embattled director announced to
Congress he was buttoning the case back up for good just ahead of Election Day.
One career FBI special agent involved in the case complained to New York colleagues that
officials in Washington tried to "bury" the new trove of evidence, which he believed contained
the full archive of Clinton's emails -- including long-sought missing messages from her first
months at the State Department.
RealClearInvestigations pieced together the FBI's handling of the massive new email
discovery from the "Weiner laptop." This months-long investigation included a review of federal
court records and affidavits, cellphone text messages, and emails sent by key FBI personnel,
along with internal bureau memos, reviews and meeting notes documented in government reports.
Information also was gleaned through interviews with FBI agents and supervisors, prosecutors
and other law enforcement officials, as well as congressional investigators and public-interest
lawyers.
If the FBI "soft-pedaled" the original investigation of Clinton's emails, as some critics
have said, it out-and-out suppressed the follow-up probe related to the laptop, sources for
this article said.
"There was no real investigation and no real search," said Michael Biasello, a 27-year
veteran of the FBI. "It was all just show -- eyewash -- to make it look like there was an
investigation before the election."
Although the FBI's New York office first pointed headquarters to the large new volume of
evidence on Sept. 28, 2016, supervising agent Peter Strzok, who was fired on Aug. 10 for
sending anti-Trump texts and other misconduct, did not try to obtain a warrant to search the
huge cache of emails until Oct. 30, 2016. Violating department policy, he edited the warrant
affidavit on his home email account, bypassing the FBI system for recording such government
business. He also began drafting a second exoneration statement before conducting the
search.
The search warrant was so limited in scope that it excluded more than half the emails New
York agents considered relevant to the case. The cache of Clinton-Abedin communications dated
back to 2007. But the warrant to search the laptop excluded any messages exchanged before or
after Clinton's 2009-2013 tenure as secretary of state, key early periods when Clinton
initially set up her unauthorized private server and later periods when she deleted thousands
of emails sought by investigators.
Far from investigating and clearing Abedin and Weiner, the FBI did not interview them,
according to other FBI sources who say Comey closed the case prematurely. The machine was not
authorized for classified material, and Weiner did not have classified security clearance to
receive such information, which he did on at least two occasions through his Yahoo! email
account – which he also used to email snapshots of his penis.
Many Clinton supporters believe Comey's 11th hour reopening of a case that had shadowed her
campaign was a form of sabotage that cost her the election. But the evidence shows Comey and
his inner circle acted only after worried agents and prosecutors in New York forced their hand.
At the prodding of Attorney General Lynch, they then worked to reduce and rush through, rather
than carefully examine, potentially damaging new evidence.
Comey later admitted in his memoir "A Higher Loyalty," that political calculations shaped
his decisions during this period. But, he wrote, they were calibrated to help Clinton:
"Assuming, as nearly everyone did, that Hillary Clinton would be elected president of the
United States in less than two weeks, what would happen to the FBI, the Justice Department or
her own presidency if it later was revealed, after the fact, that she still was the subject of
an FBI investigation?"
What does it matter now? Republicans are clamoring for a special counsel to reopen the
Clinton email case, though a five-year statute of limitations may be an issue concerning crimes
relating to her potential mishandling of classified information.
However, conducting a broader and more thorough search of the Weiner laptop may still have
prosecutorial justification. Other questions linger, including whether subpoenaed evidence was
destroyed or false statements were made to congressional and FBI investigators from 2014 to
2016, a time frame that is within the statute of limitations. The laptop was not searched for
evidence pertaining to such crimes. Investigators instead focused their search, limited as it
was, on classified information.
Also, the FBI is still actively investigating the Clinton Foundation for alleged
foreign-tied corruption. That probe, handled chiefly out of New York, may benefit from evidence
on the laptop.
The FBI did not respond to requests for comment.
The Background
In March 2015, it was revealed that Hillary Clinton had used a private email server located
in the basement of her Chappaqua, N.Y., home to conduct State Department business during her
2009-2013 tenure as the nation's top diplomat. The emails on the unsecured server included
thousands of classified messages, including top-secret information. Federal law makes it a
felony for government employees to possess or handle classified material in an unprotected
manner.
By July, intelligence community authorities had referred the matter to the FBI.
That investigation centered on the 30,490 emails Clinton handed over after deeming them
work-related. She said she had deleted another 33,000 because she decided they were "personal."
Also missing were emails from the first two months of her tenure at State – from Jan. 21,
2009, through March 18, 2009 -- because investigators were unable to locate the BlackBerry
device she used during this period, when she set up and began using the basement server,
bypassing the government's system of archiving such public records as required by federal
statute.
Comey faces media on July 5, 2016. AP Photo/Cliff Owen
One year later, in a dramatic July 2016 press conference less than three weeks before
Clinton would accept her party's nomination for president, Comey unilaterally cleared Clinton
of criminal wrongdoing. While Clinton and her aides "were extremely careless in their handling
of very sensitive, highly classified information," he said, "no charges are appropriate in this
case."
Comey would later say he broke with normal procedures whereby the FBI collects evidence and
the Department of Justice decides whether to bring charges, because he believed Attorney
General Loretta Lynch had engaged in actions that raised doubts about her credibility,
including secretly meeting with Clinton's husband, the former president, just days before the
FBI interviewed her.
Fast-forward to September 2016.
FBI investigators in New York were analyzing a Dell laptop, shared by Abedin and Weiner, as
part of a separate sex-crimes investigation involving Weiner's contact with an underage girl. A
former Democratic congressman from New York, Weiner is serving a 21-month prison sentence after
pleading guilty to sending obscene material to a 15-year-old.
On Sept. 26, 2016, the lead New York agent assigned to the case found a large volume of
emails – "over 300,000" – on the laptop related to Abedin and Clinton, including a
large volume of messages from Clinton's old BlackBerry account.
The headers indicated that the emails on the laptop included ones sent and/or received by
Abedin at her clintonemail.com account, her personal Yahoo! email account as well as a host of
Clinton-associated domains including state.gov, clintonfoundation.org, presidentclinton.com and
hillaryclinton.com.
The agents had reason to believe that classified information resided on the laptop, since
investigators had already established that emails containing classified information were
transmitted through multiple email accounts used by Abedin, including her clintonemail.com and
Yahoo! accounts. Moreover, the preliminary count of Clinton-related emails found on the laptop
in late September 2016 -- three months after Comey closed his case -- dwarfed the total of some
60,000 originally reported by Clinton.
The agent described the discovery as an "oh-shit moment." "Am I seeing what I think I'm seeing?" he asked another case agent. They agreed that the information needed "to get reported up the chain"
immediately.
The next day, Sept. 27, the official in charge of the FBI's New York office, Bill Sweeney,
was alerted to the trove and confirmed "it was clearly her stuff." Sweeney reported the find to
Comey deputy Andrew McCabe and other headquarters officials on Sept. 28, and told Justice
Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz that "everybody realized the significance of
this."
(McCabe told Horowitz he didn't remember Sweeney briefing him about the Weiner laptop, but
personal notes he took during the teleconference indicate he was briefed. Sweeney also updated
McCabe in a direct call later that afternoon in which he noted there were potentially 347,000
relevant emails, and that the count was climbing. McCabe was fired earlier this year and
referred to the U.S. Attorney's office in Washington, D.C., for possible criminal investigation
into allegations he made false statements to federal agents working for Horowitz.)
McCabe, in turn, briefed Strzok - who had led the Clinton email probe - that afternoon, text
messages show.
Comey was not on the conference call, but phone records show he and McCabe met privately
that afternoon and spoke during a flurry of phone calls late that evening. McCabe said he could
not recall what they discussed, while Comey told investigators that he did not hear about the
emails until early October -- and then quickly forgot about them. ("I kind of just put it out
of my mind," he said, because he claimed it did not "index" with him that Abedin was closely
connected to Clinton. "I don't know that I knew that [Weiner] was married to Huma Abedin at the
time.")
FBI officials in New York assumed that the bureau's brass would jump on the discovery,
particularly since it included the missing emails from the start of Clinton's time at State. In
fact, the emails dated from the beginning of 2007 and covered the entire period of Clinton's
tenure as secretary and thereafter. The team leading the Clinton investigation, codenamed
"Midyear Exam," had never been able to find Clinton's emails from her first two months as
secretary.
By Oct. 4, the Weiner case agent had finished processing the laptop, and reported that he
found at least 675,000 emails potentially relevant to the Midyear case (in fact, the final
count was 694,000). "Based on the number of emails, we could have every email that Huma and
Hillary ever sent each other," the agent remarked to colleagues. It appeared this was the
mother lode of missing Clinton emails. But Strzok remained uninterested. "This isn't a ticking
terrorist bomb," he was quoted as saying in the recently issued inspector general's report.
Besides, he had bigger concerns, such as, "You know, is the government of Russia trying to get
somebody elected here in the United States?"
Strzok and headquarters sat on the mountain of evidence for another 26 days. The career New
York agent said all he was hearing from Washington was "crickets," so he pushed the issue to
his immediate superiors, fearing he would be "scapegoated" for failing to search the pile of
digital evidence. They, in turn, went over Strzok's head, passing their concerns on to career
officials at the National Security Division of the Justice Department, who in turn set off
alarm bells at the seventh floor executive suites of the Hoover Building.
The New York agent has not been publicly identified, even in the recent IG report, which
only describes him as male. But federal court filings in the Weiner case
reviewed by RCI list two FBI agents present in court proceedings, only one of whom is male -
John Robertson. RCI has confirmed that Robertson at the time was an FBI special agent assigned
to the C-20 squad investigating "crimes against children" at the bureau's New York field office
at 26 Federal Plaza, which did not return messages.
The agent told the inspector general that he wasn't political and didn't understand all the
sensitive issues headquarters may have been weighing, but he feared Washington's inaction might
be seen as a cover-up that could wreak havoc on the bureau. "I don't care who wins this election," he said, "but this is going to make us look really,
really horrible."
Once George Toscas, the highest-ranking Justice Department official directly involved in the
Clinton email investigation, found out about the delay, he prodded headquarters to initiate a
search and to inform Congress about the discovery.
By Oct. 21, Strzok had gotten the word. "Toscas now aware NY has hrc-huma emails," he texted
McCabe's counsel, Lisa Page, who responded, "whatever."
Four days later, Page told Strzok - with whom she was having an affair - about the murmurs
she was hearing from brass about having to tell Congress about the new emails. "F them," Strzok
responded, apparently referring to oversight committee leaders on the Hill.
The next day, Oct. 26, the New York agent finally was able to brief Strzok's team directly
about what he had found on the laptop. On Oct. 27, Comey gave the green light to seek a search
warrant.
Michael Horowitz: Pressure from New York was key to
reopening email case.
"This decision resulted not from the discovery of dramatic new information about the Weiner
laptop, but rather as a result of inquiries from the Weiner case agent and prosecutors from the
U.S. Attorney's Office [in New York]," Horowitz said in his recently released report on
the Clinton investigation.
Former prosecutors say that politics is the only explanation for why FBI brass dragged their
feet for a month after the New York office alerted them about the Clinton emails.
"There's no rational explanation why, after they found over 300,000 Clinton emails on the
Wiener laptop in late September, the FBI did nothing for a month," former deputy Independent
Counsel Solomon "Sol" L. Wisenberg said in a recent interview with Fox News host Laura
Ingraham. "It's pretty clear there's a real possibility they did nothing because they thought
it would hurt Mrs. Clinton during the election."
Horowitz concurred. The IG cited suspicions that the inaction "was a politically motivated
attempt to bury information that could negatively impact the chances of Hillary Clinton in the
election."
He noted that on Nov. 3, after Comey notified Congress of the search, Strzok created a
suspiciously inaccurate "Weiner timeline" and circulated it among the FBI leadership.
The odd document, written after the fact, made it seem as if New York hadn't fully processed
the laptop until Oct. 19 and had neglected to fill headquarters in on details about what had
been found until Oct. 21. In fact, New York finished processing on Oct. 4 and first began
reporting back details to top FBI executives as early as Sept. 28.
Fearing Leaks
Fears of media leaks also played a role in the ultimate decision to reopen the case and
notify Congress.
FBI leadership worried that New York would go public with the fact it was sitting on the
Weiner emails, because the field office was leaking information on other sensitive matters at
the time, including Clinton-related conflicts dogging McCabe, which the Wall Street Journal had
exposed that October. At the same time, Trump surrogate and former New York Mayor Rudy
Giuliani, who was still in touch with FBI sources in the city, was chirping about an "October
surprise" on Fox News.
Loretta Lynch: Stop those leaks.
During the October time frame, McCabe called Sweeney in New York and chewed him out about
leaks coming out of his office. On Oct. 26, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch was so worried
about the leaks, she called McCabe and Sweeney and angrily warned them to fix them. Sweeney
confirmed in an interview with the inspector general that they got "ripped by the AG on leaks."
McCabe said he never heard the attorney general "use more forceful language."
Lynch -- who had admonished Comey to call the Clinton case a "matter" and not an
investigation, aligning FBI rhetoric with the Clinton campaign, and who inappropriately agreed
to meet with Bill Clinton aboard her government plane five days before the FBI interviewed
Hillary Clinton -- sought to keep the Weiner laptop search quiet and was opposed to going to
Congress with the discovery so close to the election.
"We were quite confident that somebody is going to leak this fact, that we have all these
emails. That, if we don't put out a letter [to Congress], somebody is going to leak it,"
then-FBI General Counsel James Baker said. "The discussion was somebody in New York will leak
this."
Baker advised Comey that he also was under obligation to update Congress about any new
developments in the case. Just a few months earlier, the director had testified before Hill
oversight committees about his decision to close the case. Baker said the front office
rationalized that since Clinton was ahead in the polls, the notification would not have a big
impact on the race. The Democratic nominee would likely win no matter what the FBI did.
But this time, Comey made no public show of his announcement. On Oct. 28, 2016, Comey
quietly sent a terse and private letter to the chairs and the ranking members of the oversight
committees on the Hill, informing them, vaguely, that the FBI was taking additional steps in
the Clinton email investigation.
Those steps, of course, started with finally searching the laptop for relevant
emails.
'Giant Nothing-Burger'
Prosecutors and investigators alike, however, approached the search as an exercise in
futility, even prejudging the results as a "giant nothing-burger."
That was an assessment that would emerge later from David Laufman, then a lead prosecutor in
the Justice Department's national security division assigned to the Clinton email probe. He had
"a very low expectation" that any evidence found on the laptop would alter the outcome of the
Midyear investigation. And he doubted a search would turn up "anything novel or consequential,"
according to the IG report.
Mary McCord: Discounted laptop trove, and she wasn't the only
one.
Hired by former Attorney General Eric Holder, Laufman complained it was "exceptionally
inappropriate" to restart the investigation so close to the election. (Records show Laufman,
who sat in on Clinton's July 2016 interview at FBI headquarters, gave money to both of Barack
Obama's presidential campaigns.)
His boss, Mary McCord, discounted the laptop trove as emails they'd already seen. "Hopefully
all duplicates," she wrote in notes she took from an October 2016 phone call she had with
McCabe, who shared her hope. McCord opposed publicly opening the case again "because it could be a big nothing."
In an Oct. 27 email to the lead Midyear analyst, Strzok suggested the search would not be
serious, that they would just need to go through the motions, while joking about "de-duping,"
or excluding emails as ones they'd already seen.
The reactivated Midyear investigators were not eager to dive into the new emails, either.
They also prejudged the batch as evidence they had already analyzed -- while at the same time
expressing pro-Hillary and anti-Trump sentiments in internal communications.
For example, the Midyear agent who had called Clinton the "future pres[ident]" after
interviewing her in July, pooh-poohed the idea they would find emails substantively different
than what the team had previously reviewed. Even though he expected they'd find some missing
emails, even new classified material, he discounted their significance.
"My best guess -- probably uniques, maybe classified uniques, with none being any different
tha[n] what we've already seen," the agent wrote in an Oct. 28 instant message to another FBI
employee on the bureau's computer system. (Back in May 2016, as Clinton was locking up the
Democratic primary, the agent had revealed in another IM that there was "political urgency" to
wrap up her email investigation.)
The unnamed agent, who is identified in the IG report only as "Agent 1," is now married to
another Midyear investigator, who on Election Day IM'd her then-boyfriend to say Clinton
"better win," while threatening to quit if she didn't. Known as "Agent 5," she also stated,
"fuck trump," while calling his voters "retarded."
At the same time, the lead FBI attorney on the Midyear case, Sally Moyer (whose lawyers
confirmed is the anonymous "FBI Attorney 1" cited in the IG report), was in no hurry to process
the laptop. Before examining them, she expressed the belief that the massive volume of emails
"may just be duplicative of what we already have," doubting there was a "smoking gun" in the
pile.
A Hurried, Constrained Search
Moyer, a registered Democrat, was responsible for obtaining legal authority to review the
laptop's contents. She severely limited the scope of the evidence that investigators could
search on the laptop by setting unusually tight parameters.
Working closely with her was Strzok, who forwarded a draft of the warrant to his personal
email account in violation of FBI policy, where he helped edit the language in the affidavit.
By processing the document at home, no record of his changes to the document were captured in
the FBI system.
(Strzok had also edited the language in the drafts of Comey's public statement about his
original decision on the Clinton email investigation. He changed the description of Clinton's
handling of classified information from "grossly negligent" -- which is proscribed in the
federal statute -- to "extremely careless," eliminating a key phrase that could have had legal
ramifications for Clinton.)
The next day, the search warrant application drafted by Strzok and Moyer was filed in New
York. It was inexplicably self-constraining. The FBI asked the federal magistrate judge, Kevin
N. Fox, to see only a small portion of the evidence the New York agent told headquarters it
would find on the laptop.
"The FBI only reviewed emails to or from Clinton during the period in which she was
Secretary of State, and not emails from Abedin or other parties or emails outside that period,"
Horowitz pointed out in a section of his report discussing concerns that the search
warrant request was "too narrow."
That put the emails the New York case agent found between 2007 and 2009, when Clinton's
private server was set up, as well as those observed after her tenure in 2013, outside
investigators' reach. The post-tenure emails were potentially important, Horowitz noted,
because they may have offered clues concerning the intent behind the later destruction of
emails.
Also excluded were Abedin's Yahoo emails, even though investigators had previously found
classified information on her Yahoo account and would arguably have probable cause to look at
those emails, as well.
Also removed from the search were the BlackBerry data -- even though the FBI had previously
described them as the "golden emails," because they covered the dark period early in Clinton's
term.
"Noticeably absent from the search warrant application prepared by the Midyear team is both
any mention that the NYO agent had seen Clinton's emails on the laptop and any mention of the
potential presence of BlackBerry emails from early in Clinton's tenure," Horowitz noted.
Even though the BlackBerry messages were "critical to [the] assessment of the potential
significance of the emails on the Weiner laptop, the information was not included in the search
warrant application," he stressed, adding that the application appeared to misrepresent the
information provided by the New York field agent. It also grossly underestimated the extent of
the material. The affidavit warrant mentioned "thousands of emails," while the New York agent
had told them that the laptop contained "hundreds of thousands" of relevant emails.
That meant that the Midyear team never got to look, even if it wanted to, at the majority of
the communications secreted on the laptop, further raising suspicions that headquarters wasn't
really interested in finding any evidence of wrongdoing – at least on the part of Clinton
and her team.
"I had very strict instructions that all I was allowed to do within the case was look for
Hillary Clinton emails, because that was the scope of our work," an FBI analyst said, even
though Horowitz said investigators had probable cause to look at Abedin's emails as well.
In addition to limiting the scope of their probe, the agents were also under pressure from
both Justice Department prosecutors and FBI headquarters to complete the review of the
remaining emails in a hurry.
One line prosecutor, identified in the IG report only as "Prosecutor 1," argued that they
should finish up "as quickly" as possible. Baker said there was a general concern about the new
process "being too prolonged and dragged [out]."
Lynch urged Comey to process the Weiner laptop "as fast as you can," according to notes from
a high-level department meeting on Oct. 31, 2016, which were obtained by the IG.
On Nov. 3, Strzok indicated in a text that
Justice demanded he update the department twice a day on the FBI's progress in clearing the
stack. "DOJ is hyperventilating," he told Page.
De-Duplicating 'Wizardry'
Before the search warrant was issued, the Midyear team argued that the project was too vast
to complete before the election. According to Comey's recently published memoir, they insisted
it would take "many weeks" and require the enlistment of "hundreds of FBI employees." And, they
contended, not just anybody could read them: "It had to be done by people who knew the
context," and there was only a handful of investigators and analysts who could do the job.
"The team told me there was no chance the survey of the emails could be completed before the
Nov. 8 election," Comey recalled, which was right around the corner.
But after Comey decided he'd have to move forward with the search regardless, Strzok and his
investigators suddenly claimed they could finish the work in the short time remaining prior to
national polls opening.
At the same time, they cut off communications with the New York field office. "We should
essentially have no reason for contact with NYO going forward on this," Strzok texted Page on
Nov. 2.
Strzok followed up with another text that same day, which seemed to echo earlier texts about
what they viewed as their patriotic duty to stop Trump and support Clinton.
"Your country needs you now," he said in an apparent attempt to buck up Page, who was "very
angry" they were having to reopen the Clinton case. "We are going to have to be very wise about
all of this."
"We're going to make sure the right thing is done," he added. "It's gonna be ok."
Responded Page: "I have complete confidence in the [Midyear] team."
"Our team," Strzok texted back. "I'm telling you to take comfort in that." Later, he
reminded Page that any conversations she had with McCabe "would be covered under atty
[attorney-client] privilege."
Suddenly, however, the impossible project suddenly became manageable thanks to what Comey
described as a "huge breakthrough." As the new cache of emails arrived, the bureau claimed it
had solved one of the most labor-intensive aspects of the previous Midyear investigation
– having to sort through the tens of thousands of Clinton emails on various servers and
electronic devices manually.
Advanced new "de-duplicating" technology would allow them to speed through the mountain of
new emails automatically flagging copies of previously reviewed material.
Strzok, who led the effort, echoed Comey's words, later telling the IG's investigators that
technicians were able "to do amazing things" to "rapidly de-duplicate" the emails on the
laptop, which significantly lowered the number of emails that he and other investigators had to
individually review manually.
But according to the IG, FBI's technology division only "attempted" to de-duplicate the
emails, but ultimately was unsuccessful. The IG cited a report prepared Nov. 15, 2016, by three
officials from the FBI's Boston field office. Titled "Anthony Weiner Laptop Review for
Communications Pertinent to Midyear Exam," it found that "[b]ecause metadata was largely
absent, the emails could not be completely, automatically de-duplicated or evaluated against
prior emails recovered during the investigation."
Trump at rally Nov. 7, 2016, in
Manchester, N.H. : "You can't review 650,000 emails in eight days."
The absence of this metadata -- basically electronic fingerprints that reveal identifying
characteristics such as To, CC, Date, From, Subject, attachments and other fields –
informed the IG's finding that "the FBI could not determine how many of the potentially
work-related emails were duplicative of emails previously obtained in the Midyear
investigation."
Contrary to Comey's claim, the FBI could not sufficiently determine how many emails
containing classified information were duplicative of previously reviewed classified emails. As
a result, hundreds of thousands of emails were not actually processed for evidence, law
enforcement sources say.
"All those communications weren't ruled out because they were copies, they were just ruled
out," the federal investigator with direct knowledge of the case said. The official, who wished
to remain anonymous, explained that hundreds of thousands of emails were simply overlooked.
Instead of processing them all, investigators took just a sample of the batch and looked at
those documents.
After Comey announced his investigators wrapped up the review in days – then-candidate
Donald Trump expressed skepticism. "You can't review 650,000 emails in eight days," he said
during a rally on Nov. 7. He was more correct than he knew.
Exoneration Before Investigation
At the urging of Lynch, Comey began drafting a new exoneration statement several days before
investigators finished reviewing the sample of emails they took from the Weiner laptop.
High-level meeting notes reveal they even discussed sending Congress "more-clarifying"
statements during the week to "correct misimpressions out there."
A scene from the
documentary "Weiner."
As the search was under way, one of the Midyear agents – Agent 1 -- confided to
another agent in a Nov. 1 instant message on the FBI's computer network that "no one is going
to pros[ecute Clinton] even if we find unique classified [material]."
On Nov. 4 – two days before they had completed the search – Strzok talked about
"drafting" a statement. "We might have this stmt out and be substantially done," Page texted
back about an hour later.
The pair seemed confident at that point that Clinton's campaign had weathered the new
controversy and would still pull off a victory.
"[O]n Inauguration Day," Page texted Strzok, "in addition to our kegger, we should also have
a screening of the Weiner documentary!" The film, "Weiner," documented the former Democratic
lawmaker's ill-fated run for New York mayor in 2013.
Filtering
Even after the vast reservoir of emails had been winnowed down by questionable methods, the
remaining ones still had to be reviewed by hand to determine if they were relevant to the
investigation and therefore legally searchable as evidence.
Moyer, the lead FBI attorney on the Midyear team who had initially discounted the trove of
new emails as "duplicates" and failed to act upon their discovery, was also head of the
"filtering" team. After various searches of the laptop, she and the Midyear team came up with
6,827 emails they classified as being tied directly to Clinton. Moyer then culled away from
that batch emails she deemed to be personal in nature and outside the scope of legal
agreements, cutting the stack in half. That left 3,077 which she deemed "work related."
On Nov. 5, Moyer, Strzok and a third investigator divided up the remaining pool of 3,077
emails -- roughly 1,000 emails each -- and rifled through them for classified information and
incriminating evidence in less than 12 hours, even though the identification of classified
material is a complicated and prolonged process that requires soliciting input from the
original classification authorities within the intelligence community.
"We're doing it ALL," Strzok told Page late that evening. The trio ordered pizza and worked into the next morning combing through the emails. "Finishing up," Strzok texted Page around 1 a.m. that Sunday.
By about 2 a.m. Sunday, he declared they were done with their search, noting that while they
had found new State Department messages, they had found "no new classified" emails. And
allegedly nothing from the missing period at the start of Clinton's term that might suggest a
criminal motive.
Later that evening of Nov. 6, after he announced to Congress that Clinton was in the clear
again, an exuberant Comey gathered his inner circle in his office to watch football.
As news of the case's swift re-closure hit the airwaves, Page and Strzok giddily exchanged
text messages and celebrated. "Out on CNN now And fox I WANT TO WATCH THIS WITH YOU!" Strzok
said to Page. "Going to pour myself a glass of wine ."
Page noted that "Trump is talking about [Clinton]" on Fox News, and how "she's protected by
a rigged system."
New Classified Information
Like a self-fulfilling prophecy, earlier prognostications that the results of the laptop
search would not be a game-changer turned out to be accurate. Yet investigators nonetheless
found 13 classified email chains on the unauthorized laptop just in the small sample of 3,077
emails that were individually inspected, and four of those were classified as Secret at the
time.
Contrary to the FBI's public claims, at least five classified emails recovered were not
duplicates but new to investigators.
RCI has learned that these highly sensitive messages include a Nov. 25, 2011, email
regarding talks with Egyptian leaders and Hamas, and a July 9, 2011, "call sheet" Abedin sent
Clinton in advance of a phone conversation she had that month with Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu. The document runs four pages.
Another previously unseen classified email, dated Nov. 25, 2010, concerns confidential
high-level State Department talks with United Arab Emirates leaders. The note, including a
classified "readout" of a phone call with the UAE prime minister, was written by Abedin and
sent to Clinton, and then forwarded by Abedin the next day from her [email protected]
account to her then-husband's account identified under the rubric "Anthony Campaign."
Tom
Fitton: "sham" investigation.
Judicial Watch, a Washington-based government watchdog group which has filed a lawsuit
against the State Department seeking a full production of Clinton records, confirmed the
existence of several more unique classified emails it has received among the rolling release of
the 3,077 "work-related" emails.
"These classified documents are not duplicates," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told
RCI. "They are not ones the FBI had already seen prior to their November review."
He accused the FBI of conducting a "sham" investigation and called on Attorney General Jeff
Sessions to order a new investigation of Clinton's email.
The unique classified emails call into question Comey's May 2017
testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, when he maintained that although
investigators found classified email chains on the laptop, "We'd seen them all
before."
No Damage Assessment
Comey, in subsequent interviews and public testimony, maintained that the FBI left no stone
unturned. This, too, skirted the truth.
Although Comey claimed that investigators had scoured the laptop for intrusions by foreign
hackers who may have stolen the state secrets, Strzok and his team never forensically examined
the laptop to see if classified information residing on it had been hacked or compromised by a
foreign power before Nov. 6, law enforcement sources say. A complete forensic analysis was
never performed by technicians at the FBI's lab at Quantico.
Nor did they farm out the classified information found on the unsecured laptop to other
intelligence agencies for review as part of a national security damage assessment -- even
though Horowitz confirmed that Clinton's illegal email activity, in a major security breach,
gave "foreign actors" access to unknowable quantities of classified material.
Without addressing the laptop specifically, late last year the FBI's own inspection division
determined that classified information kept on Clinton's email server "was compromised by
unauthorized individuals, to include foreign governments or intelligence services, via cyber
intrusion or other means."
Judicial Watch is suing the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the State
Department to force them to conduct, as required by law, a full damage assessment, and prepare
a report on how Clinton's email practices as secretary harmed national security.
Comey and Strzok also decided to close the case for a second time without interviewing its
three central figures: Abedin, Weiner and Clinton.
Abedin was eventually interviewed, two months later, on Jan. 6, 2017. Although summaries of
her previous interviews have been made public, this one has not.
Investigators never interviewed Weiner, even though he had received at least two of the
confirmed classified emails on his Yahoo account without the appropriate security clearance to
receive them.
The IG concluded, "The FBI did not determine exactly how Abedin's emails came to reside on
Weiner's laptop."
Premature Re-Closure
In his May 2017 testimony, however, Comey maintained that both Abedin and Weiner had been
investigated.
Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana: Investigating investigators. AP
Photo/Jacquelyn Martin
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.): Is there an investigation with respect to the two of them?
Comey: There was, it is -- we completed it.
Pressed to answer why neither of them was charged with crimes, including mishandling
classified information, Comey explained:
"With respect to Ms. Abedin, we didn't have any indication that she had a sense that what
she was doing was in violation of the law. Couldn't prove any sort of criminal intent."
At the time, the Senate Judiciary Committee was unaware that the FBI had not interviewed
Abedin to make such a determination before the election. What about Weiner? Did he read the classified materials without proper authority? the
committee asked. "I don't think so," Comey answered, before adding, "I don't think we've been able to
interview him."
Pro-Clinton Bias
The IG report found that Strzok demonstrated intense bias for Clinton and against Trump
throughout the initial probe, followed by a stubborn reluctance to examine potentially critical
new evidence against Clinton. These included hundreds of messages exchanged with Page, embodied
by a Nov. 7 text referencing a pre-Election Day article headlined, "A victory by Mr. Trump
remains possible," about which Strzok stated, "OMG THIS IS F*CKING TERRIFYING."
Strzok is a central figure because he was a top agent on the two investigations with the
greatest bearing on the 2016 election – Clinton emails and the Trump campaign's ties to
Russia. These probes overlapped in October as the discovery of Abedin's laptop renewed Bureau
attention on Clinton's emails at the same time it was preparing to seek a Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act warrant to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
Some Republicans have charged that the month-long delay between the New York office's
discovery of the laptop and the FBI's investigation of it can be explained by Strzok's partisan
decision to prioritize the Trump investigation over the Clinton one.
Among the evidence they cite is an Oct. 14 email to Page in which Strzok discussed applying
"hurry the F up pressure" on Justice Department attorneys to secure the FISA surveillance
warrant on Page approved before Election Day. (This also happened to be the day the Obama
administration promoted his wife, Melissa Hodgman , a big Hillary booster,
to associate director of the SEC's enforcement division.) On Oct. 21, his team filed an
application for a wiretap to spy on Carter Page.
IG Horowitz would not rule out bias as a motivating factor in the aggressive investigation
of Trump and passive probe of Clinton. "We did not have confidence that Strzok's decision to
prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead
discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias," he said.
Asked to elaborate in recent Senate testimony, Horowitz reaffirmed, "We did not find no bias
in regards to the October events."
Throughout that month, the facts overwhelmingly demonstrate that instead of digging into the
cache of new Clinton evidence, Strzok aggressively investigated the Trump campaign's alleged
ties to Moscow, including wiretapping at least one Trump adviser based heavily on unverified
allegations of espionage reported in a dossier commissioned by the Clinton campaign.
In a statement, Strzok's attorney blamed the delays in processing the new emails on
"bureaucratic snafus," and insisted they had nothing to do with Strzok's political views, which
he said never "affected his work."
The lawyer, Aitan D. Goelman, a partner at Zuckerman Spaeder LLP in Washington, added that
his client moved on the new information as soon as he could.
"When informed that Weiner's laptop contained Clinton emails, Strzok immediately had the
matter pursued by two of his most qualified and aggressive investigators," Goelman said. Still,
contemporaneous messages by Strzok reveal he was not thrilled about re-investigating Clinton.
On Nov. 5, for example, he texted Page: "I hate this case."
Recovering the
Laptop
A final mystery remains: Where is the Weiner laptop today?
The whistleblower agent in New York said that he was "instructed" by superiors to delete the
image of the laptop hard drive he had copied onto his work station, and to "wipe" all of the
Clinton-related emails clean from his computer.
But he said he believes the FBI "retained" possession of the actual machine, and that the
evidence on the device was preserved.
The last reported whereabouts of the laptop was the Quantico lab. However, the unusually
restrictive search warrant Strzok and his team drafted appeared to remand the laptop back into
the custody of Abedin and Weiner upon the closing of the case.
"If the government determines that the subject laptop is no longer necessary to retrieve and
preserve the data on the device," the document states on its final page, "the government will
return the subject laptop."
Wherever its location, somewhere out there is a treasure trove of evidence involving
potentially serious federal crimes -- including espionage, foreign influence-peddling and
obstruction of justice -- that has never been properly or fully examined by law enforcement
authorities.
"... First of all, the Democrats will now face increasing demands for impeachment from the impassioned members of their base whom they have riled up to see Trump as the epitome of the Putin-Nazi evil that threatens "our democracy." ..."
"... It would deeply undermine any notion that the political system holds the confidence of the people, and intensify division, disruption, and the sense of incipient civil war in the country more than any number of Russian Facebook posts. ..."
But these crimes are tax fraud, money laundering, and credit app padding that have nothing
to do with Donald Trump, and campaign-finance violations related to what a critic of Trump
aptly describes
as "a classic B-team type of bumbling screw-up of covering up mistresses." I question the level
of word play, if not fantasizing, necessary to claim that these crimes validate "
this investigation of foreign subversion." None of them has anything to do with that.
The perils of this, that, these, and those.
Do these results disprove that the Mueller probe is "a political investigation"? I think
they imply quite the opposite, and quite obviously so.
Why? Because these convictions would not have occurred if Hillary Clinton had been elected
president. There would be no convictions because there would have been no investigation.
If Hillary had been elected, all the crimes of Manafort and Cohen -- certainly those that
took place over many years before the election, but even, I think, those having to do with
campaign contributions and mistress cover-ups -- would never have been investigated, because
all would have been considered right with the political world.
The Manafort and Cohen crimes would have been ignored as the standard tactics of the elite
financial grifting -- as well as of parasitism on, and payoffs by, political campaigns -- that
they are. Indeed, there would have been no emergency,
save-our-democracy-from-Russian-collaboration, Special Counsel investigation, from which these
irrelevant charges were spun off, at all.
... ... ...
Have you heard of the Podestas? The Clinton Foundation? Besides, the economic purpose of
American electoral politics is to funnel millions to consultants and the media. Campaign
finance law violations? We'll see how the
lawsuit over $84 million worth of funds allegedly transferred illegally from state party
contributions to the Clinton campaign works out. Does the media report, does anybody know or
care, about it? Will anybody ever go to prison over it?
... ... ...
First of all, the Democrats will now face increasing demands for impeachment from the
impassioned members of their base whom they have riled up to see Trump as the epitome of the
Putin-Nazi evil that threatens "our democracy." If the Democrats insist these convictions
are not just matters of financial hijinx, irrelevant to Mueller's "Russia collusion"
investigation, and irrelevant in fact to anything of political substance; if they assert that
the payoffs to Stormy and Karen (the only acts directly involving Trump) disqualify Trump for
the presidency, then they will have no excuse but to call for Trump's impeachment, and act to
make it happen. Their base will demand that Democratic candidates run on that promise, and if
the Democrats re-take the House, that they begin impeachment proceedings immediately.
... ... ...
If they try to impeach and fail (which is likely), well, then, as happened to the
Republicans with Clinton, they will just look stupid, and will be punished for having wasted
the nation's political time and energy foolishly. And Trump will be strengthened.
If they were to impeach, convict, and remove Trump (even by forcing a resignation), a large
swath of the population would conclude, correctly, that a ginned-up litigation had been used to
overturn the result of the 2016 election, that the Democrats had gotten away with what the
Republicans couldn't in 1998-9. That swath of the population would likely withdraw completely
from electoral politics, leaving all their problems and resentments intact -- hidden for a
while, but sure to erupt in some other ways. It would deeply undermine any notion that the
political system holds the confidence of the people, and intensify division, disruption, and
the sense of incipient civil war in the country more than any number of Russian Facebook
posts.
. .. ... ...
...if they do move forward, that will initiate a political battle that will tear the country
apart and end up either with their defeat or the victory of Mike Pence.
... ... ...
By the way, for those who think that Manafort's conviction portends a smoking gun, based on
his work for "pro-Kremlin Viktor Yanukovych," as the NYT and other liberals persistently call
him, I would suggest looking at this Twitter thread by Aaron
Maté. It's a brilliant shredding of Rachel Maddow's (and, to a lesser extent, Chris
Hayes's) version of the deceptive implication -- presented as an indisputable fact -- that
Manafort's work for Yanukovych is proof that he (and by extension, Trump) was working for
Putin. As Maté shows, that is actually indisputably false. Manafort was working hard to
turn Yanukovych away from Russia to the EU and the West, and the evidence of that is
abundant and easily available. It was given in the trial, though you'd never know that from
reading the NYT or listening to MSNBC. As a former Ukraine Foreign Ministry spokesman said: "If
it weren't for Paul, Ukraine would have gone under Russia much earlier. He was the one dragging
Yanukovich to the West." And the Democrats know this.
And if you think Cohen is harboring secret knowledge of Trump-Russia collusion that he's
going to turn over to Mueller, take look at Maté's thread on that.
We are now entering a new period of intense political maneuvering that's the latest turning
point in the bizarre and flimsy "Russiagate" narrative. I've been asked to comment on that a
number of times over the past two years, and each time I or one of my fellow commentators would
say, "Why are we still talking about this?" It was originally conjured up as a Clinton campaign
attack on Trump, but, to my and many others' surprise and chagrin, it somehow morphed into the
central theme of political opposition to Trump's presidency.
... ... ...
Russiagate was a pretext to dig around everywhere in his closet. Trump was clueless about
the trap he was setting for himself, and has been relentlessly foolish in dealing with it. It
is a witch hunt, and he's riding around on his broom, skywriting self-incriminating
tweets.
There are a thousand reasons to criticize Donald Trump -- his racism, his stupidity, his
infantile narcissism, his full embrace of Zionist colonialism with its demand to attack Iran,
his enactment of Republican social and economic policies that are destroying working-class
lives, etc. That he is a Kremlin agent is not one of them. His election was a symptom of deep
pathologies of American political culture that we must address, including the failure of the
"liberal" party and of the two-party system itself. That Donald Trump is a Russian agent is not
one of them. There are a number of very good justifications for seeking his impeachment,
starting with the clear constitutional crime of launching a military attack on another country
without congressional authorization. That he is a Kremlin agent is not one of them.
Unfortunately, the Democratic Party and its allied media do not want to center the fight on
these substantive political issues. Instead, they are centering on this barrage of Russiagate
litigation -- none of which yet proves, or even charges, Russian "collusion" -- which they are
using as a substitute for politics. And, in place of opposition, they're substituting
uncritical loyalty to the heroes of the military-intelligence complex and "our democracy" that
only a complete fantasist could stomach. I mean, when you get to the point that you're
suspecting John Bolton's "
ties to Russia " .
"... Seems to me (no expert!!!) that the main forces questioning the RussiaGate story and suggesting the actual plot behind it are Devin Nunes, a number of foreign-based journalists who publish on alternative media such as Finian Cunningham, Ray McGovern and VIPS, Dan Bongino, and. . . . Alan Dershowitz!!! ..."
"... I've seen no evidence that Mueller is any different than any of the other Inside the Beltway power players. If anyone else dares to stand up to him, I'd be shocked if Mueller instantly doesn't fall back on the do-you-know-who-the-hell-I-am response. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. ..."
"... Well, he's obviously a mean spirited dude and a hater but isn't that in the job description. I don't think he will be prosecuted or even exposed , at least not to the point of George Slamdunk Tenet, by Corporate Media. ..."
"... Gone are those heady days when he and Obama decided who to murder with drones over coffee and scones first thing every morning. I wonder what he does to stay busy now? ..."
What does Mueller himself stand to lose if he can't find any dirt on Trump/collusion?
From what I have read about Mueller's career as a kind of designated hitter, I doubt that there
are any scruples lying within him to hold him back from any step that would "prove his
case."
Seems to me (no expert!!!) that the main forces questioning the RussiaGate story and
suggesting the actual plot behind it are Devin Nunes, a number of foreign-based journalists who
publish on alternative media such as Finian Cunningham, Ray McGovern and VIPS, Dan Bongino,
and. . . . Alan Dershowitz!!!
Tom , August 18, 2018 at 5:31 pm
I've seen no evidence that Mueller is any different than any of the other Inside the
Beltway power players. If anyone else dares to stand up to him, I'd be shocked if Mueller
instantly doesn't fall back on the do-you-know-who-the-hell-I-am response. Absolute power
corrupts absolutely.
Professor , August 19, 2018 at 5:09 pm
Well, he's obviously a mean spirited dude and a hater but isn't that in the job
description. I don't think he will be prosecuted or even exposed , at least not to the point
of George Slamdunk Tenet, by Corporate Media. I do think he's in for
a comeuppance of some kind but how does it help Republicans in the
midterm to do this now?
Gone are those heady
days when he and Obama decided who to murder with drones over coffee and scones first thing
every morning. I wonder what he does to stay busy now? He must be stewing in his own juices
., steaming hot.
He is a hard man to admire and he's tough to look at as well but hey he's
not as ugly as Clapper and nothing is ever going to touch him.
"... Brennan is hardly a model of credibility. But in that he is simply characteristic of the national security apparatus's leaders over the decades. The starting point with these guys has always been an obvious contempt for the legislative branch and the public it represents. ..."
"... In fact, it's probably a qualification for the job. ..."
"... Not so obvious is the reference to "documentary evidence" that allegedly demonstrates how national security officials "play[ed] fast and loose with the Constitution and the law". A number of them made it clear during the campaign that they believed only one of the candidates was even remotely suitable for the presidency. ..."
"... Why people opposed to Clinton are still on about Comey is a mystery. His Prince-of-Denmark obsession with his own virtue materially contributed to her losing the election. ..."
(1) An intellectual Rubicon is crossed when Giuliani is deemed a reliable source for
anything.
(2) Brennan is hardly a model of credibility. But in that he is simply characteristic of the
national security apparatus's leaders over the decades. The starting point with these guys has
always been an obvious contempt for the legislative branch and the public it represents.
It's
not a quality unique to Brennan. In fact, it's probably a qualification for the job.
(3) Am happy to hear that Brennan wants "all Americans [to] get the answers they so rightly
deserve" [NYT] from the Mueller investigation. But he'd be more persuasive if that desire
extended equally to the Senate's investigation into torture.
(4) Not so obvious is the reference to "documentary evidence" that allegedly demonstrates
how national security officials "play[ed] fast and loose with the Constitution and the law". A
number of them made it clear during the campaign that they believed only one of the candidates
was even remotely suitable for the presidency. Where does the law come in? If the claim --
hinted at but not made explicit -- is that Brennan was part of a conspiracy to produce the
Steele dossier, allegations of fact, not to mention citation to laws violated, would be
helpful. Based on information known to date, we can reasonably surmise that some, but not all,
of the material in the dossier was the product of Russian disinformation channelled to Steele.
If there's something more, it would be good to get details.
(5) Why people opposed to Clinton are still on about Comey is a mystery. His
Prince-of-Denmark obsession with his own virtue materially contributed to her losing the
election. And, more broadly, if there really was a conspiracy by the national security
apparatus, it was an endeavor that failed. One would think that the 63 million would be pleased
on both counts.
(6) If law breaking there was, what explains the silence from the DOJ under Sessions, whose
stellar career is littered with contrived prosecutions of political opponents? It doesn't take
much to draft an indictment. Yet, here we are, nearly two years into the new dawn, and Brennan
continues to walk free and even spout off publicly. What explains that?
I have had my suspicions of the divisions inside the FBI ever since late summer of 2016
when it was reported that the NYC FBI was pushing to reveal the Hillary emails found inside
Anthony Weiner's home computer. If you recall rumor had it, that the NYC insistence to go
public forced Comey to reopen the Hillary case uh-oh, darn. I also see Rudy as representative
of the opposing faction against the Comey/Brennan/Claper cabal. The only thing after Trump
bumps these guys off, is how he should shuttle CNN & MSNBC to be continued.
"... Also while Hillary was Secretary of State, her friend James Comey moved from the US Justice Dept to Lockheed Martin, earning millions himself, with 17 no-bid contracts for Lockheed Martin with Hillary's State Dept. ..."
"... When the Benghazi investigations uncovered the Hillary e-mail offences and placement of Top Secret information on her private servers, the investigation was in the hands of James Comey, who had returned to gov service as FBI Director, where he 'could not find' any crimes regarding Hillary. ..."
"... Lisa Barsoomian is a lawyer who, over time, worked in many cases representing James Comey, Robert Mueller, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, the FBI and the CIA. ..."
From the web the other side of the rabbit hole, key items in the utterly
corruption-tainted profile of the Robert Mueller – Hillary Clinton etc team jabbing at
Trump
From 2001 to 2005 the US gov had an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation.
Governments from around the world had donated to the 'Charity', yet many of those donations
were illegally undeclared.
The investigation mysteriously ended after US Justice Dept staffer James Comey took it
over in 2005. He was assisted by Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Rod
Rosenstein, and FBI Director Robert Mueller.
James Comey's brother works for DLA Piper that handles the Clinton Foundation.
When Hillary Clinton was Obama's US Secretary of State, she supported a decision to sell
20% of US Uranium to Russia. Bill Clinton went to Moscow, was paid US $500,000 for a one-hour
speech, and met with Vladimir Putin at his home. Entities connected to the Uranium One deal
then donated US $145 million to the Clinton Foundation
FBI Director Robert Mueller oversaw the Russian 'deal' Rod Rosenstein was placed under gag
order not to speak of it.
Also while Hillary was Secretary of State, her friend James Comey moved from the US
Justice Dept to Lockheed Martin, earning millions himself, with 17 no-bid contracts for
Lockheed Martin with Hillary's State Dept.
When the Benghazi investigations uncovered the Hillary e-mail offences and placement of
Top Secret information on her private servers, the investigation was in the hands of James
Comey, who had returned to gov service as FBI Director, where he 'could not find' any crimes
regarding Hillary.
Lisa Barsoomian is a lawyer who, over time, worked in many cases representing James Comey,
Robert Mueller, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, the FBI and the CIA.
Lisa Barsoomian is the wife of US Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed
Robert Mueller to his current job.
At last – a paterfamiliar earful by none other than James Howard Kunstler, on the state
of the "Three Headed Monster" that is the Democratic Party.
This is an important tipping point, because the country is waiting for nobles of the left
to lead their children from the deep dark woods.
Every day, we ask, "Where are the adults? Who will call this madness for what it is?" I'll
provide the link to this masterful analysis of the "illness" – but first let me tempt
readers with a brief synopsis of the "first head".
" one infected with the toxic shock of losing the 2016 election. The illness took hold
during the campaign that year when the bureaucracy under President Obama sent its lymphocytes
and microphages in the "intel community" to attack the perceived disease that the election of
Donald Trump represented.
The "doctors" of this Deep State diagnosed the condition as "Russian collusion." An
overdue second opinion by doctors outside the Deep State adduced later that the malady was
actually an auto-immune disease.
The agents actually threatening the health of the state came from the intel community
itself . who colluded with pathogens in the DNC, the Hillary campaign, and the British intel
service to chew up and spit out Mr. Trump as expeditiously as possible.
With the disease now revealed by hard evidence, the chief surgeon called into the case,
Robert Mueller, is left looking ridiculous -- and perhaps subject to malpractice charges --
for trying to remove an appendix-like organ called the Manifort from the body politic instead
of attending to the cancerous mess all around him. Meanwhile, the Deep State can't stop
running its mouth -- "
This was published on his blog yesterday..... this is monumental, if only because the
masks are coming off.
Read his description of the other 2 heads.... it's wonderful.
But always remember, the FBI/DOJ is "honorable". Yeah, that's the term
they use to refer to the scumbags that "represent" us in congress. In
reality, "there is no honor amongst thieves", and government is full of
them because sociopaths gravitate to positions of power.
It's a unruly fuck show at the FBI and nobody is being held accountable. No
leadership, no standards, no neutrality, no accountability. Obama weaponized
the FBI. Fire everyone.
DemoRats and Deep Staters are all about the enemy "Russia". To hell with them both. And to hell with Brennan, Clapper, Yates,
Rice, and all the other lying, cheating promoters of OBAMUNISM: Weaponizing government agencies to attack DemoRats' political
opponents like you and me. You know the fake "Russia Collusion" fraud perpetrated by the DemoRats goes all the way up to Obama.
"... Mueller, WE NEED TO FIND SOMETHING... Or this president might appoint a honest AG that looks into our HSBC and 911 whitewash!! ..."
"... he can't stop digging and will eventually dig his own grave because this is out in the open, prying eyes like Sheryl Atkinson, internet sleuths and many others. ..."
"... The Witch Hunt, Learn about the enemy, " Nevermind the CFR has this in hand..." https://www.cfr.org/about ~ Smart Cookies Kan! ..."
"... Mueller's entire probe is to protect and cover up the crimes/FISA abuse of the Obama administration! ..."
"... What is the premise for all this investigative crap? Where is the proof that Wikileaks had any contact with Russia to begin with? Why hasn't Mueller asked to talk to Julian Assange himself ??? The supposed agent of Russia??? WTF is going on here? What kind of BS investigation would omit to interview the very person at the nexus of the supposed "Russian interference in the 2016 election"? ..."
"... Why hasn't muller subpoenaed the DNC's server to see how the information was downloaded or uploaded and to whom or by whom? That's the question. ..."
"... The investigation is all cover for Obama, Brennan, Klapper, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarret, Comey, McCabe, both Ohrs, Stzrok, Liza Page and Mueller himself, plus all their little footsoldiers. ..."
"... As the author notes if there was any collusion none of this makes sense....all of this is after the fact and these two are nothing but publicity seeking dogs...what a waste of time and space. ..."
I think one of Mueller's deeply embedded character flaws is that once he decides on burying someone he becomes possessed. Much
like the awful dealings with Whitey Bulger, sending men to prison for crimes they did not commit, in federal custody where they
could keep them quiet and under the threat of death if they were to talk.
He did this to protect the corruption surrounding that case, he is Mr. Wolf, sent in to clean up the fucking mess. He has gotten
away with this tact of ruthlessness for so long that he can't stop digging and will eventually dig his own grave because this
is out in the open, prying eyes like Sheryl Atkinson, internet sleuths and many others.
This will be his downfall, like Captain Ahab chasing Moby Dick the White whale, caught in the harpoon tethers and wrapped around
the great whale as he takes him deep into the abyss.
Mueller hasn't even interviewed Don Jr yet. If he were going after Trump that would be a big deal. I tell this to my liberal
friends this info and they're like wtf is Mueller even doing?
Mueller's entire probe is to protect and cover up the crimes/FISA abuse of the Obama administration!
What is the premise for all this investigative crap? Where is the proof that Wikileaks had any contact with Russia
to begin with? Why hasn't Mueller asked to talk to Julian Assange himself ??? The supposed agent of Russia??? WTF is going on
here? What kind of BS investigation would omit to interview the very person at the nexus of the supposed "Russian interference
in the 2016 election"?
Why hasn't muller subpoenaed the DNC's server to see how the information was downloaded or uploaded and to whom or by whom?
That's the question.
The investigation is all cover for Obama, Brennan, Klapper, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarret, Comey, McCabe, both Ohrs, Stzrok,
Liza Page and Mueller himself, plus all their little footsoldiers.
You wonder what Mueller and his team do with "exculpatory evidence" they discover. It must go in that deep, dark recess where
Obama's birth cert and college and law school records go.......
As the author notes if there was any collusion none of this makes sense....all of this is after the fact and these two
are nothing but publicity seeking dogs...what a waste of time and space.
This is an interesting analysis shedding some light on how the US intelligence services have gone rogue...
Notable quotes:
"... Most recently, British "special services," which are a sort of Mini-Me to the to the Dr. Evil that is the US intelligence apparatus, saw it fit to interfere with one of their own spies, Sergei Skripal, a double agent whom they sprung from a Russian jail in a spy swap. They poisoned him using an exotic chemical and then tried to pin the blame on Russia based on no evidence. ..."
"... the Americans are doing their best to break the unwritten rule against dragging spies through the courts, but their best is nowhere near good enough. ..."
"... That said, there is no reason to believe that the Russian spies couldn't have hacked into the DNC mail server. It was probably running Microsoft Windows, and that operating system has more holes in it than a building in downtown Raqqa, Syria after the Americans got done bombing that city to rubble, lots of civilians included. When questioned about this alleged hacking by Fox News, Putin (who had worked as a spy in his previous career) had trouble keeping a straight face and clearly enjoyed the moment. ..."
"... He pointed out that the hacked/leaked emails showed a clear pattern of wrongdoing: DNC officials conspired to steal the electoral victory in the Democratic Primary from Bernie Sanders, and after this information had been leaked they were forced to resign. If the Russian hack did happen, then it was the Russians working to save American democracy from itself. So, where's the gratitude? Where's the love? Oh, and why are the DNC perps not in jail? ..."
"... The logic of US officials may be hard to follow, but only if we adhere to the traditional definitions of espionage and counterespionage -- "intelligence" in US parlance -- which is to provide validated information for the purpose of making informed decisions on best ways of defending the country. But it all makes perfect sense if we disabuse ourselves of such quaint notions and accept the reality of what we can actually observe: the purpose of US "intelligence" is not to come up with or to work with facts but to simply "make shit up." ..."
"... The objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its allies and pocket as much of it as possible while pretending to defend it from phantom aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on ineffective and overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they are specially organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and so on. ..."
"... "What sort of idiot are you to ask me such a stupid question? Of course they are lying! They were caught lying more than once, and therefore they can never be trusted again. In order to claim that they are not currently lying, you have to determine when it was that they stopped lying, and that they haven't lied since. And that, based on the information that is available, is an impossible task." ..."
"... "The US intelligence agencies made an outrageous claim: that I colluded with Russia to rig the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. The burden of proof is on them. They are yet to prove their case in a court of law, which is the only place where the matter can legitimately be settled, if it can be settled at all. Until that happens, we must treat their claim as conspiracy theory, not as fact." ..."
"... But no such reality-based, down-to-earth dialogue seems possible. All that we hear are fake answers to fake questions, and the outcome is a series of faulty decisions. Based on fake intelligence, the US has spent almost all of this century embroiled in very expensive and ultimately futile conflicts. ..."
"... Thanks to their efforts, Iran, Iraq and Syria have now formed a continuous crescent of religiously and geopolitically aligned states friendly toward Russia while in Afghanistan the Taliban is resurgent and battling ISIS -- an organization that came together thanks to American efforts in Iraq and Syria. ..."
"... Another hypothesis, and a far more plausible one, is that the US intelligence community has been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial, economic and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile conflicts -- the largest single continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known. How that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your own country, for any conceivable definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself. While you are at it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better than "a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be perpetual liars. ..."
In today's United States, the term "espionage" doesn't get too much
use outside of some specific contexts. There is still sporadic talk of industrial espionage,
but with regard to Americans' own efforts to understand the world beyond their borders, they
prefer the term "intelligence." This may be an intelligent choice, or not, depending on how you
look at things.
First of all, US "intelligence" is only vaguely related to the game of espionage as it has
been traditionally played, and as it is still being played by countries such as Russia and
China. Espionage involves collecting and validating strategically vital information and
conveying it to just the pertinent decision-makers on your side while keeping the fact that you
are collecting and validating it hidden from everyone else.
In eras past, a spy, if discovered, would try to bite down on a cyanide capsule; these days
torture is considered ungentlemanly, and spies that get caught patiently wait to be exchanged
in a spy swap. An unwritten, commonsense rule about spy swaps is that they are done quietly and
that those released are never interfered with again because doing so would complicate
negotiating future spy swaps.
In recent years, the US intelligence agencies have decided that torturing prisoners is a
good idea, but they have mostly been torturing innocent bystanders, not professional spies,
sometimes forcing them to invent things, such as "Al Qaeda." There was no such thing before US
intelligence popularized it as a brand among Islamic terrorists.
Most recently, British "special services," which are a sort of Mini-Me to the to the Dr.
Evil that is the US intelligence apparatus, saw it fit to interfere with one of their own
spies, Sergei Skripal, a double agent whom they sprung from a Russian jail in a spy swap. They
poisoned him using an exotic chemical and then tried to pin the blame on Russia based on no
evidence.
There are unlikely to be any more British spy swaps with Russia, and British spies working
in Russia should probably be issued good old-fashioned cyanide capsules (since that supposedly
super-powerful Novichok stuff the British keep at their "secret" lab in Porton Down doesn't
work right and is only fatal 20% of the time).
There is another unwritten, commonsense rule about spying in general: whatever happens, it
needs to be kept out of the courts, because the discovery process of any trial would force the
prosecution to divulge sources and methods, making them part of the public record. An
alternative is to hold secret tribunals, but since these cannot be independently verified to be
following due process and rules of evidence, they don't add much value.
A different standard applies to traitors; here, sending them through the courts is
acceptable and serves a high moral purpose, since here the source is the person on trial and
the method -- treason -- can be divulged without harm. But this logic does not apply to proper,
professional spies who are simply doing their jobs, even if they turn out to be double agents.
In fact, when counterintelligence discovers a spy, the professional thing to do is to try to
recruit him as a double agent or, failing that, to try to use the spy as a channel for
injecting disinformation.
Americans have been doing their best to break this rule. Recently, special counsel Robert
Mueller indicted a dozen Russian operatives working in Russia for hacking into the DNC mail
server and sending the emails to Wikileaks. Meanwhile, said server is nowhere to be found (it's
been misplaced) while the time stamps on the files that were published on Wikileaks show that
they were obtained by copying to a thumb drive rather than sending them over the internet.
Thus, this was a leak, not a hack, and couldn't have been done by anyone working remotely from
Russia.
Furthermore, it is an exercise in futility for a US official to indict Russian citizens in
Russia. They will never stand trial in a US court because of the following clause in the
Russian Constitution: "61.1 A citizen of the Russian Federation may not be deported out of
Russia or extradited to another state."
Mueller may summon a panel of constitutional scholars to interpret this sentence, or he can
just read it and weep. Yes, the Americans are doing their best to break the unwritten rule
against dragging spies through the courts, but their best is nowhere near good enough.
That said, there is no reason to believe that the Russian spies couldn't have hacked
into the DNC mail server. It was probably running Microsoft Windows, and that operating system
has more holes in it than a building in downtown Raqqa, Syria after the Americans got done
bombing that city to rubble, lots of civilians included. When questioned about this alleged
hacking by Fox News, Putin (who had worked as a spy in his previous career) had trouble keeping
a straight face and clearly enjoyed the moment.
He pointed out that the hacked/leaked emails showed a clear pattern of wrongdoing: DNC
officials conspired to steal the electoral victory in the Democratic Primary from Bernie
Sanders, and after this information had been leaked they were forced to resign. If the Russian
hack did happen, then it was the Russians working to save American democracy from itself. So,
where's the gratitude? Where's the love? Oh, and why are the DNC perps not in jail?
Since there exists an agreement between the US and Russia to cooperate on criminal
investigations, Putin offered to question the spies indicted by Mueller. He even offered to
have Mueller sit in on the proceedings. But in return he wanted to question US officials who
may have aided and abetted a convicted felon by the name of William Browder, who is due to
begin serving a nine-year sentence in Russia any time now and who, by the way, donated copious
amounts of his ill-gotten money to the Hillary Clinton election campaign.
In response, the US Senate passed a resolution to forbid Russians from questioning US
officials. And instead of issuing a valid request to have the twelve Russian spies interviewed,
at least one US official made the startlingly inane request to have them come to the US
instead. Again, which part of 61.1 don't they understand?
The logic of US officials may be hard to follow, but only if we adhere to the
traditional definitions of espionage and counterespionage -- "intelligence" in US parlance --
which is to provide validated information for the purpose of making informed decisions on best
ways of defending the country. But it all makes perfect sense if we disabuse ourselves of such
quaint notions and accept the reality of what we can actually observe: the purpose of US
"intelligence" is not to come up with or to work with facts but to simply "make shit
up."
The "intelligence" the US intelligence agencies provide can be anything but; in fact, the
stupider it is the better, because its purpose is allow unintelligent people to make
unintelligent decisions. In fact, they consider facts harmful -- be they about Syrian chemical
weapons, or conspiring to steal the primary from Bernie Sanders, or Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction, or the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden -- because facts require accuracy and rigor
while they prefer to dwell in the realm of pure fantasy and whimsy. In this, their actual
objective is easily discernible.
The objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its
allies and pocket as much of it as possible while pretending to defend it from phantom
aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on ineffective and
overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they
are specially organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and
so on.
One major advancement in their state of the art has been in moving from real false flag
operations, à la 9/11, to fake false flag operations, à la fake East Gouta
chemical attack in Syria (since fully discredited). The Russian election meddling story is
perhaps the final step in this evolution: no New York skyscrapers or Syrian children were
harmed in the process of concocting this fake narrative, and it can be kept alive seemingly
forever purely through the furious effort of numerous flapping lips. It is now a pure
confidence scam. If you are less then impressed with their invented narratives, then you are a
conspiracy theorist or, in the latest revision, a traitor.
Trump was recently questioned as to whether he trusted US intelligence. He waffled. A
light-hearted answer would have been:
"What sort of idiot are you to ask me such a stupid question? Of course they are lying! They
were caught lying more than once, and therefore they can never be trusted again. In order to
claim that they are not currently lying, you have to determine when it was that they stopped
lying, and that they haven't lied since. And that, based on the information that is available,
is an impossible task."
A more serious, matter-of-fact answer would have been:
"The US intelligence agencies made an outrageous claim: that I colluded with Russia to rig
the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. The burden of proof is on them. They are yet to
prove their case in a court of law, which is the only place where the matter can legitimately
be settled, if it can be settled at all. Until that happens, we must treat their claim as
conspiracy theory, not as fact."
And a hardcore, deadpan answer would have been:
"The US intelligence services swore an oath to uphold the US Constitution, according to
which I am their Commander in Chief. They report to me, not I to them. They must be loyal to
me, not I to them. If they are disloyal to me, then that is sufficient reason for their
dismissal."
But no such reality-based, down-to-earth dialogue seems possible. All that we hear are fake
answers to fake questions, and the outcome is a series of faulty decisions. Based on fake
intelligence, the US has spent almost all of this century embroiled in very expensive and
ultimately futile conflicts.
Thanks to their efforts, Iran, Iraq and Syria have now formed a continuous crescent of
religiously and geopolitically aligned states friendly toward Russia while in Afghanistan the
Taliban is resurgent and battling ISIS -- an organization that came together thanks to American
efforts in Iraq and Syria.
The total cost of wars so far this century for the US is reported to be $4,575,610,429,593.
Divided by the 138,313,155 Americans who file tax returns (whether they actually pay any tax is
too subtle a question), it works out to just over $33,000 per taxpayer. If you pay taxes in the
US, that's your bill so far for the various US intelligence "oopsies."
The 16 US intelligence agencies have a combined budget of $66.8 billion, and that seems like
a lot until you realize how supremely efficient they are: their "mistakes" have cost the
country close to 70 times their budget. At a staffing level of over 200,000 employees, each of
them has cost the US taxpayer close to $23 million, on average. That number is totally out of
the ballpark! The energy sector has the highest earnings per employee, at around $1.8 million
per. Valero Energy stands out at $7.6 million per. At $23 million per, the US intelligence
community has been doing three times better than Valero. Hats off! This makes the US
intelligence community by far the best, most efficient collapse driver imaginable.
There are two possible hypotheses for why this is so.
First, we might venture to guess that these 200,000 people are grossly incompetent and that
the fiascos they precipitate are accidental. But it is hard to imagine a situation where
grossly incompetent people nevertheless manage to funnel $23 million apiece, on average, toward
an assortment of futile undertakings of their choosing. It is even harder to imagine that such
incompetents would be allowed to blunder along decade after decade without being called out for
their mistakes.
Another hypothesis, and a far more plausible one, is that the US intelligence community has
been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial, economic
and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile
conflicts -- the largest single continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known. How
that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your own country, for any conceivable
definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself. While you are at
it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better
than "a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be
perpetual liars."
Global Intel Hub received the following text message from an ex-CIA
operative who we obviously cannot disclose:
911 was an insurance fire. My neighbor's do this - I've lived in the South for 25 years when their house is in bad need of
repair they light a fire and take the insurance check, only people from New York only Israelis only high-level military people
are capable of organizing such a high-profile Insurance fire this was a Hollywood quality Blockbuster make no question about it
this was an A+ event like nothing the world has ever seen if the Holocaust was a bold and aggressive move by Hitler; 9/11 was
pure genius mazel tov
Ending more than five years of bitter legal battles, the World Trade Center's insurance carriers agreed to fork over the remaining
$2 billion in payments – a move that clears the way to rebuild the massive complex, Gov. Spitzer announced yesterday.
The deal with seven insurers brings the total payout for the World Trade Center to $4.55 billion, about $130 million less than
what Ground Zero developer Larry Silverstein and the Port Authority had been seeking.
Then there is this issue about the WTC building itself. There were design flaws, the engineers knew it. The building would have
needed billions in repairs, should it not have been destroyed on 911.
Here's how it probably went down. Sitting around the Kibbutz chatting, owner told friend about structural problems of WTC. Friend
says "well I have a problem too, cannot get US help fighting Arabs, we need a 'Pearl Harbor' - let's kill 2 birds with one stone.
Call our friends in Hollywood, in Washington, let's make a plan."
Jewish Lightning indeed. Look up the term in papers during the early 1900's. People noticed a connection back then. "Hmmmm,
I wonder why all these jew owned tenement buildings are going up in smoke...." People were smart back then, no sense of guilt
to hold them back from acknowledging the truth of the matter. Sadly all too many of the jews got away with it, their crummy buildings
burned, the residents displaced, then they got new property paid for by the insurance company that they stole from due to a fraudulent
fire.
Insurance fraud was on the laundry list of crimes committed that day. However, Fire is a believable cause for the collapse(s)
only if you are learning disabled.
Absolute fake news... the overwhelming evidence is that 9/11 was terror spectacle engineered by the US military and intelligence
with the Saudi Royal family. The purpose was to stampede the population into perpetual war -- a new or second Pearl Harbor as
it were. And also to shred what remains of the US Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.
Much of the story is documented in the Congressional 9/11 Inquiry (which is NOT the 9/11 Commission cover-up designed to refute
the Congressional Inquiry)
Mossad has thoroughly infiltrated US intelligence whose key leaders were dual passport citizens so they likely knew that the
CIA allowed al Qaeda figures into the US more than a year in advance of Sept 11th. But there is not the slightest shred of evidence
that Mossad had any working operational role in 9/11... don't bother bloviating about dancing Jews unless you can bring some real
evidence to the table.
Right out of silverburgstein's mouth came the command to "Pull it" literally on day one did it take this long to know what
the plan was? Not for most of us
There is also plenty of evidence that the markets were being played as well: shorts on airline and insurance stocks and other
trades that only make sense if you know what is coming. There is no doubt that there was foreknowledge of the event and that many
actors profited handsomely from it.
Mueller is in on the Kabuki Theater just like Trump and all the rest - it's just to make Trump look like a Maverick-y Swamp-Drainer
while he is actually part of the Banker/Wall St/Fed ass-fucking that the US citizens are getting
Once had a Jewish executive tell me once with a straight face, that a Jewish fathers responsibility to his son is to help him
thru his first lawsuit so he can get established in Life.
911 was many things, there was no single magic bullet.
It was the means for the USA to begin it's Global Rampage.
It solved all these problems ....
It allowed the US to get into Afghanistan to secure Lithium and Opium
It allowed the US to get into Iraq to seize their Oil, steal their Gold, hand over their Central Bank to the Rothschild's
It allowed the US to get into Libya to seize their Oil, steal their Gold, hand over their Central Bank to the Rothschild's
It gave the Bush Clown his 15 minutes of Fame and a boost in popularity he desperately needed
It allowed Silverstein to make a Profit on his purchase of the Towers
It allowed the US to Invade any country on the Pretext of Terrorism for any Country not buying US Bonds
It allowed the Pentagram to not worry about where 2.3 Trillion Dollars went missing
It allowed the MIC to get a boost in Sales and Profits by selling more Military Weapons
It allowed the US to prevent GazProm (Russian) from Installing a Pipeline to Syria
Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld all got Richer as a Direct result of these Wars
The CIA got more money, more control and more spying capability for Domestic and International
The Only downside is, a few people died as a result of collateral damage, but apart from that it was a Win Win for everyone.
The Only downside is, a few people died as a result of collateral damage, but apart from that it was a Win Win for everyone.
"A few people died" being many millions and counting.
Yes, maybe the biggest scam was getting the US military to murder Israel's enemies on an even larger scale than before. This
was a Mossad operation with Deep State complicity.
The successor server was the server operated by Platte River Networks. What happened with the
hardware of the original server which was installed in Clinton house basement, we can only guess.
Was it shipped to Platter River Network, was it destroyed, or is it still sitting in the basement
all those years?
Notable quotes:
"... a "convenient" hardware device . . . by which she transmitted government secrets and pay-for-play missives. ..."
"... I've watched literally hundreds of George Webb's videos, and the impression I've gotten from them is that there was an unsecured (or almost unsecured) server that was in effect a "shipping dock" for data that had been paid for through pay-to-play. I assume they thought this would provide some sort of plausible deniability in case the scheme was discovered. ("We're innocent -- evil hacker Putin is the guilty party here!") ..."
"... The big question in my mind is: Why are they revealing this now? Did somebody in the Crime Family suddenly figure out that the NSA would have known about this server almost from the minute it went online? Do they think that their Russia-Russia-Russia idiocy is losing steam, so they need to reveal this server while the media is still distracted distracting? ..."
"... "Everything I did was permitted. There was no law, there was no regulations, there was nothing that did not give me the full authority to how I was going to communicate ..."
"... The NYC FBI discovered that Weiner's laptop had 650,000 emails from Hillary that Huma sent to his laptop. There were some very juicy information on it that should have seen Hillary, Huma and many, many other people arrested and charged for not only what Hillary did during her tenure as SOS, but some other things that were very horrible. When they wanted to go public with it Loretta Lynch threatened that if they did then her office would prosecute the cop who murdered Eric Garner. They folded. ..."
"... The IG report was full of damning information on how far people went to protect her. The media covered it for one day. The next day the story about how the Trump administration was separating children from their parents broke even though they had been doing it for 6 weeks. Now that too has almost disappeared from the airwaves and they are now focusing on the Manafort trial. Quell surprise. ..."
"... That Huber hasn't acted yet is why I'm thinking that Q is a hoax. Why is Q doing what he is? It keeps many of Trump's supporters from focusing on the things he is doing that is harming his base. ..."
In
the beginning, Hillary created the server. Then Her saw that it was good, so she created a
second server.
Forget Justin Cooper. Forget Brian Pagliano. Folks, this is a new game, at least in terms of
public knowledge. The above one page letter is to David the Fixer Kendall responding to his
prior (not cited) information to the DOJ that Zero 2 did indeed exist. Note the admonition to
preserve not only the server but to maintain power to the server until retrieved by the Feebs.
(Oh yeah, sure!)
Notice Kendall's last sentence, deliberately calling the mid year event (MYE) a "security
investigation". It was allegedly a criminal investigation, which Lying Loretta preferred to
call a "matter", even though Jimmy C. exonerated Her before the first witness was called (May
2017).
So why does this matter? First, it tightens the nooses on Comey, McCabe, Strzok, and likely
others for a three year evidence suppression. If those guys thought they had problems, how do
they justify suppression of such information?
Secondly, if Zero 1 and Zero 2 are now admitted to exist, is there not a possibility that
Zero 3, 4, etc. also exist?
If criminal referrals don't emanate from Horowitz's IG department, we should be most
surprised.
Alligator Ed on Wed, 08/08/2018 - 10:48pm
Not getting much play in the Mostly Shit Media is the tale of the server that nobody ever
knew about except the Clintons, David Kendall, Jim the Weasel Comey, Andy McCabe and Peter
"the Insurance Policy" Strzok et al.
Surprisingly, this issue has not ruffled the feathers of c99ers. (Do we have feathers at
all?) Now, should we be surprised? Only if "woke" yesterday--or oblivious to Clintonian
caca de vaca .
First, we should consider (because I say so) the case of Zero 1 -- the basement server
which was installed in a basement in Chappaqua (which is in fact where basement servers
belong). After being harassed by Trey Gowdy and finally cornered by Judicial Watch, did
Madame Secretary admit to having a "convenient" hardware device, next to the porcelain
throne, by which she transmitted government secrets and pay-for-play missives. Naturally she
did not acknowledge the fact that her eminently hackable hardware served either purpose.
Let us review, with full retrospective insight, the beginnings in the straw that breaks
HRC's back:
...unsecured email servers. I believe he got the addy from Blumenthal's emails, which he
hacked. He also hacked Colin Powell, and both Bush Presidents. That was all exposed in the
Globe in the UK because I think he snagged Tony Blair, too. That was a separate suppressed
exposure to the international war crimes that were committed by Bush, Blair, and Powell to
launch the Iraq war.
That's when Trey Gowdy found out about Hillary's secret servers. They were at the very
tail end of the Benghazi hearings.
a "convenient" hardware device . . . by which she transmitted government secrets and
pay-for-play missives.
I've watched literally hundreds of George Webb's videos, and the impression I've
gotten from them is that there was an unsecured (or almost unsecured) server that was in
effect a "shipping dock" for data that had been paid for through pay-to-play. I assume they
thought this would provide some sort of plausible deniability in case the scheme was
discovered. ("We're innocent -- evil hacker Putin is the guilty party here!")
The big question in my mind is: Why are they revealing this now? Did somebody in the
Crime Family suddenly figure out that the NSA would have known about this server almost from
the minute it went online? Do they think that their Russia-Russia-Russia idiocy is losing
steam, so they need to reveal this server while the media is still distracted
distracting?
of transgressions and "gross negligence" for the whole server/unsecured devices thing. (I
thought the server was in the bathroom not the basement?) changed by Stokey to "confused by
technology".
There was the Uranium 1 thing. There was all the $$$ pouring into the Foundation with
absolutely "no" relationship to buying influence. There was Billy's speech in Moscow for $500
large. There was that Karmac thing with Lynch. There was Susan Rice telling Intel to "stand
down" on investigating Russian cyber meddling. There was, Cheryl and Huma and others given
immunity prior to the Clinton Creatures "testimony" (a record number of "I don't recalls" if
I recall) Even though Cheryl was not her attorney at State she was given "client privilege"
exemptions. there was, there was, there was...
The press is not the enemy of the people. It's stupidity for christ's sake.
"Everything I did was permitted. There was no law, there was no regulations, there was
nothing that did not give me the full authority to how I was going to communicate ."
Wrong Hillary! There were rules and regulations in place for everyone who wasn't you on
how classified information was to be handled. Then you broke the rules again when your tenure
was done. You were supposed to turn all of your emails over to have been secured. You did not
do that.
The NYC FBI discovered that Weiner's laptop had 650,000 emails from Hillary that Huma
sent to his laptop. There were some very juicy information on it that should have seen
Hillary, Huma and many, many other people arrested and charged for not only what Hillary did
during her tenure as SOS, but some other things that were very horrible. When they wanted to
go public with it Loretta Lynch threatened that if they did then her office would prosecute
the cop who murdered Eric Garner. They folded.
I've been meaning to essay these articles, but you can read them if interested. Bottom
line is that Hillary should be sitting in prison for the things she did with her use of her
private email server. That she isn't show how she was protected by the Obama justice
department and Obama himself.
The IG report was full of damning information on how far people went to protect her.
The media covered it for one day. The next day the story about how the Trump administration
was separating children from their parents broke even though they had been doing it for 6
weeks. Now that too has almost disappeared from the airwaves and they are now focusing on the
Manafort trial. Quell surprise.
@snoopydawg
about how the majority of her emails were funneled to a foreign authority should have been
enough to prosecute her under the espionage act. It turns out that Horowitz does not have
clean hands either.
We all know she was funneling top secret information to the highest bidder. For me the
issue is not that top secret government documents were sent to her private server. The bigger
issue for me is why ANY government business would be allowed to be sent to her private
server.
That her emails not only went to foreign entity, but that her server had also been hacked
at least twice is why she should have been charged. And yes under the espionage act.
All 4 of the articles have shown that she was protected by Obama and his justice
department. Horowitz doesn't have the power to prosecute her. Huber does. And she isn't the
only one who should be charged. Every person involved with the investigation into her server
that didn't do their jobs should also be charged. There's enough information on Lynch's
threatening the NYC FBI to charge her for obstruction of justice. Plus there is the other
things she told Comey to do or not do. Plus the NYC FBI is sitting on tons of evidence of the
Clinton's criminal activities and they have been for over two years. Why? It's Trump's
justice department now.
Strzok too did many nefarious things, but changing the wording in Comey's report is
obstructing the investigation too.
That Huber hasn't acted yet is why I'm thinking that Q is a hoax. Why is Q doing what
he is? It keeps many of Trump's supporters from focusing on the things he is doing that is
harming his base.
Then there's Trump's persecution of Assange. Q keeps saying that Trump is in his court and
yet his administration is pressuring Ecuador to kick him out.
Did you read the others?
#9 about how the
majority of her emails were funneled to a foreign authority should have been enough to
prosecute her under the espionage act. It turns out that Horowitz does not have clean
hands either.
We all know she was funneling top secret information to the highest bidder. For me the
issue is not that top secret government documents were sent to her private server. The
bigger issue for me is why ANY government business would be allowed to be sent to her
private server.
@snoopydawg
There is so much "there" there in everything associated with Clinton. And yet we have not
seen any remote amount of effort and scrutiny, not to mention tax dollars, spent on
investigating her treasonous activities and serial lying that has been spent by the Mueller
investigation into Trump. As one article said, Trump posed a threat to the status quo.
@snoopydawg
Or will it be an October Surprise? Or does he hope to run against her again in 2020? Re the
last, Biden and McAuliffe should be as easy to beat.
her Clinton Foundation or any of the CF subsidiaries. "Definition of "Foreign entity"
means an organization formed under, and the internal affairs of which are governed by, the
laws of a jurisdiction other than this state." It did not make sense to me that she would
arbitrarily copy some foreign government on all her emails but copying Clinton Foundation or
Clinton Global Initiatives makes a lot of sense.
Chittum's work makes more sense than either of the books reviewed here. The two books
discussed above are good for the Harry Potter set but in no way conform to 2018 reality.
I frequently reread Chittum's work and am amazed at how he correctly analyzed the future into
what is contemporary USSA.
LOOK NO further, than the incipient election of a reparation Democrat governor in Georgia and
a like minded legislature,come November, for validation of Chittum's hypotheses. The one
weakness in his predictions is the belief that there will be a patriotic core in the local
police and national military that could be relied on to protect the lives and property of
traditional Americans. This just won't happen. The FBI, CIA, ATFE, Homeland Security Police
and like activities set the pace, call the shots and control the funds and the locals provide
a conditioned response.
Chittum writing 20 years back could not see the rise of the mass surveillance and correct
thought propagation that we increasingly welcome or endure today.
My bet is Unz Review will totally access denied after the massive Democrat election gains in
November.
"... please recall Bill Clinton's rules of engagement as applied to the Serbs in 1999, wherein he decided that the political leaders, bureaucratic support structure, media infrastructure and intellectual underpinnings of his enemies' war effort were legitimate targets of war. ..."
After observing Skynet's coordinated attack on Alex Jone's Infowars yesterday, we can hardly
wait to implement Bill Clinton's Rules of Engagement on the already identified Enemies
of the People, and eagerly await the God-Emperor's word.
Second, please recall Bill Clinton's rules of engagement as applied to the Serbs in
1999, wherein he decided that the political leaders, bureaucratic support structure, media
infrastructure and intellectual underpinnings of his enemies' war effort were legitimate
targets of war.
No one else may have been paying attention to the unintended consequences of that, but
many folks on our side of the present divide were. Food for thought. A reminder about the shape of the battlefield (legal and otherwise) and Bill Clinton's
Rules of Engagement.
"... Chart: Demonization of Russia centers on competition for oil and gas revenues. Pipelines to deliver oil and gas from the Middle East to Europe run through North Africa (Libya) and Syria and / or Turkey. These pipelines are substantially controlled by Western interests with imperial / colonial ties to the U.S., Britain and 'developed' Europe. Russian oil and gas did run through Ukraine, which is now negotiating to join NATO, or otherwise hits a NATO wall before entering Europe. ..."
The indictments are a major political story, but not for the reasons given in
mainstream press coverage. Once Mr. Mueller's indictment is understood to charge the
exploitation of existing social tensions (read it and decide for yourself), the FBI, which Mr.
Mueller directed from 2001 – 2013, is precisely the wrong entity to be rendering
judgment. The FBI has been America's political police since its founding in 1908. Early on
former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover led legally dubious mass
arrests of American dissidents. He practically invented the slander of conflating
legitimate dissent with foreign agency. This is the institutional backdrop from which Mr.
Mueller proceeds.
In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s the FBI's targets included the civil rights movement, the
antiwar movement, the American Indian Movement (AIM), the Black Panther Party and any other
political organization Mr. Hoover deemed a threat. The secret (hidden) FBI program COINTELPRO was intended to
subvert political outcomes outside of allegations of criminal wrongdoing and with no regard for the lives of its
targets . Throughout its history the FBI has sided with the powerful against the powerless
to maintain an unjust social order.
Robert Mueller became FBI Director only days before the attacks of September 11, 2001. One
of his first acts as Director was to arrest 1,000 persons without any evidence of criminal
wrongdoing. None of those arrested were ever charged in association with the attacks. The frame
in which the FBI acted -- to maintain political stability threatened by 'external' forces, was
ultimately chosen by the George W. Bush administration to justify its aggressive war against
Iraq.
It is the FBI's legacy of conflating dissent with being an agent of a foreign power that Mr.
Mueller's indictment most insidiously perpetuates. Russians are 'sowing discord,' and they are
using Americans to do so, goes the allegation. Black Lives Matter and Bernie Sanders are listed
in the indictment as roadblocks to the unfettered ascension of Hillary Clinton to the
presidency. Russians are sowing discord, therefore discord is both suspect in itself and
evidence of being a foreign agent.
The posture of simple reporting at work in the indictment -- that it isn't the FBI's fault
that the Russians (allegedly) inserted themselves into the electoral process, runs against the
history of the FBI's political role, the tilt used to craft criminal charges and the facts put
forward versus those put to the side. Given the political agendas of the other agencies that
the FBI joined through the charges, they are most certainly but a small piece of a larger
story.
In the aftermath of the indictments it's easy to forget that the Pentagon created the internet ,
that the NSA
has its tentacles in all of its major chokepoints, that the CIA has been heavily
involved in funding and 'using' social media toward its own ends and that the FBI is only
reputable in the present because of Americans' near-heroic ignorance of history. The claim that
the Russian operation was sophisticated because it had corporate form and function is countered
by the fact that it was, by the various agencies' own claims, ineffectual in changing the
outcome of the election.
I Have a List
While Robert Mueller was busy charging never-to-be-tried Russians with past crimes, Dan
Coats, the Director of National Intelligence,
declared that future Russian meddling has already cast a shadow over the integrity of the
2018 election. Why the Pentagon that created the internet, the NSA that has its tentacles in
all of its major chokepoints, the CIA that has been heavily involved in funding and 'using'
social media toward its own ends and the FBI that just landed such a glorious victory of good
over evil would be quivering puddles when it comes to precluding said meddling is a question
that needs to be asked.
The political frame being put forward is that only these agencies know if particular
elections and candidates have been tainted by meddling, therefore we need to trust them to tell
us which candidates were legitimately elected and which weren't. As generous as this offer
seems, wouldn't the creation of free and fair elections be a more direct route to achieving
this end? Put differently, who among those making the offer, whether personally or as
functionaries of their respective agencies, has a demonstrated history of supporting democratic
institutions?
The 2016 election was apparently a test case for posing these agencies as the meddling
police. By getting the bourgeois electocracy -- liberal Democrats, to agree that the loathsome
Trump is illegitimate, future candidates will be vetted by the CIA, NSA and FBI with impunity.
It's apparently only the pre-'discord, ' the social angst that the decade of the Great
Recession left as its residual, that shifts this generous offer from the deterministic to the
realm of the probable. The social conditions that led to the Great Recession and its aftermath
are entirely home grown.
More broadly, how do the government agencies and people that spent the better part of the
last century undermining democracy at home and abroad intend to stop 'Russian meddling?' If the
FBI couldn't disentangle home grown 'discord' from that allegedly exploited and exacerbated by
the Russians, isn't the likely intention to edit out all discord? And if fake news is a problem
in need of addressing, wouldn't the
New York Times and the Washington Post have
been shut down years ago?
The Great Satin (sic)
While Russia is the villain of the day, week and year due to alleged election 'meddling,'
the process of demonization that Russia has undergone has shown little variation from (alleged)
villain to villain. It is thanks to cable news and the 'newspaper of record' that the true
villainy of Vladimir Putin, Muammar Gadhafi, Saddam Hussein, Nicolas Maduro and the political
leadership of Iran has been revealed. In the face of such monsters, questions of motivation are
moot. Why wouldn't Mr. Putin 'sow discord?'
The question as yet unasked, and therefore unanswered is: is there something besides base
villainy that brought these national leaders, and the nations they lead, into the crosshairs of
America's fair and wise leadership? This question might forever go unanswered were it not for
the secret list from which their names were apparently drawn. No, not that secret list. This one is publicly available -- hiding in plain sight, as it
were. It is the list of proven oil reserves by country (below). This is no doubt unduly
reductive -- evil is as evil does, but read on.
The question of how such a list could divide so evenly between heroes and villains I leave
to the philosophers. On second thought, no I won't. The heroes are allies of a small cadre of
America's political and economic elite who have made themselves fabulously rich through the
alliances. The villains have oil, gas, pipelines and other resources that this elite wants.
Reductive, yes. But this simple list certainly appears to explain American foreign policy over
the last half-century quite well.
Source: gulfbusiness.com
It's almost as if America's love for humanity, as demonstrated through humanitarian
interventions, is determined by imperial competition for natural resources -- in this case oil
and gas. Amongst these countries, only one (Canada) is 'democratic' in the American sense of
being run by a small cadre of plutocrats who use the state to further their own interests. Two
-- Iraq and Libya, were recently reduced to rubble (for the sake of humanity) by the U.S.
Nigeria is being 'brought' under the control of AFRICOM. What remains are various and sundry
petro-states plus Venezuela and Russia.
Following the untimely death of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, the horrible tyrant kept in office
via free
and fair elections , who used Venezuela's petro-dollars to feed, clothe and educate his
people and was in the process of creating a regional Left alliance to counter American abuse of
power, the CIA joined with local
plutocrats to overthrow his successor, Nicolas Maduro. The goal: to 'liberate' Venezuela's oil
revenues in their own pockets. At the moment Mr. Maduro is down the list of villains, not
nearly the stature of a 'new Hitler' like Vladimir Putin. But where he ends up will depend on
how successfully the CIA (with Robert Mueller's help) can drum up a war against nuclear armed
Russia.
What separates Russia from the other heroes and villains on the list is its history as a
competing empire as well as the manner in which Russian oil and gas is distributed. Geography
placed it closer to the population centers of Europe than to Southeastern China where Chinese
economic development has been concentrated. This makes Europe a 'natural' market for Russian
oil and gas.
The former Soviet state of Ukraine did stand between, or rather under, Russian pipelines and
Europe until Hillary Clinton had her lieutenants engineer a coup there in 2014. In contrast to
the 'new Hitler' of Mr. Putin (or was that Trump?) Mrs. Clinton and her comrades demonstrated a
preference for the old Hitler in the form of Ukrainian fascists who were the ideological
descendants of 'authentic' WWII Nazis. But rest assured, not all of the U.S.'s allies in this
affair
were ideological Nazis .
Chart: Demonization of Russia centers on competition for oil and gas revenues. Pipelines
to deliver oil and gas from the Middle East to Europe run through North Africa (Libya) and
Syria and / or Turkey. These pipelines are substantially controlled by Western interests with
imperial / colonial ties to the U.S., Britain and 'developed' Europe. Russian oil and gas did
run through Ukraine, which is now negotiating to join NATO, or otherwise hits a NATO wall
before entering Europe.
In contrast to the alternative hypotheses given
in the American press, NATO, the geopolitical extension of the U.S. military in Europe,
admits that the U.S.
engineered coup in Ukraine was 'about' oil geopolitics with Russia. The American storyline
that Crimea was seized by Russia ignores that the Russian navy has had a Black Sea port in Crimea for decades. How
amenable, precisely, might Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and his friends be if
Russia seized a major U.S. naval port given their generous offer to take over the U.S.
electoral system because of a few Russian trolls?
Although Russia is toward the bottom of the top ten countries in terms of oil reserves, it
faces a problem of distribution that the others don't. Imperial ties and recent military
incursions have left the distribution of oil and gas from the Middle East to Europe largely
under Western control. Syria, Turkey and North Africa are necessary to moving this oil and gas
through pipelines to Europe. That Syria, Libya and Turkey are now, or recently have been,
militarily contested adds credence to the contention that the 'international community's'
heroes and villains are largely determined by whose hands their oil and gas resources are
currently in.
Democratic Party loyalists who see Putin, Maduro et al as the problem first need to
answer for the candidate they put forward in 2016. Hillary Clinton led the carnage in Libya
that murdered
30,000 – 50,000 innocents for Western oil and gas interests. Russia didn't force the
U.S. into its calamitous invasion of Iraq. Russia didn't take Americans' jobs, houses and
pensions in the Great Recession. Russia didn't reward Wall Street for causing it. Democrats
need to take responsibility for their failed candidates and their failed Party.
Part of the point in relating oil reserves to American foreign entanglements is that the
countries and leaders involved are incidental. Vladimir Putin certainly seems smarter than the
American leadership. But this has no bearing on whether or not his leadership of Russia is
broadly socially beneficial. The only possible resolution of climate crisis requires both
Russia and the U.S. to greatly reduce their use of fossil fuels. Reports have it that Mr. Putin
has no interest in doing so. And once the marketing chatter is set to the side, neither do the
Americans.
By placing themselves as arbiters of the electoral process, the Director of National
Intelligence and the heads of the CIA, NSA and FBI can effectively control it. Is it accidental
that the candidate of liberal Democrats in the 2016 election was the insiders' -- the
intelligence agencies' and military contractors,' candidate as well? Implied is that these
agencies and contractors are now 'liberal.' Good luck with that program if you value peace and
prosperity.
There are lots of ways to create free and fair elections if that is the goal. Use
paper ballots that are counted in public, automatically register all eligible voters, make
election days national holidays and eliminate 'private' funding of electoral campaigns. But why
make elections free and fair when fanciful nonsense about 'meddling' will convince the liberal
class to deliver power to grey corpses in the CIA, NSA and FBI for the benefit of a tiny cabal
of stupendously rich plutocrats. Who says America isn't already great?
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]. ..."
Philippics are good, but at some point they faile to exite. The key question that Phipip forgot to ander is: Dore Izreal acts
a alobbist of the US MIC or it hasits own l(local agnda) that conflicts the MIC interests in the region.
So President Donald Trump reckoned on Monday that the United States Intelligence Community (IC) just might be wrong in its assessment
that Russia had sought to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election but then decided on Tuesday that he misspoke and had the greatest confidence
in the IC and now agrees that they were correct in their judgment. But Donald Trump, interestingly, added something about there being
"others" that also had been involved in the election in an attempt to subvert it, though he was not specific and the national media
has chosen not to pursue the admittedly cryptic comment. He was almost certainly referring to China both due to possible motive and
the possession of the necessary resources to carry out such an operation. Indeed, there are
reports that China hacked the 30,000 Hillary Clinton emails that are apparently still missing.
Just how one interferes in an election in a large country with diverse sources of information and numerous polling stations located
in different states using different systems is, of course, problematical. The United States has interfered in elections everywhere,
including in Russia under Boris Yeltsin. It engaged in regime change in Iran, Chile, and Guatemala by supporting conservative elements
in the military which obligingly staged coups. In Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. forces invaded and overthrew the governments while in
Libya the change in regime was largely brought about by encouraging rebels while bombing government forces. The same model has been
applied in Syria, though without much success because Damascus actually was bold enough to resist.
So how do the Chinese "others" bring about "change" short of a full-scale invasion by the People's Liberation Army? I do not know
anything about actual Chinese plans to interfere in future American elections and gain influence over the resulting newly elected
government but would like to speculate on just how they might go about that onerous task.
First, I would build up an infrastructure in the United States that would have access to the media and be able to lobby and corrupt
the political class. That would be kind of tricky as it would require getting around the Foreign Agent Registration Act of 1938 (FARA),
which requires representatives of foreign governments operating in the United States to register and have their finances subject
to review by the Department of the Treasury. Most recently, several Russian news agencies that are funded by the Putin government
have been required to do so, including RT International and Sputnik radio and television.
The way to avoid the FARA registration requirement is to have all funding come through Chinese-American sources that are not directly
connected with the government in Beijing. Further, the foundations and other organizations should be set up as having an educational
purpose rather than a political agenda. You might want to call your principal lobbying group something like the American Chinese
Political Action Committee or ACPAC as an acronym when one is referring to it shorthand.
Once established, ACPAC will hire and send hundreds of Chinese-American lobbyists to Capitol Hill when Congress is in session.
They will be carefully selected to come from as many states and congressional districts as possible to maximize access to legislative
offices. They will have with them position papers prepared by the ACPAC central office that explain why a close and uncritical relationship
with Beijing is not only the right thing to do, it is also a good thing for the United States.
As part of the process, new Congressmen will benefit from free trips to China paid for by an educational foundation set up for
that purpose. They will be able to walk on the Great Wall and speak to genuine representative Chinese who will tell them how wonderful
everything is in the People's Republic.
Congressmen who nevertheless appear to be resistant to the lobbying and the emoluments will be confronted with a whole battery
of alternative reasons why they should be filo-Chinese, including the thinly veiled threat that to behave otherwise could be construed
as politically damaging anti-Orientalist racism. For those who persist in their obduracy, the ultimate weapon will be citation of
the horrors of the Second World War Rape of Nanking. No one wants to be accused of being a Rape of Nanking denier.
The second phase of converting Congress is to set up a bunch of Political Action Committees (PACs). They will have innocuous names
like Rocky Mountain Sheep Herders Association, but they will all really be about China. When the money begins to flow into the campaign
coffers of legislators any concerns about what China is doing in the world will cease. The same PACs can be use to fund billboards
and voter outreach in some districts, allowing China to have a say in the elections without actually having to surface or be explicit
about whom it supports. Other PACs can work hard at inserting material into social websites, similar to what the Russians have been
accused of doing.
And then there is the mass media. Using the same Chinese-American conduit, you would simply buy up controlling interests in newspapers
and other media outlets. And you would begin staffing those outlets with earnest young Chinese-Americans who will be highly protective
of Chinese interests and never write a story critical of the government in Beijing or the Chinese people. That way the American public
will eventually become so heavily propagandized by the prevailing narrative that they will never question anything that China does,
ideally beginning to refer to it as the "only democracy in Asia" and "America's best friend in the whole wide world." Once the indoctrination
process is completed, the Chinese leadership might even crush demonstrators with tanks in Tiananmen Square or line up snipers to
pick off protest leaders and no congressman or newspaper would dare say nay.
When the political classes and media are sufficiently under control, it would then be time to move to the final objective: the
dismantling of the United States Constitution. In particularly, there is that pesky Bill of Rights and the First Amendment guaranteeing
Free Speech. That would definitely have to go, so you round up your tame Congress critters and you elect a president who is also
in your pocket, putting everything in place for the "slam-dunk." You pass a battery of laws making any criticism of China both racist
and felonious, with punitive fines and prison sentences attached. After that success, you can begin to dismantle the rest of the
Bill of Rights and no one will be able to say a word against what you are doing because the First Amendment will by then be a dead
duck. When the Constitution is in shreds and Chinese lobbyists are firmly in control of corrupted legislators, Beijing will have
won a bloodless victory against the United States and it all began with just a little interference in America's politics alluded
to by Donald Trump.
Of course, dear reader, all of the above might be true but for the fact that I am not talking about China at all and am only using
that country as a metaphor. Beijing may have spied on the U.S. elections but it otherwise has evidenced little interest in manipulating
elections or controlling any aspect of the U.S. government. And even though I am sure that Donald Trump was not referring to Israel
when he made his offhand comment about "others," the shoe perfectly fits that country's subjugation of many of the foreign and national
security policy mechanisms in the United States over the past fifty years. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently
boasted
about how he controls Trump and convinced him to pull out of the Iran nuclear agreement.
The real mystery, if there is one, is why no American politician has either the guts or the integrity or perhaps the necessary
intelligence to substitute Tel Aviv for Moscow and to call Israel out like we are currently calling out Russia for actions that pale
in comparison to what Netanyahu has been up to.
To be specific, there is no evidence that Russia ever asked for favors from Trump's campaign staff and transition team but
Israel did so over a vote on its illegal
settlements at the United Nations. Is Special Counsel Robert Mueller or Congress interested? No. Is the media interested? No.
Israel, relying on Jewish power and money to do the heavy lifting, has completely corrupted many aspects of American government
and, in particular, its foreign policy by aggressive lobbying and buying politicians. All new members of Congress and spouses are
taken to Israel on generously funded "fact finding"
tours after being elected to make sure they get their bearings straight right from the git-go. Israel's nearly total control over
the message on the Middle East coming out of the U.S. mainstream is aided and abetted by the numerous Jewish editors and journalists
who are prepared to pump the party line. The money to do all this comes from Jewish billionaires like Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson,
who have their hooks deep into both political parties. Meanwhile, the ability of America's most powerful foreign policy lobby AIPAC
to avoid registration as a foreign agent is completely due to the exercise of Jewish power in the United States which means in practice
that Israel and its advocates will never be sanctioned in any way.
Israel is eager to have the United States fight Iran on its behalf, even though Washington has no real interest in doing so, and
all indications are that it will be successful. Though it is a rich country, it receives a multi-billion-dollar handout from the
U.S. Treasury every year. When its war criminal prime minister comes to town he receives
26 standing ovations from a completely sycophantic congress and now the United States has even stationed soldiers in Israel who
are
"prepared to die" for Israel even though there is no treaty of any kind between the two countries and the potential victims have
likely never been consulted regarding dying for a foreign country. All of this takes place without the public ever voting on or even
discussing the relationship, a tribute to the fact that both major parties and the media have been completely co-opted.
And now there is the assault on the First Amendment, with legislation currently in Congress
making
it a crime either to criticize Israel or support a boycott of it in support of Palestinian rights. When those bills become law,
which they will, we are finished as a country where fundamental rights are respected.
And what has Russia done in comparison to all this? Hardly anything even if all the claims about its alleged interference are
true. So when will Mueller and all the Republican and Democratic baying dogs say a single word about Israel's interference in our
elections and political processes? If past behavior is anything to go by, it will never happen.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational
foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O.
Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].
Thanks for the great article, Sir. You are so right.
The New York Times should change its name to Tel Aviv Times. Everyday, it interferes in virtually every US election, on behalf
of Israel, attacking candidates who do not support Israel or those who are patriotic and want to ban immigration.
Same with CNN, WaPo, the Economist (a Rothschild publication), etc.
Our Congressmen are Gazans. They are forced to sign pledges supporting Israel, and forced to destroy their country through
3rd world immigration, or risk destruction of their careers, mockery or defamation by the Zionist controlled media, loss of campaign
contributions from their biggest donors, or even risk being framed.
When Cynthia McKinney refused to sign the pledge, she was forced out. When another freshman Congressman simply wanted to delay
a vote in favor of Israel, he was attacked, taken to Israel where he was softened up and now is totally under the Jewish Lobby's
control.
"... AG Sessions allowed a special investigation into the new President while allowing rogue actors from the Obama Administration to lead the investigation. ..."
"... Former FBI Director and Dirty Cop Robert Mueller was selected to lead the investigation. Mueller had a history of allowing Clinton and Obama related scandals to dissolve. ..."
It's Official: The US is in a Constitutional Crisis – Only President Trump Can Save the Nation Now!The US is now in a constitutional crisis. Yesterday Attorney General
Sessions announced that he was refusing to set up a special investigation into FBI and DOJ wrongdoing even though the evidence
of corruption, illegalities and cover ups of Obama and Clinton scandals is rampant. A year ago Sessions had no problem with the creation
of an unconstitutional investigation into President Trump when no crimes were committed.
Mueller's illegal Trump-Russia investigation moves on while investigations into obvious corruption and criminal activities in
Obama's FBI, DOJ and State Department are ignored. We asked in October what does the
deep state
have on AG Sessions causing him to ignore the constitution and his duty to serve the American people? It's now clear that Sessions
must go and a new team be brought in to clean up the FBI, DOJ and other deep state led government departments.
How did we get here?
During the 2016 election one of the biggest chants at Trump rallies was – Drain the swamp!
Americans were tired of the corruption and criminal acts perpetrated by the government under the Obama administration but no one
guessed how corrupt it really was. The sinister Obama administration had the audacity to spy on the Trump campaign using the entire
apparatus of the US government and then framed the incoming President once he won.
AG Sessions allowed a special investigation into the new President while allowing rogue actors from the Obama Administration
to lead the investigation.
Former FBI Director and
Dirty Cop Robert Mueller was selected to lead the investigation. Mueller had a history of allowing Clinton and Obama related
scandals to dissolve. Emailgate, Fast and Furious, the Clinton Foundation, Clinton emails, Uranium One, and the IRS scandal
all fizzled with no wrong doing identified over Mueller's years with the FBI. Mueller also was best friends with disgraced and fired
leaker former FBI Director James Comey. Mueller should have never taken the job to lead the investigation due to his numerous conflicts
of interest.
We know that the FBI had an investigation into the Clintons and money they received from Russia in return for giving Russia 20%
of all US uranium. Prior to the Obama administration approving the very controversial Uranium One deal in 2010, the FBI had evidence
that Russian nuclear industry officials were involved in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering in order to benefit Vladimir
Putin. The
FBI approved the deal anyway. We also know that Rosenstein and Mueller were the ones who allowed the Uranium One deal to go forward.
This was the real Russia collusion story involving the US government.
Mueller brought in
a team of Obama and Clinton lackeys to form his investigative team who had no intention of performing an independent and objective
investigation. The entire team is corrupt lefties who have represented the Clinton Foundation or let Hillary go in her obvious crimes
related to her email scandal. This included the texting FBI scoundrels Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Some suspect that their efforts
are as much to cover past wrong doings as to frame the current President for unethical acts.
We know that Mueller's team
illegally
obtained emails related to the Trump transition team as reported in December and these emails were protected under attorney-client
privilege. Mueller and his entire team should have resigned after this but the investigation moves on.
Unconstitutionality of the Mueller Investigation
Not only is the Mueller investigation corrupt, it is unconstitutional. We learned
in January that Paul Manafort was suing Mueller, Rosenstein and Sessions as Head of the DOJ due to the Mueller investigation
being unconstitutional.
Gregg Jarrett at FOX News wrote when initially Mueller brought charges against Manafort that Mueller is tasked with finding a
crime that does not exist in the law. It is a legal impossibility. He is being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable.
In addition Jarrett stated-
As I pointed out in a column last May, the law (28 CFR 600) grants legal authority to appoint a special counsel to investigate
crimes. Only crimes. He has limited jurisdiction. Yet, in his order appointing Mueller as special counsel (Order No. 3915-2017),
Rosenstein directed him to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated
with the campaign of President Donald Trump." It fails to identify any specific crimes, likely because none are applicable.
Manafort sued the DOJ, Mueller and Rosenstein because what they are doing is not supported by US Law as noted previously by Jarrett.
Manafort's case argues in paragraph 33 that the special counsel put in place by crooked Rosenstein gave crooked and criminal Mueller
powers that are not permitted by law –
But paragraph (b)(ii) of the Appointment Order purports to grant Mr. Mueller further authority to investigate and prosecute
" any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." That grant of authority is not authorized
by DOJ's special counsel regulations. It is not a "specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated." Nor is it an
ancillary power to address efforts to impede or obstruct investigation under 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
In addition to Jarrett and Manafort's arguments above, Robert Barnes wrote this past week at
Law
and Crimes that –
Paul Manafort's legal team brought a motion to dismiss on Tuesday, noting that Rosenstein could not appoint Mueller to any
investigation outside the scope of the 2016 campaign since Sessions did not recuse himself for anything outside the campaign.
I agree with this take on Mueller's authority. If we follow that argument that would mean Sessions himself has exclusive authority
to appoint a special counsel for non-collusion charges, and Sessions has taken no such action. Sessions himself should make that
clear to Mueller, rather than await court resolution. Doing so would remove three of the four areas of inquiry from Mueller's
requested interview with President Trump.
Sessions formally notifying Mueller that he does not have authority to act outside of campaign-related cases and cases related
to obstruction of Mueller's investigation would be doing what the Constitution compels: enforcing the Appointments Clause of the
Constitution. Additionally, Sessions notifying Mueller that he does not have authority to act outside of campaign-related cases
would be exercising Sessions' court-recognized Constitutional
obligation to "direct and supervise
litigation" conducted by the Department of Justice. Furthermore, Sessions notifying Mueller that he does not have authority to
act outside of campaign-related cases protects against the inappropriate use of the federal grand jury that defendant Manafort
now rightly complains about.
Sessions limiting Mueller to the 2016 campaign would also be restoring confidence in democratic institutions, and restore public
faith that democratically elected officials.
One thing to remember about Sessions'
recusal : Sessions only recused himself from "any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the
campaigns for President of the United States." This recusal letter limits the scope of Sessions' recusal to the 2016 campaigns;
it does not authorize Sessions' recusal for anything beyond that. Constitutionally, Sessions has a "
duty to direct and supervise
litigation" conducted by the Department of Justice. Ethically, professionally, and legally, Sessions cannot ignore his supervisory
obligations for cases that are not related to the "campaigns for President."
Not only is the Mueller investigation run by former FBI and DOJ criminals and bad cops but it is unconstitutional in the way it
was created and in the way it is currently being managed outside the scope of Sessions' recusal while incorporating Sessions duties
as AG.
The only solution
There's a lot of speculation from some Americans and Trump supporters who believe that AG Sessions is behind the scenes working
on cleaning the swamp, but this is all speculation. Little if any evidence supports these hopes.
We must look at the facts. Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation. Rosenstein was somehow recommended and hired
as Assistant AG. With a background of multiple conflicts of interest related to
Uranium One and having
signed off on at least one FISA warrant to spy on candidate and future President Trump, Rosenstein never should have been appointed.
In spite of his conflicts, Rosenstein hired Mueller to investigate President Trump and continues in his oversight role. Sessions',
Rosenstein's and Mueller's actions are unethical, illegal and unconstitutional.
We are currently in a constitutional crisis. AG Sessions will not uphold the law. He must be replaced with an aggressive, competent
and fair AG who will uphold the constitution. This is something we haven't had in at least a decade.
Only President Trump can save America. Only President Trump can replace AG Sessions and now it's time.
You're right. But the reality is being right doesn't do squat for Sessions very little credibility. For good reason...his actions
merit distrusting him. It's the height of arrogance and simply smells to high heaven that a "Man of the highest integrity"...would
knowingly allow himself to be confirmed one day and recuse himself the next day......without first telling his boss the POTUS.
That excuse dog is not going to hunt no matter how long or whomever blows that dog whistle. It's an insult to not only the
intelligence of folks but their common sense as well.
Bluntly, he is a disaster for the country and POTUS. The problem is NO THINKING ADULT TRUST SESSIONS ANY FARTHER THAN THEY CAN
THROW HIM! What he did disqualifies him for the position he took under false pretenses. That is is Deception...not...Integrity.
PERIOD!
We are in a war. Nice guys don't win wars. They clean up afterwards. He acts like Mr Magoo and not the nations Chief Law Enforcement
Officer. We are in a war and the equivalent of the Military Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of Law Enforcement has gone
missing.
Sessions is the classical..."Fool me once..your fault; Fool me twice, my fault"
My deadline for him is June 20, 2018 at the maximum. Nothing significant by then....it will be a confirmation he is part of the
problem....and always has been....a plant of the "Deep State"
Tom Fitton: "When you read the letter its pretty clear Huber isn't charged with prosecuting anyone. Sessions is not going to
appoint a special counsel to investigate anything having to do with the Obama FBI or Hillary Clinton. I don't think [Huber] has
empaneled a grand jury or is doing a prosecution, he's just looking at the record and may suggest additional resources. Nothing
is going to be done. There is no public indication of any serious investigation by the DOJ."
Had I not come across the following, I would absolutely agree with you. But below is what is really occurring behind the scenes.
They ARE fighting the Deep State which has existed for decades, but rest assured POTUS and his team of patriots are on it. If
you take the time to really go through it, you can almost predict what POTUS will do next.
It seems unbelievable at first but it checks out as the story unfolds and Q predicts things before they happen... Also, Trump
has signalled the truth of it; do you think he said "tip top tippety top" just for the heck of it at Easter speech? (He was asked
by an anon to use this in something to verify validity of Q.) It won't make sense unless you start at the beginning in Oct and
read posts from there. (And disregard MSM reports that Q is false; if he was, why even bother trying to discredit?)
Think about it - is it like POTUS to keep someone so "obviously inept" around as Sessions? Does that really sound like POTUS?
Trump and team have handled this beautifully...they even have conservatives screaming for Sessions' head. He is neither uninvolved
nor clueless as is being portrayed. It's the Art of the Deal. Many are going down and POTUS and Q team are bringing us to it live
through the posts.
I promise you, this will open your eyes to the long game that POTUS and Sessions are playing out. Check it out - it will be
the best read of your life. So many things that never made sense, so many lies, massive corruption...be prepared.
Once you've gone through Q, you will truly know that POTUS meant every single word, literally, in this short link.
Biggest problem after watching the video of Lou Dobbs tonight is that Rod Rosenstein is still acting in an oversite position.
He will never let anyone be convicted of any crime because he is a sitting member of almost every crime that was committed. I
don't think Sessions is that smart in the first place, I believe that Rosenstein is running the show and that is all it is a Dog
and Pony show for the masses. All of them should be fired
Au contraire-All you Sessions sycophants are the ones who'll have an uncomfortably full stomach! That man's public actions
are NOT those of a sly old law and order prosecutor maintaining "radio silence" while tirelessly working behind the scenes! They're
the actions of a compromised Attorney General who is NOT performing his Constitutional duties and is actively covering for known
lawbreakers and Obstructing Justice--NOT demanding it!!
"... Why anyone believes a thing this man says or does is a mystery. He is obviously a Deep State tool who was perfectly willing to go along with the Big Lie back then, resulting in 1 million dead Iraqis, $1 trillion is squandered money, the rise of ISIS, and the destabilization of the Middle East, resulting in millions of refugees. ..."
"... He is protected by the US media which are the mouthpiece of the Deep State. ..."
"... 'Truth is to WASHINGTON DC, as Sunlight is To Dracula' http://www.johnccarleton.or... ..."
"... he lied the US people into the genocidal war against Iraq is a fitting centerpiece to the bookends provided by The Mueller Inquiry and the WTC demolition. ..."
"... Politics is the profession where scum rises to the top faster than all the others combined. ..."
Why anyone believes a thing this man says or does is a mystery. He is obviously a Deep State tool who was perfectly willing
to go along with the Big Lie back then, resulting in 1 million dead Iraqis, $1 trillion is squandered money, the rise of ISIS, and
the destabilization of the Middle East, resulting in millions of refugees.
He's a public disgrace and should be behind bars, not running a bogus Russian Meddling investigation that is pure hoax and political
conspiracy.
Mueller is a professional liar, traitor and scumbag. He is not even a good liar but he is a prolific one. ... That he lied
the US people into the genocidal war against Iraq is a fitting centerpiece to the bookends provided by The Mueller Inquiry and
the WTC demolition.
The fact that he is not only at large, but in charge of the coup against Donald Trump is a tragedy of immeasurable proportions
for the long-suffering US people. The good news is, one way or another, it may be their final tragedy.
Please, keep the anti-American thing down to a roar. Ya'll by now see that the people do not control their gov at all. They,
the cabal, did 9-11 on us and spy on us. It's the cabal at the top which does us in too - Pearl Harbor another e.g.
If Zero Hedge commenters represent a part of the US public opinion Clinton neoliberal are in
real trouble. This is real situation when the elite can't goverm as usual
Notable quotes:
"... it does seem odd that Rosenstein was part of the plan to indict charges on Russians right before Trump met Putin since he met Trump earlier that week to discuss those plans ..."
"... Mule-face is just as conflicted... he applies and interviews for the FBI job, doesn't get it... then takes on an investigation of Trump??? Bullshiiiiiiiiit!!!! Special Counsel statutes are CLEAR... but Sessions is totally corrupt. ..."
"... For those of you who have not seen this...This has been in the works since April...... https://gosar.house.gov/uploadedfiles/criminal-referral.pdf ..."
"... Recuse himself? He violated US Code with improper appointment of Special Counsel. Don't even think he didn't know. That alone is enough for Malfeasance, Abuse of Office, and a mistrial for anything Bueller can get in front of a Judge. ..."
News of the resolution comes after weeks of frustration by Congressional investigators, who
have repeatedly accused Rosenstein and the DOJ of "slow walking" documents related to their
investigations. Lawmakers say they've been given the runaround - while Rosenstein and the rest
of the DOJ have maintained that handing over vital documents would compromise ongoing
investigations.
Not even last week's
heavily redacted release of the FBI's FISA surveillance application on former Trump
campaign Carter Page was enough to dissuade the GOP lawmakers from their efforts to impeach
Rosenstein. In fact, its release may have sealed Rosenstein's fate after it was revealed that
the FISA application and subsequent renewals - at least one of which Rosenstein signed off on ,
relied heavily on the salacious and largely unproven Steele dossier.
In late June, Rosenstein along with FBI Director Christopher Wray clashed with House
Republicans during a fiery hearing over an internal DOJ report criticizing the FBI's handling
of the Hillary Clinton email investigation by special agents who harbored extreme animus
towards Donald Trump while expressing support for Clinton. Republicans on the panel grilled a
defiant Rosenstein on the Trump-Russia investigation which has yet to prove any collusion
between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.
"This country is being hurt by it. We are being divided," Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) said of
Mueller's investigation. "Whatever you got," Gowdy added, " Finish it the hell up because this
country is being torn apart. "
Rosenstein pushed back - dodging responsibility for decisions made by subordinates while
claiming that Mueller was moving "as expeditiously as possible," and insisting that he was "not
trying to hide anything."
" We are not in contempt of this Congress, and we are not going to be in contempt of this
Congress ," Rosenstein told lawmakers.
Congressional GOP were not impressed.
" For over eight months, they have had the opportunity to choose transparency. But they've
instead chosen to withhold information and impede any effort of Congress to conduct
oversight," said Representative Mark Meadows of North Carolina, a sponsor of Thursday's House
resolution who raised the possibility of impeachment this week. " If Rod Rosenstein and the
Department of Justice have nothing to hide, they certainly haven't acted like it. " -
New York Times (6/28/18)
And now, Rosenstein's fate is in the hands of Congress.
I got directed to Meadows Twitter feed earlier and I couldn't believe some of the comments
from the Hilary crowd. Either they actually believe the CNN/MSNBC "Russia did it" bullshit or
they've decided to roll with that narrative regardless of what reality shows because they
think it gives them some kind of leverage if they keep spewing those accusations. Those
people are really sick in the head.
Somewhat. Yes, sometimes cowards need a good swift kick in the ass to get em
going...lol.
But you gotta place yourself into the mind of a bureautocracy kleptocrat like Rosenstein
to discover where his head was at (or whatever bureaucrat, pick any one)...this was "business
as usual"...for EIGHT SOLID YEARS they were able to delay/obstruct Congressional oversight at
will into any number of things, from "recycled hard drives" to "rogue agents" to "smashed
Blackberries" to "Bleachbit" to "illegal servers" to "spontaneous protests in Benghazi" to
"Car Czars" to "the benign tracking of weapons into Mexico" (lol...my personal favorite) et
fucking cetra so...there was no reason whatsoever that Rosenstein would suspect that
oversight would..."change".
See, all of this nation ending angst, hate, ill-will, divide & conquer, the rending of
clothes and gnashing of teeth could have been completely avoided if the People would have
just complied with their betters, the elites, the educated, the non-deplorables and used that
gift of, ahem, "democracy" (lol) that the rich & powerful are so insecure in trusting us
with...none of this would have happened.
There would have been a "historic" coronation of our new Queen Hillary! There were royal
wedding plans even!
And we, the deplorables, the plebes, the low-lifes, had to go and mess up their plans of
sweeping it all under the rug ;-)
Why in the Sam hell do you think they're jawboning this thing to death ..
swmnguy Wed, 07/25/2018 - 19:39 Permalink
"They'll move to impeach Rosenstein just as they voted to repeal ObamaCare 50 times or
however many. And, just like when they got the chance to re-do ObamaCare altogether and had
not the foggiest notion what to do, if they get to impeach Rosenstein they won't have any
idea how to proceed."
This ..
Damned Kabuki, will be answered! With more Kabuki ..
Also a big problem, was his CHOICE to not recuse himself from being involved in appointing
Mueller, when he was heavily involved in the investigations, such as signing a FISA warrant
to spy on Trump campaign staff when there was allegedly (in the FISA warrant) Russian
collusion.
What is the swamp hiding? This latest revelation by Republicans looking into Spygate
offers us some tantalizing clues. In this episode I address the growing efforts by the swamp
to sweep the scandal under the rug.
"Is they don't want to get into who pushed the Information into the Trump Team orbit. And,
the questions surrounding Joseph Mizut. Who was the initiator, I should say, of the
Papadopoulos, "they have dirt on Hillary story."
"If this guy was working for Western Intelligence Agencies, this whole case is going to
explode." "It's already exploding. But it's going to explode at just Nuclear Levels."
"Right?"
"Now they're starting to realize that, that may be a problem too. So, now there's a third
track. The third track Joe, is going to be:
"Verification is not necessary." "They're starting to creep this out there now."
"Remember what I told you about the "Woods Procedure." "The Woods Procedure" is a
procedure in the FBI & DOJ to verify information before it goes in front of the FISA
Court, right?"
"The new line of attack is going to be:
"Well, that's really not necessary. This thorough verification of all the information."
"Why they're going down that track I can't give you a conclusive explanation. I can only tell
you that, my guess here, is that they're realizing that whatever fork they take in the
road."
"Cater Paige who was spied on. With no verified information. Not good. Papadoplolus, who
we Prosecuted despite the fact that a potential "Western Connected Intelligence Asset,"
pushed the information into Papadopoulos. Meaning he was framed. That's not good either."
"They know there's no way out. So what are they going to do? Now, they're going to
push:
"Well, lets go back to Cater Paige. But let's say, "Alright, we may have made a mistake
but Verification is really not necessary. We were really worried he (Carter Paige) was a
terrorist or a spy. So we had to just run with it."
"Folks, they have no where to go."
"Now, how does this tie into the Bryon York piece. Remember, that they're are people up in
the House. Nunes & other folks in these Committees. Don't forget this. They're folks,
Republicans in the House & on the Senate side too who have seen the Declassified,
Unredacted documents about why this whole case stated."
"They've seen that now. They haven't seen all of the DOJ or FBI records. That is where
this fight is brewing. But the FISA application. They have seen most of what's in it. The
redacted copy the one you've seen. Obviously, has blacked out information. Hence, the
redactions. They dropped a hint yesterday. They want disclosed Joe. And, I'm quoting Bryon
York here:
"What is on pages 10-12 & 17-34. of the FISA application."
"He says, this is York:
"That is certainly a tantalizing clue dropped by the House Intel Members. But it's not
clear what is means. Comparing the relevant sections from the initial FISA application in
October & the third renewal in June much appears the same. But in pages 10-12 the date
the Republicans want redacted. Of the third renewal. There's a sightly different
headline:
"The Russian Governments coordinated effort to influence the 2016 Presidential Election."
Plus a footnote seven lines long that was not in the original."
"Folks, the Republicans know something. They have seen these redactions. now, based on
some research. I can't tell you because I have not seen the unredacted copy of the document.
I can only tell you based on research surrounding the case & some Information I've been
working hard to develop. That it may disclose, those footnotes may disclose some connections
for information streams. Again, that were not related to formal Intelligence Channels."
"In other words, the theory from the start that we've been operating on is that this case
was not developed through standard protocol. If you develop Intelligence in a Five Eyes
Country & Intelligence cooperated with the UNITED STATES against Donald Trump. You pass
that information to your domestic Intelligence Agency who passes it Central Intelligence
Agency. They vet the information before it makes it to the Presidents desk."
"That is not the way this case worked. May I suggest to you that the redactions describe
other channels. Other channels of information that developed outside of those standard
channels."
"Are we clear on this? I want to make clear what we're talking about. Standard way to do
this is Intel Agency to Intel Agency. Vet it, vet the information, check the information
before it makes it to the President. The only reason you would go outside of that network
with Intelligence, specifically against a Political Candidate in the UNITED STATES is because
you want to launder the information without vetting it. You want to clean it to make it seen
legitimate."
"We already know, based on Public admissions by State Department Officials on the Obama
Administration that they used The State Department. We already know, that there where people
working for the Clinton Team that met with people on The State Department. May I suggest that
this describes an alternative information channel outside of the standard "modus operandi"
here that is going to expose The whole thing was an information laundering operation. The
Republicans know something here folks."
Woods procedure IS required, it's not optional. And we have the FBI self-admittedly not
adhering to their own procedure. If they had, Steele would have been paid. The FBI stiffed
him.
Further, it's the Judge's responsibility to insure the Prosecutors and Agents followed the
procedure, and additionally that they vetted the sources - not just the informant. The
informant's sources. They were criminally negligent on that point as well. The Judge was no
victim here, the Judge had to be complicit in the conspiracy.
Totally illegal in their own country, so they have another country do it for them. Can it
be prosecuted as Espionage? What about when it's used in Conspiracy to commit Sedition? What
about failure to prosecute a crime of this magnitude, a direct attack on our govt by
FVEY?
What will the punishment be, nothing, be fired for incompetence, that's all. Why are they
being stubborn dicks and not handing over the information because if fucking proves they are
incompetent and gets them fired.
So either way they are fired, they just suck up more inflated salary for longer by holding
off as long as they can and fuck everyone else, fuck the government, fuck Americans, fuck
justice, they will stay there as long as they can sucking up quite a large salary well over
$100,000 per year, plus perks, plus super and we are not talking dicking around for days but
months.
Fired months and months later for not releasing the information versus fired within days
of the information being released. As simple as that and as far as they are concerned fuck
all other US citizens, they will not leave their spot at the trough of corruption until
forced.
Trump hired him but I don't think he's Trump's guy. Although it does seem odd that Rosenstein was part of the plan to indict charges on Russians right before Trump met Putin
since he met Trump earlier that week to discuss those plans. It is all theater, you got that
right, just not sure what the plot is.
Zerohedge readers might want to read this article from
theconservativetreehouse.....Rosenstein and Sessions may be up to more than meets the eye;
i.e., drain the swamp by catching the leakers:
Mule-face is just as conflicted... he applies and interviews for the FBI job, doesn't get it... then takes on an
investigation of Trump??? Bullshiiiiiiiiit!!!! Special Counsel statutes are CLEAR... but Sessions is totally corrupt.
Rosenstein signing off on the FISA documents means he should have recused himself from the
Mueller investigation instead of overseeing it. That's what is going to take him down.
Recuse himself? He violated US Code with improper appointment of Special Counsel. Don't
even think he didn't know. That alone is enough for Malfeasance, Abuse of Office, and a
mistrial for anything Bueller can get in front of a Judge.
True... but WTF is Trump thinking??? He should use this action to FIRE Rosenstein's
traitor's ass NOW. Include the useless Sessions and Wray and, obviously, McCabe and Ohr.
DiGenova for AG, David Clarke for FBI head... Maybe Andy McCarthy for new Special Counsel
to prosecute Hillary and all the rest of the Barry Obongo criminals... especially pigfart
Brennan.
"... Sanders's support for the anti-Russia and anti-Wikileaks campaign is all the more telling because he was himself the victim of efforts by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party leadership to block his 2016 campaign. In June and July 2016, Wikileaks published internal Democratic emails in which officials ridiculed the Sanders campaign, forcing the DNC to issue a public apology: "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email." ..."
"... In the aftermath of his election campaign, Sanders was elevated into a top-level position in the Democratic Party caucus in the US Senate. His first response to the inauguration of Trump was to declare his willingness to "work with" the president, closely tracking remarks of Obama that the election of Trump was part of an "intramural scrimmage" in which all sides were on the same team. As the campaign of the military-intelligence agencies intensifies, however, Sanders is toeing the line. ..."
"... The Sanders campaign did not push the Democrats to the left, but rather the state apparatus of the ruling class brought Sanders in to give a "left" veneer to a thoroughly right-wing party. ..."
"... There is no contradiction between the influx of military-intelligence candidates into the Democratic Party and the Democrats' making use of the services of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez to give the party a "left" cover. Both the CIA Democrats and their pseudo-left "comrades" agree on the most important questions: the defense of the global interests of American imperialism and a more aggressive intervention in the Syrian civil war and other areas where Washington and Moscow are in conflict. ..."
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders appeared on the CBS interview program "Face the Nation"
Sunday and fully embraced the anti-Russia campaign of the US military-intelligence apparatus,
backed by the Democratic Party and much of the media.
In response to a question from CBS host Margaret Brennan, Sanders unleashed a torrent of
denunciations of Trump's meeting and press conference in Helsinki with Russian President
Vladimir Putin. A preliminary transcript reads:
SANDERS: "I will tell you that I was absolutely outraged by his behavior in Helsinki, where
he really sold the American people out. And it makes me think that either Trump doesn't
understand what Russia has done, not only to our elections, but through cyber attacks against
all parts of our infrastructure, either he doesn't understand it, or perhaps he is being
blackmailed by Russia, because they may have compromising information about him.
"Or perhaps also you have a president who really does have strong authoritarian tendencies.
And maybe he admires the kind of government that Putin is running in Russia. And I think all of
that is a disgrace and a disservice to the American people. And we have got to make sure that
Russia does not interfere, not only in our elections, but in other aspects of our lives."
These comments, which echo remarks he gave at a rally in Kansas late last week, signal
Sanders' full embrace of the right-wing campaign launched by the Democrats and backed by
dominant sections of the military-intelligence apparatus. Their opposition to Trump is centered
on issues of foreign policy, based on the concern that Trump, due to his own "America First"
brand of imperialist strategy, has run afoul of geostrategic imperatives that are considered
inviolable -- in particular, the conflict with Russia.
Sanders did not use his time on a national television program to condemn Trump's persecution
of immigrants and the separation of children from their parents, or to denounce his naming of
ultra-right jurist Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, or to attack the White House
declaration last week that the "war on poverty" had ended victoriously -- in order to justify
the destruction of social programs for impoverished working people. Nor did he seek to advance
his supposedly left-wing program on domestic issues like health care, jobs and education.
Sanders' embrace of the anti-Russia campaign is not surprising, but it is instructive. This
is, after all, an individual who presented himself as "left-wing," even a "socialist." During
the 2016 election campaign, he won the support of millions of people attracted to his call for
a "political revolution" against the "billionaire class." For Sanders, who has a long history
of opportunist and pro-imperialist politics in the orbit of the Democratic Party, the aim of
the campaign was always to direct social discontent into establishment channels, culminating in
his endorsement of the campaign of Hillary Clinton.
Sanders's support for the anti-Russia and anti-Wikileaks campaign is all the more
telling because he was himself the victim of efforts by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic
Party leadership to block his 2016 campaign. In June and July 2016, Wikileaks published
internal Democratic emails in which officials ridiculed the Sanders campaign, forcing the DNC
to issue a public apology: "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and
sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the
inexcusable remarks made over email."
In the aftermath of his election campaign, Sanders was elevated into a top-level
position in the Democratic Party caucus in the US Senate. His first response to the
inauguration of Trump was to declare his willingness to "work with" the president, closely
tracking remarks of Obama that the election of Trump was part of an "intramural scrimmage" in
which all sides were on the same team. As the campaign of the military-intelligence agencies
intensifies, however, Sanders is toeing the line.
The experience is instructive not only in relation to Sanders, but to an entire social
milieu and the political perspective with which it is associated. This is what it means to work
within the Democratic Party. The Sanders campaign did not push the Democrats to the left,
but rather the state apparatus of the ruling class brought Sanders in to give a "left" veneer
to a thoroughly right-wing party.
New political figures, many associated with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) are
being brought in for the same purpose. As Sanders gave his anti-Russia rant, Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez sat next to him nodding her agreement. The 28-year-old member of the DSA last
month won the Democratic nomination in New York's 14th Congressional District, unseating the
Democratic incumbent, Joseph Crowley, the fourth-ranking member of the Democratic leadership in
the House of Representatives.
Since then, Ocasio-Cortez has been given massive and largely uncritical publicity by the
corporate media, summed up in an editorial puff piece by the New York Times that
described her as "a bright light in the Democratic Party who has brought desperately needed
energy back to New York politics "
Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders were jointly interviewed from Kansas, where the two appeared
Friday at a campaign rally for James Thompson, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for the
US House of Representatives from the Fourth Congressional District, based in Wichita, in an
August 7 primary election.
Thompson might appear to be an unusual ally for the "socialist" Sanders and the DSA member
Ocasio-Cortez. His campaign celebrates his role as an Army veteran, and his website opens under
the slogan "Join the Thompson Army," followed by pledges that the candidate will "Fight for
America." In an interview with the Associated Press, Thompson indicated that despite his
support for Sanders' call for "Medicare for all," and his own endorsement by the DSA, he was
wary of any association with socialism. "I don't like the term socialist, because people do
associate that with bad things in history," he said.
Such anticommunism fits right in with the anti-Russian campaign, which is the principal
theme of the Democratic Party in the 2018 elections. As the World Socialist Web
Site has pointed out for many months, the
real thrust of the Democratic Party campaign is demonstrated by its recruitment as
congressional candidates of dozens of former CIA and military intelligence agents, combat
commanders from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and war planners from the Pentagon, State
Department and White House.
There is no contradiction between the influx of military-intelligence candidates into
the Democratic Party and the Democrats' making use of the services of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez
to give the party a "left" cover. Both the CIA Democrats and their pseudo-left "comrades" agree
on the most important questions: the defense of the global interests of American imperialism
and a more aggressive intervention in the Syrian civil war and other areas where Washington and
Moscow are in conflict.
"... The wing of the Democratic Party that looks for the dollars instead of the votes is called "The Third Way" and it presents itself as representing the supposedly vast political center, nothing "extremist" or "marginal." But didn't liberal Republicanism go out when Nelson Rockefeller did? Conservative Democrats are like liberal Republicans -- they attract flies and billionaires, but not many votes. And didn't the Rockefeller drug laws fill our prisons with millions of pathetic drug-users and small drug-dealers but not with the kingpins in either the narcotics business or the bankster rackets (such as had crashed the economy in 2008 -- and the Third Way Democrat who had been the exceptional politician and liar that was so slick he actually did attract many votes, President Barack Obama, told the banksters privately, on 27 March 2009, "I'm not out there to go after you. I'm protecting you." And, he did keep his promise to them, though not to his voters .) ..."
"... They want another Barack Obama. There aren't any more of those (unless, perhaps, Michelle Obama enters the contest). But, even if there were: How many Democrats would fall for that scam, yet again -- after the disaster of 2016? ..."
"... Maybe the Third Way is right, and there's a sucker born every minute. But if that's what the Democratic Party is going to rely upon, then America's stunningly low voter-participation rate is set to plunge even lower, because even more voters than before will either be leaving the Presidential line blank, or even perhaps voting for the Republican candidate (as some felt driven to do in 2016). ..."
"... Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity . He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. ..."
The wing of the Democratic Party that looks for the dollars instead of the votes is
called "The Third Way" and it presents itself as representing the supposedly vast political
center, nothing "extremist" or "marginal." But didn't liberal Republicanism go out when Nelson
Rockefeller did? Conservative Democrats are like liberal Republicans -- they attract flies and
billionaires, but not many votes. And didn't the Rockefeller drug laws fill our prisons with
millions of pathetic drug-users and small drug-dealers but not with the kingpins in either the
narcotics business or the bankster rackets (such as had crashed the economy in 2008 -- and the
Third Way Democrat who had been the exceptional politician and liar that was so slick he
actually did attract many votes, President Barack Obama, told the banksters privately, on 27
March 2009, "I'm not out there to go after you.
I'm protecting you." And, he did
keep his promise to them, though not to his voters .)
They're at it, yet again. On July 22nd, NBC News's Alex Seitz-Wald headlined
"Sanders' wing of the party terrifies moderate Dems. Here's how they plan to stop it." And
he described what was publicly available from the 3-day private meeting in Columbus Ohio of The
Third Way, July 18-20, the planning conference between the Party's chiefs and its billionaires.
Evidently, they hate Bernie Sanders and are already scheming and spending in order to block
him, now a second time, from obtaining the Party's Presidential nomination. "Anxiety has
largely been kept to a whisper among the party's moderates and big donors, with some of the
major fundraisers pressing operatives on what can be done to stop the Vermonter if he runs for
the White House again." This passage in Seitz-Wald's article was especially striking to me:
The gathering here was an effort to offer an attractive alternative to the rising
Sanders-style populist left in the upcoming presidential race. Where progressives see a rare
opportunity to capitalize on an energized Democratic base, moderates see a better chance to
win over Republicans turned off by Trump.
The fact that a billionaire real estate developer, Winston Fisher, cohosted the event
and addressed attendees twice, underscored that this group is not interested in the class
warfare vilifying the "millionaires and billionaires" found in Sanders' stump speech.
"You're not going to make me hate somebody just because they're rich. I want to be
rich!" Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, a potential presidential candidate, said Friday to
laughs.
I would reply to congressman Ryan's remark: If you want to be rich, then get the hell out of
politics! Don't run for President! I don't want you there! And that's no joke!
Anyone who doesn't recognize that an inevitable trade-off exists between serving the public
and serving oneself, is a libertarian -- an Ayn Rander, in fact -- and there aren't many of
those in the Democratic Party, but plenty of them are in the Republican Party.
Just as a clergyman in some faiths is supposed to take a vow of chastity, and in some faiths
also to take a vow of poverty, in order to serve "the calling" instead of oneself, anyone who
enters 'public service' and who aspires to "be rich" is inevitably inviting corruption
-- not prepared to do war against it . That kind of politician is a Manchurian
candidate, like Obama perhaps, but certainly not what this or any country needs, in any case.
Voters like that can be won only by means of deceit, which is the way that politicians like
that do win.
No decent political leader enters or stays in politics in order to "be rich," because no
political leader can be decent who isn't in it as a calling, to public service, and as a
repudiation, of any self-service in politics.
Republican Party voters invite corrupt government, because their Party's ideology is
committed to it ("Freedom [for the rich]!"); but the only Democratic Party voters who at all
tolerate corrupt politicians (such as Governor Andrew Cuomo in New York State) are actually
Republican Democrats -- people who are confused enough so as not really to care much about what
they believe; whatever their garbage happens to be, they believe in it and don't want to know
differently than it.
The Third Way is hoping that there are
enough of such 'Democrats' so that they can, yet again, end up with a Third Way Democrat being
offered to that Party's voters in 2020, just like happened in 2016. They want another Barack
Obama. There aren't any more of those (unless, perhaps, Michelle Obama enters the contest).
But, even if there were: How many Democrats would fall for that scam, yet again -- after the
disaster of 2016?
Maybe the Third Way is right, and there's a sucker born every minute. But if that's what the
Democratic Party is going to rely upon, then America's stunningly low voter-participation rate
is set to plunge even lower, because even more voters than before will either be leaving the
Presidential line blank, or even perhaps voting for the Republican candidate (as some felt
driven to do in 2016).
The Third Way is the way to the death of democracy, if it's not already dead . It is no answer
to anything, except to the desires of billionaires -- both Republican and Democratic.
The center of American politics isn't the center of America's aristocracy. The goal
of groups such as The Third Way is to fool the American public to equate the two. The
result of such groups is the contempt that America's
public have for America's Government . But, pushed too far, mass disillusionment becomes
revolution. Is that what America's billionaires are willing to risk? They might get it.
The is question about whether that information was classified was really important, but if take classification at face value Clinton
and her associated are guilty in obstruction of justice...
DAAAAAMMMNNN ... IT ... COMEY IS A LIAR ... DAMN IM SICK OF THIS BASTARD LYING !!! ... HE HAS BROKEN THE LAW BIG TIME ... HES
GOING TO BE UNDER THE JAIL !!! ... SON OF BITCH ... LET ONE OF US EVEN TRY TO THINK ABOUT BREAKING ONE OF THOSE CRIMES WE WOULD
BE IN GITMO ... WHAT THE F
Please write to the DOJ fellow Trump Supporter.. Here is a link you send the request to Attorney General.. I have been asking
for a Special Prosuctor to look into Hillary/Comey Hillary Clinton Foundation/Podesta / Russia (He had ties to Russia) And Obama
Hello They are all so damn corrupt.
This is seriously PISSING ME OFF!!!!!!!!!! James Comey is a lying bastard and needs to be fired immediately!!! He is either involved
or completely paid off!
AMERICANS JAMES COMEY WORKED FOR THE CLINTON FOUNDATION BEFORE HE WAS DIRECTOR OF FBI . DOES THIS EXPLAIN ANYTHING IN THAT NOGGIN
? I AM TALKING TO THE LIBTARDS . I WONDER HOW HE GOT HIS PROMOTION ? HHHHHMMMM
Comey's entire testimony and the whole of this investigation is a complete farce and he's made a mockery of one of the highest
and most elite law enforcement agencies in our nation as a result. WHY he is still the director of the FBI is beyond me... his
credibility was obliterated with this ONE case and he will NEVER regain it. As far as most Americans are concerned, everything
that comes out of the FBI and/or Comey's mouth is as worthless as shit on the bottom of your shoe.
+Brian Cunningham -- President Trump is doing HIS OWN job.. running the country. THIS is the job of the Justice department.
IF Comey is "committing perjury", then the Justice Department - NOT the President - will deal with him. Meanwhile, the
hearings have to be completed first . QUIT saying that Trump "isn't doing his job, as he IS. Not every function of our
government is *President TRUMP'S job!!*
*I give up*. Clueless....... +Brian Cunningham , PLEASE learn how our government works. Stay in school - or use the Internet in
front of you to learn something - like, how our government works, for example... that's a start... Please. Please!
+Frank Marshall -- Exactly -- I reported the title as misleading.. Go up above where it says "more"..click, and "report" comes
up. The click bait false titles (and this one is slanderous towards Congressman Gowdy) will NOT stop until enough people
get to reporting them and the uploader is warned to stop it by You Tube themselves... things like that and the filthy language
people use in comments in general. It's ALL out of hand..thus I started reporting it all. It HAS to start somewhere to shut it
down. Take care, have a good week!
In 2015 the Clinton Foundation had $225 million and 2000 employees. The decision to suspend future operations is blamed on (mostly
foreign) unfulfilled donor pledges . I wonder why? The layoff of 22 employees recently made headlines. Gonna be a lot of screaming
for termination bonus' from the rest. Any wagers they'll fall on deaf ears?
Are you kidding me. They and that is the Clintons,Comey should be put in prison then the will follow. Different strokes for different
folks that is what is destroying this country. The big shoots can do whatever they want. If it was the regular Joey they would
have been imprisoned long ago.......thats why this country is crumbles. No rule of law. Well there is for the regular citizens
but not are voted in politicians they can do whatever they want why Illinois sucks.
Wow - Comey, the guy that fixed Hillary's email problem has an urgent centrist plea.
"Democrats, please, please don't lose your minds and rush to the socialist left. This
president and his Republican Party are counting on you to do exactly that. America's great
middle wants sensible, balanced, ethical leadership."
"... Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge says this is one of the biggest headlines out of the hearing today with the FBI director, pointing out that the FBI had found an email was obtained by Russian hackers that indicated that former DOJ hack Loretta Lynch would do everything she could to protect Hillary from prosecution: ..."
Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge says this is one of the biggest headlines out of the hearing today with the FBI director,
pointing out that the FBI had found an email was obtained by Russian hackers that indicated that former DOJ hack Loretta Lynch would
do everything she could to protect Hillary from prosecution:
Of course Comey wouldn't reveal who sent the email and to whom it was sent. But it sounds like it was sent from someone who worked
closely with Lynch, and sent to someone who was very worried about Clinton going down in flames, probably someone very close to Clinton.
At the end of the segment, Herridge pointed out that Comey suggested he was boxed in by Lynch and here is what she's talking about:
I don't think he's just talking about the meeting Lynch had with Bill Clinton. It sounds like she boxed him in – in more ways
that just that meeting. If that new email is any indication, she very likely coerced him directly, pushing him to play the 'no intent'
defense for Clinton and her aides.
Insightful but who do you believe?? James does make many good points but without confirmation from another or two people, i.m
just wondering who is telling the truth. Still something fishy here and I think both parties are full of BS and probably James
as well. But only time will tell when historians can weed through all the smoke and mirrors
This is an interesting read. In years gone I wouldn't have been interested but the current political climate in the US is such
that I felt it worth a read. The polarity in the system and its players appears beyond what I'd expected and while there appears
to be corruption in most systems, it's amazing the Americans have been able to present an appearance of decency and leadership
this long. I guess the vail is down now and the current administration is showing just how broken and morally bankrupt the place
is and has been for a long time.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, the desire for power corrupts the very fabric of humanity
I think the title says it all, Comey has only one true loyalty and that is to himself. I enjoyed this book. It was insightful
trip through the mind of a psychopath. His deviations from procedure, his lies, half truths and lawyerisms litter the book and
highlight the forces that have corrupted this nation and agencies we rely on.
Its clear that Comey did not act independently but with the tacit guidance and approval of those above him. He makes no admission
of guilt about his demonstrated lies, but rathers blames others. His self inflated ego is too commonplace to those who have worked
in Washington DC among various political agencies and dens where politicians and their allies lurk. The book betrays no empathy
for those he shamelessly prosecuted. The book is laden with attempts at manipulation through lies, half truths, and gross distortions.
On one hand I highly recommend this book because it is sure to become the "textbook" on psychopaths and their characteristics.
On the other hand this book serves as a cautionary warning about ambition run wild, corruption at the highest levels of government,
the abuse of power. No author could pen such a novel. As an exhibit it ranks with 1984 as a warning of what evil men do in the
name of "a higher good."
This is a lying, childish, self-serving, narcissistic, money grab from a partisan author who can't even keep his story straight.
His interviews contradict his book and this book is probably illegal in that it talks about an ongoing sham "investigation" that
isn't even an investigation, it's an investigation to find something to investigate.
I went into this book with an open mind after seeing Mr Comey on alot of the morning shows. I didn't like the way he seemed
to be trying to be "holier than thou" regardless of which political he was answering to. It did, in the other hand, explain what
he was thinking on some of his decisions on some of the moves he made during the election season. But truly it just read like
he was making a lot of excuses and sour grapes. I didn't enjoy this book at all. I had to force myself to finish it. I just didn't
think it was very well written.
There is no moral high ground in this book as much as its author would like to claim that he is on it
If you read the "Author's Note" on the first page of this book, it will tell you all you need to know about this smug arrogant
self righteous man. It reads, "WHO AM I TO TELL others what ethical leadership is?" If you read the book, you may come to the
same conclusion as I did. There is no moral high ground in this book as much as its author would like to claim that he is on it.
You could read that first sentence and be done with it and you would get as much out of the book without reading more.
Just a book filled with Hatred of a former employee. The people who defend this guy are the same people who accused him of
violating the Hatch Act when he announced a few days prior to the election that the FBI was reopening the Clinton email investigation.
I must admit I was touched at nearly drawn to tears when he details the lost of his newborn son. However that does not change
the fact that Comey is a liar. James Comey:'I don't leak.'(In a memo that he leaked.)
This book is second only to What Happened by Hillary Clinton in self-serving drivel. It started out interesting enough with
Cindy's work history, but once he got to the subject of his (supposed) interactions with President Trump, it was downhill from
there. It will be interesting to see what he has to say now in light of the FBI's possible spying on the Trump campaign. I'm just
glad I read it in Overdrive and didn't waste my own money.
A higher loyalty would be to the country - not the ego of a sad individual that hates the president. Love him or hate him the
president is leading the country in a direction that shows promise. The electorate can throw him out after 4 years, just like
it rejected the previous 8 years. In the meantime all Americans should be praying for the president's success and the success
of the country. That's loyalty......
Don't waste your money, Jim wants go for sainthood
Comey is extremely bright, and knows how ( or thinks he does) how to convince his readers he is one step down from sainthood.
I am not that naieve. He could have done away with the first ten chapters, where he was born and what he wore growing up was irrelevant.
I knew what he was doing. It annoyed me. He is absolutely blameless in everything.
Having dinner with Donald ALONE four times, making sure he made a EXTENDIVE note of it and gave it to another " means nothing.
The head of the FBI does NOT meet with the president alone. Saying he did not know what to do each time insults my intelligence.
He is sport on correct what he wrote " in my opinion " about Trump, but, everyone knew all this and it was on the last 4 chapters.
Jim wanted to tell his story, simple as that. Don't waste your money, I did there is not one thing that you do not already
know, if you know politicks .
I really liked the first part of this book, learning about Comey and his background. At some point though, he started to rationalize
and justify his actions and seemed to get on a high horse about defending the reputation of the FBI no matter what. I disagree
with the premise that the honor of the FBI is more important than truth and integrity.
Comey explains that he did the things he did for the greater good of the FBI. Look where we are now. By his actions alone,
Trump won the election and is now daily attacking the FBI and the DOJ. Is this the outcome Comey really wanted? And where is he
beloved FBI's reputation now?
Comey is an excellent writer. No errors or mistakes and a very readable book. He has a sense of humor, but is a little full
of himself. When he got into the rationalization of his actions, I couldn't take it anymore and stopped reading.
I really didn't enjoy this book very much. Only the last two chapters were addressed to the problems with Trump. The rest of
the book was rather boring, mainly talking about how his career progressed, etc. If I had known what this book contained I would
never have bought it. Comey's many TV interviews were misleading in what the majority of the content was. I do not recommend this
book at all.
"... Watching Strzok perform, I was reminded of another performance of a similar nature by one Oliver North. Back in the days of plausible deniability and so forth. I recall reading that North got acting coaching for a few months, and intense preparation (as most who testify substantively before Congressional committees do) before the actual appearance. ..."
"... The gritty earnestness of Strzok was very reminiscent of North's gig. In neither case is it likely that any kind of penalty under existing laws or as an exercise of honest governance will apply, nor will the behaviors of the empire's acting principals change even a whit. ..."
"... "I'm unconvinced Strzok knew" Knew what, exactly? Did he know that Hillary Clinton's emails were being bcc'ed to China? Yeah, he know that with a certainty, because ICIG sent investigator Frank Rucker and ICIG attorney Janette McMillan to personally brief Strzok on that very fact. ..."
"... As one of the top counter-intelligence agents it would have been his duty to ensure that the Chinese stealing of classified information was investigated by the FBI CI team and a damage assessment made. ..."
"... I am surprised that you do not wish to understand that it was the sworn duty of the FBI as the chief federal police force to pursue this, not cover it up for the obvious purpose of improving the felon Clinton's chances. ..."
Here is the Congressional Record with the speech by Rep. Gohmert. The excerpt above starts at the 8th paragraph. The version in
the pdf computer file format is three pages long and starts down in the third column. It can be printed out and shown to your
friends as a conversation starter--
Good stuff. Hangs it around the Dems' necks for sure - now what are they going to do about it?
This part "because they are not going to be able to adequately research all of those emails in just a matter of 2 or 3 days"
isn't necessarily correct, if the emails were duplicates of the others the FBI looked at, which is alleged to be the case. Is
it the case? Who knows? But they could verify that in 2 or 3 days by computer using hashes of the originals compared to the new
ones.
But can we trust them on this? Again, who knows, given what we know now.
Watching Strzok perform, I was reminded of another performance of a similar nature by one Oliver North. Back in the days of plausible
deniability and so forth. I recall reading that North got acting coaching for a few months, and intense preparation (as most who
testify substantively before Congressional committees do) before the actual appearance.
The gritty earnestness of Strzok was very
reminiscent of North's gig. In neither case is it likely that any kind of penalty under existing laws or as an exercise of honest
governance will apply, nor will the behaviors of the empire's acting principals change even a whit.
"I'm unconvinced Strzok knew" Knew what, exactly? Did he know that Hillary Clinton's emails were being bcc'ed to China? Yeah,
he know that with a certainty, because ICIG sent investigator Frank Rucker and ICIG attorney Janette McMillan to personally brief
Strzok on that very fact.
So you can't claim that he didn't *know*, and even Strzok is only claiming that he can't remember
that he once knew about this.
Apparently his Alzheimer's is so bad that he forgot about it the moment he walked out of the briefing room, because that's
the only possible explanation for why he failed to pass this new information on to the "FBI's geek squad" for their own investigative
pleasure.
Gee, why am I standing here outside the Briefing Room? Must have been heading to the cafeteria to gra . oh, look, a squirrel!
As one of the top counter-intelligence agents it would have been his duty to ensure that the Chinese stealing of classified
information was investigated by the FBI CI team and a damage assessment made.
Of course from the perspective of the Hillary investigation which he was running this should have tipped the scale to "gross
negligence" on her part for not handling classified information in a secure manner. But as the IG report showed this was always
a political investigation and not a criminal one as it did not follow normal procedures for such cases and exoneration was decided
well in advance. It is good to be the Borg Queen!
I am surprised that you do not wish to understand that it was the sworn duty of the FBI as the chief federal police force
to pursue this, not cover it up for the obvious purpose of improving the felon Clinton's chances. IMO she could be charged
with being an accessory before the fact to espionage against the US.
Here's the Congressional Record transcript of an exhaustive speech Representative Louis
Gohmert (R-Tex) gave on the floor of the US House of Representatives about the penetration of
Hillary Clinton's e-mail system.
{time} 1815
"So, unfortunately, what I brought out in that hearing and he denied recalling should not be
lost in the exchange about his lying. It is far more important.
But for the record, as a prosecutor, a defense attorney, a felony judge, a chief justice,
and as a Member of Congress, I have asked thousands of witnesses questions. When you have
somebody who has just gotten so good at lying that there is no indication in their eyes
whatsoever that it bothers them to lie, somebody has got to call them out on it. It is just not
good for the state of this Union.
It is also denying credibility to actually have the witness say he doesn't recall getting
information about a foreign entity that is not Russia getting every--actually, it was over
30,000 emails, emails that were sent through to Hillary Clinton through the unauthorized server
and unsecured server and every email she sent out. There were highly classified--beyond
classified--top secret-type stuff that had gone through that server.
Out of the over 30,000 emails that went through that server, all but 4 of them--no
explanation why those 4 didn't get the same instruction, but we have some very good
intelligence people--when they were asked to look at Hillary Clinton's emails, they picked up
an anomaly. As they did forensic research on the emails, they found that anomaly was actually
an instruction embedded, compartmentalized data embedded in the email server telling the server
to send a copy of every email that came to Hillary Clinton through that unauthorized server and
every email that she sent out through that server, to send it to this foreign entity that is
not Russia.
We know that efforts were made to get Inspector General Horowitz to receive that
information. He would not return a call. Apparently, he didn't want that information because
that would go against his saying that the bias did not affect the investigation.
Of course it affected the investigation. It couldn't help but affect the investigation. It
denies logic and common sense to say somebody with that much animus, that much bias and
prejudice would not have it affect their investigation.
Madam Speaker, I can tell you I know there are people in this House who don't care for me,
but I can also tell you there is no one in this House on either side of this aisle who I would
put up with being investigated and prosecuted by somebody with the hatred, the absolute nasty
prejudice that Peter Strzok had for Donald Trump. I wouldn't put up with it. I would go to bat
for any Democrat in this House, any Republican in this House, the ones who don't like me on
either side. It wouldn't matter.
Nobody in the United States of America should have the full power of the Federal Government
coming after them in the hands of somebody prejudiced, full of hate for that individual. But
such is what we are dealing with here. That is why I laid the groundwork, gave the names of the
people--some of them--that were there when Peter Strzok was informed about Hillary Clinton's
emails for sure going to a foreign entity. This is serious stuff.
What came of our intelligence community providing that information to the FBI agent in
charge, Peter Strzok? Nothing. Peter Strzok received the information that it wasn't
speculation, that maybe Hillary Clinton's emails were capable of being hacked, but we have no
evidence that they were hacked.
All this garbage that we have heard about from reports? No. When the FBI was told her emails
were hacked and every email she received, every email she sent out--over 30,000, except for
4--over 30,000 were compromised and going to a foreign entity not Russia, and Mr. Strzok did
nothing about it.
When I started laying the groundwork pointing out the people, I am told an attorney behind
Mr. Strzok mouthed, ``Oh, my gosh,'' something like that, as I was laying the groundwork. I
don't know if she knew what I was talking about or not, but I thought I picked up just a
fleeting note of detection in Peter Strzok's eyes that he knew what I was talking about.
But, again, for my friends who are not familiar with the true rules of the House, let me
explain. In trial courts, for example, the felony court over which I was a judge, the rules of
evidence are very strict, and we protect the jury from hearing things that don't have any basis
for believability. That is why most hearsay cannot come in, but there are exceptions.
But one rule that you always find in any court, no matter how strict the rules are, the
credibility of the witness is always in evidence, always relevant, always material. The
witness' credibility is always material and relevant.
When it has been as open and everyone in our hearing room knew what has been going on for
such a prolonged period and I saw that look, that is all I could think is: I wonder if that is
the same look you gave your wife over and over when you lied to her about Lisa Page.
The credibility of a witness is always material and relevant. Mark it down.
Now, in our House hearings, the rules are not that strict. It is more in the nature of
anything that we feel may be relevant to the subject at hand. But in a hearing like today, even
things that have nothing to do--they are not germane, they are not relevant, they are not
material to what we are doing, we still have people bring in posters about something that is
not germane, not relevant, not material; and they can get away with doing it, in some cases, as
they did today, even though the rules probably could have restricted keeping some of that out.
We have very relaxed rules, so these kind of things happen.
Like I say, to yell out I am off my meds, yes, that violates the rule, but I am sure my
Democratic friend didn't realize what a rule-breaker she was as she tried to claim I was
breaking the rules, which I was not.
But what really came home, too, is, again, Inspector General Horowitz did a good job
gathering the evidence, except he refused to get the evidence that was offered to him about
Hillary Clinton's emails absolutely, unequivocally being hacked and everything over 30,000,
except for 4, going to a foreign entity not Russia.
You get the picture. The bias made a lot of difference in the outcome of the case.
Horowitz is just wrong about that. He was obviously--as I said at the hearing: So you give
us over 500 pages showing bias by the investigators on the Republican side, and since you don't
want your Democratic friends mad at you, you conclude there is no indication all of this
evidence showed any affect on the outcome.
Well, hello. When you show such hatred and animus in the mind of the lead
[*6168]
Page 6168
investigator and you show that everything that concluded from that investigation was 100
percent consistent with the bias and hatred, you don't have to have the witness agree: You are
right; you caught me. All my bias affected the outcome of my investigation.
Just like a prosecutor who puts on evidence that a guy gets in a car, drives to a bank,
pulls out a gun, holds it to the head of the teller, makes the teller give him money, and
leaves in that car, you have to prove intent, that he intended to rob the bank, but you don't
have to have evidence that the bank robber said, ``Hey, I intend to rob this bank.'' No.
When the results--and there are a lot of results--all of them are consistent with the bias
and the hatred, the disdain, the animus, then you have got at least a de facto case, certainly
one that can get past a motion for summary judgment and get to the jury and put in the hands of
the fact finder.
Again, when you have somebody who is as good at lying to folks over and over and over again
with a straight face, gets a lot of practice, and he comes before Congress--the guy is good. He
is really good.
As I told him--I think, obviously, he and his lawyer had a different opinion, but it seemed
to me it would have been more credible to come in and do what Inspector General Horowitz did,
and say: Yeah, there is a lot of bias here, no question, but I don't think it affected the
outcome.
Of course, he wasn't 100 percent sure, it didn't sound like, that it didn't affect when
Strzok decided to end the Hillary Clinton investigation and when he immediately decided to pick
up the investigation against Trump.
As I heard my friend say over and over about how Comey, of course, just really harmed the
Clinton campaign, they are ignoring something that appeared pretty clear, even without
resorting to people who have provided information about what went on.
{time} 1830
We know Hillary Clinton's emails that she claimed were missing were found on Anthony
Weiner's laptop. Maybe it was Huma Abedin, Anthony Weiner, one of their laptops. They found
those emails there.
Of course, Peter Strzok, helping the woman whom he thought ought to win 100 million to 0 for
President, wow, that was not good news for people like him who wanted to help Hillary.
They couldn't help the fact that FBI agents, when investigating something else, find all
these missing 30,000 or so emails on this laptop. And they have got the information at least
for some weeks, maybe 2, maybe 3, maybe 4. We are not sure, but they had found this
information.
So Comey was in a difficult situation. He wanted Hillary to win, no question. He did not
want Donald Trump to win. He never did like Trump, never has, apparently, things he has said
and done.
So what could he do that would cause the least amount of problems for Hillary Clinton?
There was a threat, apparently, that FBI agents were going to go public that they had found
these missing emails and that Comey was blocking reopening the investigation now that we have
all these emails. And if FBI agents, who are righteous, unlike Peter Strzok, really righteous
people--and I know a lot of them around the country. They are good, decent, upstanding,
honorable, give-their-life-for-their-country kind of people, not give their affair for
themselves but give their lives for their country. Those people have gotten a big blemish on
them because of Peter Strzok and others at the top of the Department of Justice in the last
administration, as they held over. They would never do what Peter Strzok did. They would never
do that.
So it gets a little like they erect a straw dog: You are condemning the thousands of great
FBI agents around the country.
No, I am blaming you. We know they are good, but you are not.
And that is where we have been here. This country is in a lot of trouble. But it was very
clear: Peter Strzok, intentionally and knowingly, with demonstrated prejudice, refused to
pursue the disclosed fact to him, in his presence, that a foreign entity not Russia was getting
every email that Hillary Clinton sent and received. There was classified material in there, and
there was higher than just plain classified. There was extremely sensitive information in
there."
What else did we know? Actually, if you dig what has been uncovered during the last 2 years,
Hillary Clinton had the President's Daily Briefing going to her home. And there are times that
the young man--I believe his name was Oscar Flores--who worked there, they may have tried to
get him a clearance at one time, but, apparently, from what I could read, he didn't have any
kind of clearance, yet he would print stuff off.
The President's Daily Briefing is some of the most sensitive information in the entire
United States Government, extreme sensitivity, and she violated the law by making it accessible
to people without the proper clearance and, certainly, her young man, or man, who was working
there for her.
She violated the law. It wasn't necessary that she have intent; it was just necessary that
she broke the law in that case.
I really would like to have intent be an element of most every crime that is in the Federal
law. I think it would be a good idea. But right now it is not part of the laws she broke.
Yet people like Peter Strzok covered for her. They refused to pursue the things that would
have made her guilty. They went after things to try to hurt Donald Trump.
When you look at that October press conference that Comey had, you realize, gee, what if he
had not called that press conference and you had one or more FBI agents come out and say:
``Hey, we found these emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop weeks ago, and Comey refused to reopen
the investigation''; that would have doomed her election far worse than what happened.
So what, under the circumstances, was the best thing that Comey could do for his friend
Hillary Clinton? It was to get out ahead of anybody disclosing that they had been sitting on
the thought-to-be-lost emails and say: We have got them.
Then, as I had said back at the time, well, we will find out how serious Comey is. If he
comes back within 2 or 3 days and says they have examined all 30,000 or so, whatever, of the
emails, then we will know that this was just a charade to cover for Hillary Clinton, because
they are not going to be able to adequately research all of those emails in just a matter of 2
or 3 days.
He came back very quickly, so that it would not affect the election coming up, and
announced: No. Clean bill of health. We looked at all the new evidence. Nothing was there.
Except they still didn't bother to use the information provided by the intelligence
community that was available. They didn't pick it up, didn't do anything with what was
disclosed.
I am telling you, I am very grateful we have people working in this government who want to
protect the United States and want to protect the United States' people. They don't get a lot
of credit, usually don't get any credit, but they do a good job for this country; and my head
and my heart and my salute go out to them as we deal with the mess that has been created by
those with far more selfish motives.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Congressional record
"The Brennan, Clappers, Obamas, Clintons, Comeys, Rosenstein and their many
subordinate political Mafiosi "
What is going on in the US is systematic. Assange, an investigative journalist who became
the light of truth worldwide, is under a grave danger from US' and UK' Intelligence
Communities of the non-intelligent opportunists and real traitors: https://www.rt.com/news/433783-wikileaks-assange-ecuador-uk/
Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton, who was criminally negligent with regard to the most important
classified information, has been protected by the politicking Brennan, Clapper, and Mueller:
" it was over 30,000 emails , emails that were sent through to Hillary Clinton through
the unauthorized server and unsecured server and every email she sent out.
There were highly classified -- beyond classified -- top secret-type stuff that had
gone through that server. an instruction embedded, compartmentalized data embedded in the
email server telling the server to send a copy of every email that came to Hillary Clinton
through that unauthorized server and every email that she sent out through that server, to
send it to this foreign entity that is not Russia."
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/07/congressional-record-transcript-on-chinagate.html
The Awan Affair, the most serious ever violation of national cybersecurity, has
demonstrated the spectacular incompetence of the CIA and FBI, which had allowed a family of
Pakistani nationals to surf congressional computers of various committees, including
Intelligence Committee, for years. None of the scoundrels had a security clearance! Their
ardent protector, Wasserman-Schultz (who threatened the DC Marschall) belongs to the
untouchables, unlike Assange:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/awan-congressional-scandal-in-spotlight-as-president-suggests-data-could-be-part-of-court-case_2500703.html
Putin handed Trump a means of openly investigating Killary's/CIA's manipulation of US politics via the Browder investigation,
the crime of manipulating the DNC to remove Bernie can also loop into the mix.
Let's hope Trump follows through and exposes the nest of vipers. The majority of people are now seeing the light, only the
people with skin the game or those far too controlled through an excellent propaganda/mass mind control experiment do not.
Edward Bernays and Joseph Goebels could only dream that their methods would go this far.
"But being dependent, every day of the year and for year after year, upon certain politicians for news, the newspaper reporters
are obliged to work in harmony with their news sources."
― Edward L. Bernays ,
Propaganda
Personally I'm getting fucking sick of all this. They call the hack the
equivalent of the Cuban Missile crisis but no one in government has seen
Hillary's server. This is like Kennedy going on tv and saying 'we are going to
threaten Russia with nuclear war over Cuba. No government agency has actually
seen the photos of missiles but we are told by a credible source of the
"Americans against Russia" group that they are there'
Even NBC can't find
verbal gymnastics to dispute this.
My favorite line in the FBI IG report was when the NYPD analyst mirrored
the Weiner laptop hard drive. They opened one email at random, looked
at it and said:
Perhaps it's the Mandala effect, but I recall watching Adlai Stevenson
laying out black-and-white pictures of Soviet missiles on some military
base which he claimed was in Cuba (Cuber in Kennedy-speak). He did this
while giving a speech to the UN Security Council in October 1962 berating
the Soviet Union and Nikita Khrushchev in particular for putting missiles
in Cuba. For those too young to remember or too lazy to look it up,
Stevenson was Kennedy's Ambassador to the UN.
Are you telling me that
Stevenson lied about where the military base was? Do we owe a posthumous
apology to Nikita, who incidentally transferred political control of Crimea
from the Russian portion of the USSR to the Ukrainian portion of the USSR
(where Khrushchev was from)?
History certainly is convoluted enough; I hope it's not changing on me.
I don't think you were catching my point. I was not disputing the basis
for the Cuban Missile crisis from the US side.
My point being that we
are willing to bare our teeth and threaten Russia on the basis of a 3rd
party review of the DNC server paid for by the DNC.
If we are going to raise the Russian hack to the equivalency of
Russia placing nuclear missiles off the coast of Florida...shouldn't the
basis for this be based upon an actual government agency review of the
hack?
"... Sir, in my cynical old age, I have a hard time believing there will be any prosecution of the Deep State top echelons. The DOJ and FBI it seems are very focused on protecting their own. If Rosenstein is impeached then one could say the tide is turning. Otherwise it would appear to be more kabuki. ..."
"Former top FBI lawyer Lisa Page testified during two days of closed-door House hearings,
revealing shocking new Intel against her old bosses at the Bureau, according the well-placed
FBI sources.
Alarming new details on allegations of a bureau-wide cover up. Or should we say another
bureau-wide cover up.
The embattled Page tossed James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Bill Priestap among
others under the Congressional bus, alleging the upper echelon of the FBI concealed
intelligence confirming Chinese state-backed 'assets' had illegally acquired former Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton's 30,000+ "missing" emails, federal sources said.
The Russians didn't do it. The Chinese did, according to well-placed FBI sources.
And while Democratic lawmakers and the mainstream media prop up Russia as America's
boogeyman, it was the ironically Chinese who acquired Hillary's treasure trove of classified
and top secret intelligence from her home-brewed private server.
And a public revelation of that magnitude -- publicizing that a communist world power
intercepted Hillary's sensitive and top secret emails -- would have derailed Hillary Clinton's
presidential hopes. Overnight. But it didn't simply because it was concealed." True Pundit
------------
A woman scorned? Maybe, but Page has done a real job on these malefactors. And, who knows
how many other penetrations of various kinds there were in Clinton's reign as SecState?
"You mean like with a towel?" Clinton mocked a reporter with that question when asked if her
servers had been wiped clean. It is difficult to believe that there won't be prosecutions.
pl
Putin offered to allow Mueller's team to go to Russia and interrogate the suspects in the
Mueller indictment provided 1) that Russian investigators could sit in on the
interrogations, and 2) that the US would allow Russian investigators to investigate
people like Bill Browder in the US.
This would be done until the existing treaty which allows the US and Russia to
cooperate in criminal investigation cases.
Now, let's get back to the issue of this 12 alleged intelligence officers of Russia. I
don't know the full extent of the situation. But President Trump mentioned this issue. I
will look into it.
So far, I can say the following. Things that are off the top of my head. We have an
existing agreement between the United States of America and the Russian Federation, an
existing treaty that dates back to 1999. The mutual assistance on criminal cases. This
treaty is in full effect. It works quite efficiently. On average, we initiate about 100,
150 criminal cases upon request from foreign states.
For instance, the last year, there was one extradition case upon the request sent by
the United States. This treaty has specific legal procedures we can offer. The
appropriate commission headed by Special Attorney Mueller, he can use this treaty as a
solid foundation and send a formal, official request to us so that we could interrogate,
hold questioning of these individuals who he believes are privy to some
crimes. Our enforcement are perfectly able to do this questioning and send the
appropriate materials to the United States. Moreover, we can meet you halfway. We can
make another step. We can actually permit representatives of the United States, including
the members of this very commission headed by Mr. Mueller, we can let them into the
country. They can be present at questioning.
In this case, there's another condition. This kind of effort should be mutual one.
Then we would expect that the Americans would reciprocate. They would question officials,
including the officers of law enforcement and intelligence services of the United States
whom we believe have something to do with illegal actions on the territory of Russia. And
we have to request the presence of our law enforcement.
End Quote
Putin then proceeds to stick it to Hillary Clinton with the bombshell accusation that
Bill Browder - possibly with the assistance of US intelligence agencies - contributed a
whopping $400 million dollars to Clinton's election campaign!
Quote:
For instance, we can bring up Mr. Browder in this particular case. Business associates
of Mr. Browder have earned over $1.5 billion in Russia. They never paid any taxes.
Neither in Russia nor in the United States. Yet, the money escapes the country. They were
transferred to the United States. They sent huge amount of money, $400 million as a
contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton. [He presents no evidence to back up that
$400 million claim.] Well, that's their personal case. It might have been legal, the
contribution itself. But the way the money was earned was illegal. We have solid
reason to believe that some intelligence officers guided these transactions. [This
allegation, too, is merely an unsupported assertion here.] So we have an interest of
questioning them. That could be a first step. We can also extend it. There are many
options. They all can be found in an appropriate legal framework.
End Quote
This article mentions the above and provides background information on Browder and the
US Magnitsky Act which he finagled Congress into passing which were the original Russian
sanctions.
Despite Putin's claim that this was "off the top of his head", I'd say this was a
calculated response to the Mueller indictment as well as a calculated attack on Hillary
Clinton and the US intelligence agencies who were clearly in support of her election
campaign. Frankly, it's brilliant. It forces Mueller to "put up or shut up" just as much
as the company which challenged the previous indictment over Russian ads.
"US would allow Russian investigators to investigate people like Bill Browder in the US."
The example would be a good one, except, the US has no power to allow anybody to
investigate Bill Browder (grandson of the head of the American Communist Party, btw)
because Browder gave up his US citizenship, it is said, to avoid paying taxes
Skepticism is always prudent when it comes to any news source.
Regarding the issue of "trust"... Putin himself said that he and Trump shouldn't be
basing their discussions on trust of each other. While I trust Putin to be skillful and
strategic that doesn't mean I trust all of his words. After all, he is a politician and a
powerful leader. Respect is the key here, not trust.
From a transcript
http://time.com/5339848/don...
PUTIN (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): As to who is to be believed and to who's not to be believed,
you can trust no one if you take this.
Where did you get this idea that President Trump trusts me or I trust him? He defends
the interests of the United States of America, and I do defend the interests of the
Russian Federation.
We do have interests that are common. We are looking for points of contact. There are
issues where our postures diverge, and we are looking for ways to reconcile our
differences, how to make our effort more meaningful.
-----------------
Of course both countries spy on each other and engage in various forms of cyber
warfare, as do many other countries. It's business as usual. That's why the Mueller
investigation is bullshit. It doesn't acknowledge that most basic fact of geopolitics. It
posits Russia as the only bad actor in the relationship. I was very pleased that Trump
acknowledge that both sides created the issues the countries have with each other, though
of course the Borg and their media puppets went wild over that.
Trump and Putin both have excellent trolling skills. I very much enjoy this aspect of
the great Game!
Though perhaps Putin botched his trolling of Hillary by getting the number wrong. Or
may be he pulled a Trump maneuver and purposely gave the wrong number to force reporters
to research it and post the correction.
Let's see if "China hacked Clinton's server and got the 30,000 e-mails" goes mainstream.
This would nail the Borg dead. What has been peculiar about the last four years is that
there are concerted proxy operations to take down the Iranian and Russian governments to
get at their resources at the risk of crashing the world economy; let alone, a nuclear
war that would destroy the earth. But, nothing against China other than bleating about
freedom of passage in South China Sea. China is #2 and rising by all criteria. It is
restoring its ancient Imperial power to rule the civilized world. Europe has much more in
common with Russia. Over the centuries they keep battling the Kremlin over Crimea.
. It is difficult to believe that there won't be prosecutions.
Sir, in my cynical old age, I have a hard time believing there will be any
prosecution of the Deep State top echelons. The DOJ and FBI it seems are very focused on
protecting their own. If Rosenstein is impeached then one could say the tide is turning.
Otherwise it would appear to be more kabuki.
I don't get why President Trump does not declassify the documents that the DOJ are
withholding from Congress rather than tweet "witch hunt".
"... There was also the stunning Awan affair when a family of Pakistanis (with no security clearance) had been surfing congressional computers for years and perhaps selling the obtained classified information to the third parties. So much for the mighty mice CIA and FBI. ..."
It is hard to reconcile this, "Chinese state-backed 'assets' had illegally acquired former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's 30,000+ "missing" emails" with that, "the US "defense"
budget is approximately 1.2 trillion dollars a year."
There was also the stunning Awan affair when a family of Pakistanis (with no security
clearance) had been surfing congressional computers for years and perhaps selling the obtained
classified information to the third parties. So much for the mighty mice CIA and FBI.
I think there is much more to the comment made by Putin regarding Bill Browder and his money flows into the DNC and Clinton
campaign. That would explain why the DNC didn't hand the servers over to the FBI after being hacked. If you follow the money a
lot of what happened during the election and afterwards in regards to Russia and Trump start to make sense. Could it be that we
are finally witnessing the removal the last layers of the center of the onion?
Sir;
Looks like Strzok is about to be thrown under the bus.
He and his paramour have been portrayed as enthusiastic Democrat Party partizans. Would an
operative at Strzoks' level of responsibility be able to do something as negligent as to
ignore solid evidence as this on his own?
At the least, some section of the anti espionage laws appear to have been
transgressed.
This entire 'Russia, Russia, Russia' campaign is now in criminal conspiracy territory.
I can imagine the Maoist Mandarins in Pekin chuckling as they contemplate Americas' new
"Interesting Times."
PL,
What an absolute mess.
Never suspected the Chicoms. They obviously saw the pivot to Asia as a threat and pitched
their tent with the other team (Or anybody but Clinton (ABC)).
I write a "mess" because we also have the GCHQ/Skripal/ Steele dossier angle to mash into
this story too. Crikey.
It'd make a nice John Le Carre book though.
How is Strzok still employed? Ignoring such a revelation is - at best - a display of such
monumental incompetence that he should have been cashiered long ago. Claiming not to remember
being told about this is..... well..... words fail me.
Looks like a hacking operation by China. They nailed Clinton's completely unprotected system and then inserted code that gave
them all her traffic over e-mail subsequent to that.
That included all her State Department classified traffic which she had her
staff illegally scan and insert in her private e-mail. We are talking about 30,000+ messages.
Strzok was told that by the Intelligence
Community Inspector General WHILE he was running the Clinton e-mail investigation and chose to ignore it. pl
Given the likely culprits, China made the most sense. Thanks for the confirmation!
Meanwhile, under the radar, another segment of the "Gordian knot" is getting ready to be cut.
White House Orders Direct Taliban Talks to Jump-Start Afghan Negotiations
https://www.nytimes.com/201...
The Trump administration has told its top diplomats to seek direct talks with the Taliban, a significant shift in American policy
in Afghanistan, done in the hope of jump-starting negotiations to end the 17-year war.
The Taliban have long said they will first discuss peace only with the Americans, who toppled their regime in Afghanistan in
2001. But the United States has mostly insisted that the Afghan government must take part.
The recent strategy shift, which was confirmed by several senior American and Afghan officials, is intended to bring those
two positions closer and lead to broader, formal negotiations to end the long war.
-----------------------
I am an independent. I voted for Obama twice because his opponents were so unappealing. I am starting to hate the left. I view
them and the neocon establishment behavior nothing short of treasonous.
Both individuals are sociopaths, but Mueller is even less trustworthy than Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... "The most important issue is deciding who is telling the truth: Comey or Trump," Pirro explains. "Bob Mueller is [very close] with Jim Comey. They have spent a lot of years together." ..."
"... Mueller has no oversight from the government as he investigates his close friend's firing. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself, and the Deputy Attorney General is a witness in the case. ..."
"... Ultimately, the entire debacle around Mueller was a set-up from the beginning. James Comey was dedicated to ousting President Trump, and he has tasked Mueller with finishing the job. ..."
"... Mueller is supposed to be investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, but his investigation immediately morphed into a witch hunt against President Trump. His only aim is to impeach the president, and this has been the plan from the beginning. ..."
"... Comey forced the Justice Department to hire a special counsel after he broke the law and leaked a government memo accusing President Trump of obstruction of justice. Comey knew this would force Jeff Sessions to appoint a special counsel, and he had Robert Mueller waiting in the wings. ..."
President Trump's lawyers believe Special Counsel Robert Mueller is overstepping his bounds in his investigation into Russian
interference in the election. Now, Trump's lawyers are compiling a list of Mueller's numerous conflicts of interest, The Washington
Post reported.
Judge Jeanine Pirro perfectly explains one of Mueller's largest conflicts of interests–his close relationship with the former
FBI director James Comey.
... ... ...
"The most important issue is deciding who is telling the truth: Comey or Trump," Pirro explains. "Bob Mueller is [very close]
with Jim Comey. They have spent a lot of years together."
As Pirro explained, one of Robert Mueller's primary tasks is to determine whether President Trump obstructed justice when he fired
James Comey.
However, Mueller has no oversight from the government as he investigates his close friend's firing. Attorney General Jeff
Sessions recused himself, and the Deputy Attorney General is a witness in the case.
Ultimately, the entire debacle around Mueller was a set-up from the beginning. James Comey was dedicated to ousting President
Trump, and he has tasked Mueller with finishing the job.
Mueller is supposed to be investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, but his investigation immediately morphed
into a witch hunt against President Trump. His only aim is to impeach the president, and this has been the plan from the beginning.
Comey forced the Justice Department to hire a special counsel after he broke the law and leaked a government memo accusing
President Trump of obstruction of justice. Comey knew this would force Jeff Sessions to appoint a special counsel, and he had Robert
Mueller waiting in the wings.
Now, Comey's old friend Mueller is taking over the mission Comey started in November–to impeach President Trump.
We cannot let this witch hunt continue. We need to stand with our duly elected President and let him know that he has our trust.
Trump is the first president in a long time to put America first. He is no foreign agent.
"... For instance, we can bring up Mr. Browder, in this particular case. Business associates of Mr. Browder have earned over $1.5 billion in Russia and never paid any taxes neither in Russia or the United States and yet the money escaped the country. They were transferred to the United States. They sent [a] huge amount of money, $400,000,000, as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton. Well that's their personal case. ..."
"... we have solid reason to believe that some [US] intelligence officers accompanied and guided these transactions. So we have an interest in questioning them. ..."
"... Browder is notoriously the man behind the 2012 Magnitsky Act, which exploited Congressional willingness to demonize Russia and has done so much to poison relations between Washington and Moscow. ..."
"... Browder, a media favorite who self-promotes as "Putin's enemy #1," portrays himself as a selfless human rights advocate, but is he? He has used his fortune to threaten lawsuits for anyone who challenges his version of events, effectively silencing many critics. He claims that his accountant Sergei Magnitsky was a crusading "lawyer" who discovered a $230 million tax-fraud scheme that involved the Browder business interest Hermitage Capital but was, in fact, engineered by corrupt Russian police officers who arrested Magnitsky and enabled his death in a Russian jail. ..."
"... William Browder is again in the news recently in connection with testimony related to Russiagate. On December 16th Senator Diane Feinstein of the Senate Judiciary Committee released the transcript of the testimony provided by Glenn Simpson, founder of Fusion GPS. According to James Carden, Browder was mentioned 50 times, but the repeated citations apparently did not merit inclusion in media coverage of the story by the New York Times, Washington Post and Politico. ..."
Vladimir Putin made a bombshell claim during Monday's joint press conference with President
Trump in Helsinki, Finland, when the Russian President said some $400 million )should be $400K) in illegally
earned profits was funneled to the Clinton campaign by associates of American-born British
financier Bill Browder - at one time the largest foreign portfolio investors in Russia. The
scheme involved members of the U.S. intelligence community, said Putin, who he said
"accompanied and guided these transactions."
Browder made billions in Russia during the 90's. In December, a Moscow court sentenced
Browder in absentia to nine years in prison for tax fraud, while he was also found guilty of
tax evasion in a separate 2013 case. Putin accused Browder's associates of illegally earning
over than $1.5 billion without paying Russian taxes, before sending $400 million to Clinton.
After offering to allow special counsel Robert Mueller's team to come to Russia for their
investigation - as long as there was a reciprocal arrangement for Russian intelligence to
investigate in the U.S., Putin said this:
For instance, we can bring up Mr. Browder, in this particular case. Business associates of
Mr. Browder have earned over $1.5 billion in Russia and never paid any taxes neither in
Russia or the United States and yet the money escaped the country. They were transferred to
the United States. They sent [a] huge amount of money, $400,000,000, as a contribution to the
campaign of Hillary Clinton. Well that's their personal case.
It might have been legal, the contribution itself but the way the money was earned was
illegal. So we have solid reason to believe that some [US] intelligence officers accompanied
and guided these transactions. So we have an interest in questioning them.
Israel Shamir, a keen observer of the
American-Russian relationship, and celebrated American journalist Robert
Parryboth think
that one man deserves much of the credit for the new Cold War and that man is William Browder,
a hedge fund operator who made his fortune in the corrupt 1990s world of Russian commodities
trading.
Browder is also symptomatic of why the United States government is so poorly informed about
international developments as he is the source of much of the Congressional "expert testimony"
contributing to the current impasse. He has somehow emerged as a trusted source in spite of the
fact that he has self-interest in cultivating a certain outcome. Also ignored is his
renunciation of American citizenship in 1998, reportedly to avoid taxes. He is now a British
citizen.
Browder is notoriously the man behind the 2012 Magnitsky Act, which exploited Congressional
willingness to demonize Russia and has done so much to poison relations between Washington and
Moscow. The Act sanctioned individual Russian officials, which Moscow has rightly seen as
unwarranted interference in the operation of its judicial system.
Browder, a media favorite who self-promotes as "Putin's enemy #1," portrays himself as a
selfless human rights advocate, but is he? He has used his fortune to threaten lawsuits for
anyone who challenges his version of events, effectively silencing many critics. He claims that
his accountant Sergei Magnitsky was a crusading "lawyer" who discovered a $230 million
tax-fraud scheme that involved the Browder business interest Hermitage Capital but was, in
fact, engineered by corrupt Russian police officers who arrested Magnitsky and enabled his
death in a Russian jail.
Many have been skeptical of the Browder narrative, suspecting that the fraud was in fact
concocted by Browder and his accountant Magnitsky. A Russian court recently
supported that alternative narrative, ruling in late December that Browder had deliberately
bankrupted his company and engaged in tax evasion. He was sentenced to nine years prison in
absentia.
William Browder is again in the news recently in connection with testimony related to
Russiagate. On December 16th Senator Diane Feinstein of the Senate Judiciary Committee released
the transcript of the testimony provided by Glenn Simpson, founder of Fusion GPS.
According to James Carden, Browder was mentioned 50 times, but the repeated citations
apparently did not merit inclusion in media coverage of the story by the New York Times,
Washington Post and Politico.
Fusion GPS, which was involved in the research producing the Steele Dossier used to
discredit Donald Trump, was also retained to provide investigative services relating to a
lawsuit in New York City involving a Russian company called Prevezon. As information provided
by Browder was the basis of the lawsuit, his company and business practices while in Russia
became part of the investigation. Simmons maintained that Browder proved to be somewhat evasive
and his accounts of his activities were inconsistent. He claimed never to visit the United
States and not own property or do business there, all of which were untrue, to include his
ownership through a shell company of a $10 million house in Aspen Colorado. He repeatedly
ran away , literally, from attempts to subpoena him so he would have to testify under
oath.
Per Simmons, in Russia, Browder used shell companies locally and also worldwide to avoid
taxes and conceal ownership, suggesting that he was likely one of many corrupt businessmen
operating in what was a wild west business environment.
My question is, "Why was such a man granted credibility and allowed a free run to poison the
vitally important US-Russia relationship?" The answer might be follow the money. Israel Shamir
reports
that Browder was a major contributor to Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, who was the major
force behind the Magnitsky Act.
"... When Rucker spoke with Strzok, he nodded but was remarkably uninterested in what Rucker had to say, Gohmert said. The DoJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz received a call about it four times and never returned the calls. He's the other DoJ official described as having an impeccable reputation, but he can't seem to find bias when it slaps him in the face. ..."
"... McCullough, hired during the Obama administration, told Fox News's Catherine Herridge he faced intense backlash. In a Clinton administration, he would be one of the first two fired, he was told. ..."
"... Fox News reported ..."
"... John Schindler confirmed the Fox News report. He wrote at The Observor : Discussions with Intelligence Community officials have revealed that Ms. Clinton's "unclassified" emails included Holy Grail items of American espionage. This included the true names of Central Intelligence Agency intelligence officers serving overseas under cover. Worse, some of those exposed are serving under non-official cover. ..."
Rep. Louis Gohmert, a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, said during a hearing
Thursday that a government watchdog found that nearly all of former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton's emails were sent to a foreign entity. The FBI, specifically Strzok, did not
follow-up. And, the foreign entity wasn't Russia. The Intelligence Community Inspector General
(ICIG) in 2016 Charles McCullough III found an "anomaly on Hillary Clinton's emails going
through their private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her
emails, every single one except four, over 30,000, were going to an address that was not on the
distribution list," Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas said during a hearing with FBI
official Peter Strzok. "It was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign
entity unrelated to Russia," he added. According to Gohmert, McCullough sent his ICIG
investigator Frank Rucker to present the findings to Strzok who remembered meeting with him but
nothing else.
Conveniently, Strzok couldn't remember what they talked about.
When Rucker spoke with Strzok, he nodded but was remarkably uninterested in what Rucker
had to say, Gohmert said. The DoJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz received a call about it
four times and never returned the calls. He's the other DoJ official described as having an
impeccable reputation, but he can't seem to find bias when it slaps him in the
face.
In January 2016, in response to an inquiry, Charles McCullough III informed the Republican
leadership on the Senate intelligence and foreign affairs committees that emails beyond the
"Top Secret" level passed through Hillary Clinton's unsecured personal server. Democrats
immediately responded by trying to intimidate McCullough.
Despicable Adam Schiff told Chris Wallace: "I think the inspector general does risk his
reputation. And once you lose that as inspector general, you're not much good to anyone. So I
think the inspector general has to be very careful here."
McCullough, hired during the Obama administration, told
Fox News's Catherine Herridge he faced intense backlash. In a Clinton administration, he
would be one of the first two fired, he was told.
Fox News reported that the emails contained "operational intelligence," which is
information about covert operations to gather intelligence as well as details about the assets
and informants working with the U.S. government.
John Schindler confirmed the Fox News report. He wrote at The Observor :
Discussions with Intelligence Community officials have revealed that Ms. Clinton's
"unclassified" emails included Holy Grail items of American espionage. This included the true
names of Central Intelligence Agency intelligence officers serving overseas under cover. Worse,
some of those exposed are serving under non-official cover.
It appears that the DoJ and FBI like to remain ignorant.
In January, 2016, Robert Gates told Hugh Hewitt that the "odds are pretty high" that Russia,
China, and Iran had compromised Hillary's home-brew server...
So Mueller was a CIA mole in FBI fromthe very beginning. Interesting...
Notable quotes:
"... You could say that Mueller married into the CIA, except that his great uncle was Richard Bissell. So between his family and his wife's family Mueller had two of the three people that Kennedy fired before he was assassinated by a "lone nut", as well as the mayor who hosted the assassination. The third man fired was Allen Dulles, who sat on the Warren Commission and managed to keep the CIA out of the investigation into JFK's murder. Perhaps Dulles was a guest at the wedding. ..."
"... Mueller would invariably land on cases with Deep State intelligence connections. ..."
"... Mueller, who had been appointed Assistant U.S. Prosecutor under GHW Bush, became FBI Director under George W. Bush just in time not to see the CIA fingerprints on 9/11, which should not be surprising considering whom he didn't see when he investigated BCCI. ..."
"... Additionally, Mueller oversaw the anthrax letter case, never investigating Battelle Memorial Corporation, which had a building within a mile of the mailbox where the letters had been mailed. (Battelle Memorial's corporate motto is "It Can Be Done".) Instead, he centered FBI investigations on scientists in government labs in Fort Detrick, Maryland, who had neither the expertise nor the equipment to make the weaponized military grade anthrax found in the letters. One scientist sued and won millions. The other allegedly "committed suicide". Battelle is noteworthy because it handles the US military's anthrax program. Mueller had no interest that two of the targets who received anthrax letters were at the time the most vociferous opponents of the Bush Administration's Patriot Act. ..."
"... Perhaps his greatest accomplishment aiding the Deep State as FBI Director was his shutting down of Operation Green Quest, the FBI's investigation into the funding behind 9/11 and the terrorist network behind it. Names began popping up like Grover Norquist, the Muslim Brotherhood, old Nazis and the royal family of Luxembourg. Nothing to see here. Move along. ..."
"... @detroitmechworks ..."
"... Only thing missing for me was the tie in to Pappy Bush and the rest of the family. Mueller the consigliere of the CIA. Oh man how fucked are we? ..."
"... Great history of how corrupt Mueller has always been and how he has covered up for so many crimes. I'm just stunned by the number of people who have decided that Mueller's history and the history of the CIA, FBI and the other intelligence agencies wasn't that bad after all just because they are going after Trump. This selective amnesia is simply amazing, isn't it? ..."
"... Clinton's role in helping the CIA to smuggle drugs into Arkansas is never talked about either. Or if it is it's called "a right wing attempt to bring them down." ..."
"... that explains why centrist and liberal media have a disturbing tendency to rehabilitate some of the most vile, reactionary forces on the American right simply because they say vaguely negative things about Donald Trump -- a phenomenon we call "Trumpwashing." ..."
"... Just like Mueller, Brennan is one more war criminal whose actions seem to have been forgotten. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
"... The seas were calm and the skies were clear." ..."
"... "The reason why the ship went down is because of the massive storm that came out of nowhere." ..."
"... It would appear at first glance this is basically an effort at espionage only ..."
"... as it appears they don't ..."
"... I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against the charges. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
In the 1950s, when the science fiction genre started making itself felt in movies, there was always the pivotal scene where the
protagonist discovers the dark secret but no one will believe him: a flying saucer hidden under the sand in a field, truckloads of
pod people to replace real people, or that the friendly aliens' book "To Serve Man" wasn't a guide to helping humans, but a cookbook.
It's that moment of sudden realization that no one will believe the hero because it sounds too crazy to believe.
Granted, to the uninitiated, coming to a realization so shocking and threatening to your current mental construction of the world
can appear like paranoia. It becomes a question of the discoverer's knowledge and senses over what everyone else believes. Everyone
else seems to be allowing him or herself to be absorbed into the great growing evil.
Today many of us, certainly readers here at Caucus99, are finding ourselves in similar positions. Our political structure is a
lie, the people who are supposed to represent us and our interests don't, our law enforcement protects the property of the rich,
not our lives, and often are in cahoots with the criminals from whom we are supposed to be protected. I am sure that many of our
old friends and acquaintances have been alienated from some of us here when we began talking about Hillary's track record during
the Presidential campaign, for example. In our current pasteboard world, if you are a Republican or Democrat you must assume that
your designated political party, maybe with a couple of exceptions, are there to look after you.
And there that crazy friend goes, yelling about cookbooks.
I suppose my introduction to the corruption of those in power, at thirteen, was the assassination of JFK. Not actually the assassination,
but the murder of Oswald two days later, in the basement of the Dallas police headquarters. I had slept overnight at a friend's and
we came back from shooting basketballs to watch the transfer of Oswald to another facility. That was the moment that I realized all
wasn't what it seemed. But, like most kids my age, the Beatles came along in a month or so and I was swept into the world of rock
and roll, which kept me occupied until I began noticing girls. Until 1968. I was still noticing girls and rock and roll, but I was
also noticing the number of progressives being gunned down by "lone nuts". And I was noticing Vietnam.
I'm not sharing this to explain to you how I became (that loathsome term) a "conspiracy theorist". I just want to explain to you
that the democracy of the United States, and all the characters running across the stage in Washington, D.C., are the cookbook.
I wrote an essay here back in April of 2017 explaining how the Russiagate scandal had been designed to give Hillary Clinton a
casus belli for her future war against Russia, and that what we were seeing since she lost has been a recycling of it to get Trump
in line with the goals of the Deep State. So far nothing much has happened that has moved me from that belief. Now that the Deep
State seems to have persuaded our Dear Leader that he can go on being himself as long as he understands the actual hierarchy and
doesn't get in the way the Deep State, everything seems to be back on track. At least until Donald's next tweet.
But in order to understand the depth of criminality in our system one has to understand how things are done. After World War II
a lot of social awareness began putting pressure on the old system that had driven the world into the Great Depression. FDR had demonstrated
that the government could look out for the poor, could give them jobs when there were no other jobs to be had. The GI Bill sent millions
of vets to college and helped to create the middle class we used to have. Unions had real power in negotiating wages and terms of
service. Government could create a system to help the elderly. The African Americans, coming back home from fighting a war against
fascism, refused go to the coloreds only water fountains. In short, the United States were in for some growing pains.
What happened? As I mentioned above there was a rash of murders of progressive political candidates and leaders in the sixties.
But in order for the forces behind a return to the old rules to keep a lid on any revolutions there had to be something better than
shooting every progressive who raised his head above the lectern. Thus the wave of recruitment of agents and assets in the late sixties
by the CIA, FBI and other agencies. Although I didn't know it directly at the time, arriving on campus in 1968 it was evident that
there was a "presence" of people looking over the shoulders of student activists.
Which brings me to another great revelation. It's not just politicians and political parties that are serving the Deep State.
Any agency that can be corrupted by power will be, eventually.
Which brings us to the courts.
There are certain things that must be preserved for a ruling class to remain legitimate in the eyes of the public. Some people
don't think much beyond the flag. But there are other things. The media is better than ever at keeping uncomfortable truths from
the majority of Americans. But what happens where the criminality of the Deep State collides with our judicial system?
Let me introduce you to the man of the hour in Washington, Robert Swann Mueller III. Robert was born into the upper crust in our
American class system. At one point in his education in private schools John Kerry was a classmate. (Kerry was also a fellow Bonesman
with the Bushes.) Mueller met his eventual bride, Ann Cabell Standish, at one of the dances they attended. They married in 1966,
three years after John Kennedy's assassination. If you have read much about the JFK assassination you would recognize her middle
name. Her grandfather, Charles Cabell, had been second in command at the CIA when John Kennedy was elected President. In the aftermath
of the Bay of Pigs fiasco, Kennedy fired three men from leadership positions at the CIA: Director Allen Dulles, Cabell and Richard
Bissell. Charles Cabell was Ann's grandfather. Her grand uncle, Earle Cabell, was the mayor of Dallas at the time of Kennedy's murder
there. Recently declassified JFK documents revealed that Mayor Cabell was also an asset of the CIA at the time. Small world.
You could say that Mueller married into the CIA, except that his great uncle was Richard Bissell. So between his family and his wife's
family Mueller had two of the three people that Kennedy fired before he was assassinated by a "lone nut", as well as the mayor who
hosted the assassination. The third man fired was Allen Dulles, who sat on the Warren Commission and managed to keep the CIA out
of the investigation into JFK's murder. Perhaps Dulles was a guest at the wedding.
Soon thereafter Mueller decided to go to Vietnam because, he said, a classmate had died there and patriotism and so forth. He
became an officer and eventually ended up as an aide-de-camp for the 3rd Marine Division's commanding general, General William K.
Jones. Something else was going on in Vietnam. The CIA had installed its Phoenix Program. I cannot do justice to the Phoenix Program
and won't considering Doug Valentine's work on it is available for everyone, but the Phoenix Program was the CIA's attempt to totally
control the Vietnamese population. Besides massacres of villages, the program assassinated suspected leaders and spies for the Vietcong,
coerced others into being their agents, and kept up files on all the relevant Vietnamese down to the village level. Like in later
wars, the CIA incorporated torture, murder and psychological techniques in order to control their targets. As an aide-de-camp to
a commanding Marine general, there is no way that Mueller didn't know about the Phoenix Program. He probably saw daily briefings.
When he came back to the US he studied law and quickly became a federal prosecutor.
One of the things to mark his career was to deny a pardon to Patty Hearst for her part in the whole Symbionese Liberation Army's
"terror" campaign. What did the SLA have to do with anything? A short history: Donald DeFreeze, a small-time criminal in Los Angeles
agreed to become an informant for the LAPD in order to stay out of jail. After awhile he got tired of ratting out others and asked
to get out of the program. Instead, DeFreeze was incarcerated at the Vacaville Medical Facility for criminally insane prisoners in
the California penal system. There DeFreeze met Colston Westbrook who gave classes for the "Black Cultural Association", an experimental
behavior modification unit inside the prison. Who was Westbrook? He was a CIA agent, trained in psychological warfare and part of
the Phoenix Program. DeFreeze was modified by Westbrook and company for two years. Soon thereafter, he was transferred to Soledad
Prison, from which he "escaped" and became the infamous "Cinque". Then came the Symbionese Liberation Army, a caricature of a black
militant group filled with mostly white people with military backgrounds. The murder of Marcus Foster, a progressive black leader
in the San Francisco East Bay, was done by white men in blackface, according to eyewitnesses. The SLA claimed credit for it. The
SLA kidnapped Hearst, subjected her to torture, rape, sensory deprivation and mind control tactics, just like the CIA did in the
Phoenix Program in Vietnam. Then came the bank robberies.
I bring up the Patty Hearst case because, in 2000, decades after her prison sentence had been commuted, Mueller still opposed
her pardon. Guess what he didn't notice when he rejected her pardon? This has been his pattern throughout his career. We'll return
to Patty Hearst shortly.
Mueller has presided over many cases where it's been important for the prosecutor to overlook the fingerprints of the CIA. He
prosecuted what was known in the San Francisco Bay Area as the "drug tug" case which had connections to an island in Panama. It was
a drug smuggling case and had tentacles into things like bank frauds in Northern California. He prosecuted Manuel Noriega's drug-smuggling
without noticing Oliver North's drug-smuggling, arms running and money laundering through Panama as a part of Iran-contra.
Mueller would invariably land on cases with Deep State intelligence connections.
For example, he prosecuted Pan Am 103. Initially, and then later confirmed by an insurance investigator's report, the bomb that
brought down the airliner was believed to be placed onboard by baggage handlers working at the Frankfurt Airport. They were given
the bomb by a terrorist cell who in turn got it from one Monzer al-Kassar, who was a very large heroin dealer, estimated at supplying
twenty percent of the US's heroin at the time. A big operator. And, in fact, one of the passengers on the plane was a drug mule for
al-Kassar. Al-Kassar also happened to be a part of the Iran-contra operation, supplying weapons for North's Enterprise. The operation
was, according to the early reports, carried out by a cell of Palestinian terrorists based in Frankfurt, the Palestinian Liberation
Front-General Command, who got the bomb from al-Kassar and put the bomb on that airline.
Mueller, put in charge of the case, pursued an entirely different direction, accusing two Libyans of bombing the plane. At the
time Libya and Khadafy were getting blamed for a lot of terrorist activity, but the case against the two was so weak as to hardly
be circumstantial.
There were other questions arising from Pan Am 103. A top official in the FBI, Oliver "Buck" Revell, rushed onto the tarmac in
London to pull his son and daughter-in-law off of Pan Am 103 before it went on to explode over Lockerbie, Scotland. Also changing
flight plans were South African President Pik Botha and his negotiating team. Apparently, someone that Revell and Pik Botha knew
gave them the warning.
There was one group that didn't get warned. That was the McKee Team, an assembled group of US intelligence agents tasked to investigate
American hostages in Beruit. They allegedly discovered a link between the hostage takers, drug traffickers and the CIA. They were
returning to the US, against orders, presumably to spill the beans. This was essentially a clean-up operation, tying up loose strings
of the Iran-contra operation. So was Noriega's prosecution.
That's why Mueller got the case. He knew where to look and where not to look.
He also prosecuted ancillary Iran-contra cases. He prosecuted John Gotti for dealing cocaine in the New York City area. The cocaine
he sold was part of the the Iran-contra (CIA) plan where Southern Air Transport flew weapons to Latin America for the contras (whom
Congress had voted against aiding) and bringing back cocaine from Latin America on its return flights, to include Mena, Arkansas.
One of the CIA's pilots, Barry Seal, bragged that he had a "get-out-of-jail" letter written for him by then-Governor Bill Clinton.
At the time, Asa Hutchinson was the federal prosecutor for that corner of Arkansas. He also didn't notice all that cocaine. Hutchson
later served as George W. Bush's first "drug czar" before going into politics. How coincidental.
Mueller, who had been appointed Assistant U.S. Prosecutor under GHW Bush, became FBI Director under George W. Bush just in
time not to see the CIA fingerprints on 9/11, which should not be surprising considering whom he didn't see when he investigated
BCCI. As head of our country's biggest law enforcement agency Mueller did not pursue the House of Saud's part in 9/11 even though
fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and a number of them could be traced to Saudi intelligence, and the money
chain could be traced to Saudis living in the US, some of whom flew out of the US while all other US flights were grounded. He did
not investigate Mohammed Atta's time in Frankfort, Germany, where he was employed by a front company for the BND, West Germany's
equivalent to the CIA. Nor did Mueller investigate Huffman Aviation where Mo Atta and another hijacker matriculated in flying planes
into buildings. Huffman is interesting because while Mo was studying in Huffman's Venice, Florida aviation school a Huffman plane
was busted in Orlando with 43 pounds of heroin. Curiously, the pilot walked away from the DEA without being charged and no one was
prosecuted at Huffman.
Ask Colleen Rowley about Mueller's leadership in the 9/11 investigation.
Additionally, Mueller oversaw the anthrax letter case, never investigating Battelle Memorial Corporation, which had a building
within a mile of the mailbox where the letters had been mailed. (Battelle Memorial's corporate motto is "It Can Be Done".) Instead,
he centered FBI investigations on scientists in government labs in Fort Detrick, Maryland, who had neither the expertise nor the
equipment to make the weaponized military grade anthrax found in the letters. One scientist sued and won millions. The other allegedly
"committed suicide". Battelle is noteworthy because it handles the US military's anthrax program. Mueller had no interest that two
of the targets who received anthrax letters were at the time the most vociferous opponents of the Bush Administration's Patriot Act.
Perhaps his greatest accomplishment aiding the Deep State as FBI Director was his shutting down of Operation Green Quest,
the FBI's investigation into the funding behind 9/11 and the terrorist network behind it. Names began popping up like Grover Norquist,
the Muslim Brotherhood, old Nazis and the royal family of Luxembourg. Nothing to see here. Move along.
A closer examination of Robert Mueller would probably find a lot more of these cases and I encourage others to continue the search.
For example, it's been alleged that Mueller sent innocent men to jail for crimes committed by Whitey Bulger for the benefit of someone
or something within the government and that this allowed Bulger to continue his criminal activities for years.
***
It's been seventy years since the CIA was created, fifty years since JFK was most likely murdered by them. In order to avoid any
consequences for their crimes more and more institutions have had to be infiltrated and corrupted by them. Many of the heroes of
the Left have turned out to be purveyors of "modified limited hangouts" which served the Deep State. Ramsey Clark, who was given
the mantle of "good guy" by the media of the Left, was active as LBJ's Attorney General in blocking Jim Garrison's investigation
into the JFK assassination and was named by Doug Valentine in his THE CIA AS ORGANIZED CRIME as a major proponent of the CIA's OPERATION
CHAOS and the FBI's COINTELPRO. While the media spent a good deal of time talking about how great they were in releasing the Pentagon
Papers to the public, the hero who exposed the military, Daniel Ellsberg, turns out to have been CIA, operating with CIA black ops
in Vietnam. And while the Pentagon Papers exposed our military's great errors in Vietnam the CIA was generally spared. Again. Bob
Woodward, our hero of Watergate, had been a courier for the Office of Naval Intelligence only a few years earlier. Thus, the CIA
and Deep State, which had soured on Nixon, orchestrated that President's departure.
I raise this because Robert Mueller's current task is the investigation of our sitting President. No matter how much you dislike
Trump you can't help but notice that the "evidence" against him conspiring with Putin and Russia is thin gruel. And while Trump,
like most politicians who ascend to the big seat, has a lot of questionable, even indictable business connections around him, the
great dangers of a Putin-Trump conspiracy trumpeted by the media have been fading because, apparently, there was never a there there.
Thus, as Mueller oversees this case, he will find people surrounding Trump who have lied to FBI agents, who have perhaps not registered
as foreign agents, and other crimes that routinely happen out of the public spotlight and aren't prosecuted. What was obvious to
me from the start, that this was a psyop that involved U.S. intelligence, Ukrainian intelligence, Clinton and the DNC, will not be
obvious to Mueller. Thus, as his career has shown, Mueller has been put in place not merely to prosecute those around Trump as a
means of pressure on his administration, but to not see the CIA's hand in it.
When one begins examining high-profile court cases in post-1963 America one sees a cast of people who keep popping up. Prosecutors,
judges, defense attorneys, coroners, witnesses, reporters, authors. This ensemble keeps reappearing in these show trials. We may
not know what Mueller will find, but we know what he won't find.
There was a review at Truthdig back in 2016 of Jeffrey Toobin's book on Patty Hearst, AMERICAN HEIRESS (Toobin himself worked
as an associate counsel to Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh during the investigation Iran–Contra affair and Oliver North's criminal
trial). In part it reads: "Toobin features the characters who populated the edges of Hearst's story. Robert Shapiro, who would later
work with [F. Lee] Bailey on the O.J. Simpson case, makes a cameo appearance. Lance Ito, the judge in that case, briefly shared a
shooting range with a machine-gun toting SLA member. Reverend Jim Jones offered to help with the food distribution effort; that enterprise
also employed Sara Jane Moore, who served 32 years for attempting to assassinate President Gerald Ford during his 1975 visit to San
Francisco. Congressman Leo Ryan, who represented Randy and Catherine Hearst's district, endorsed the commutation of Patty's sentence.
"Off to Guyana," he wrote Patty in 1978. "See you when I return. Hang in there." Jim Jones' henchmen shot and killed Ryan before
he could board his flight home. Robert Mueller, the U.S. Attorney in San Francisco before taking over as FBI director, strenuously
opposed Hearst's pardon, claiming that her attitude, born of wealth and social position, "has always been that she is a person above
the law.""
When Mueller wrote that line he must have laughed out loud.
That isn't connecting the dots. Its painting a bloody Mona Lisa.
I had no idea how dirty this man was. He is the CIA version of Zelig or Forest Gump. He makes Bill Clinton look like an amateur.
Beginning with the double CIA family ties and proceeding through whitewashing 911, this man is so central to our rotten government
that its a wonder someone hasn't done what you just did a lot sooner.
My hat is off to you. Someone should post this article on our blog.
The one that keeps jumping to mind is the mid 80's game "Paranoia" which was a cartoonish comedy about the drugged citizens
of a complex where the state oversaw everything, and the people were obsessed with celebrities and junk food and oh my goooooodd...
Thanks for pointing to it. I got laughs just reading the wikipedia page.
It sounds like Kafka meets that Russian guy who was simultaneously head of the secret police and leader of the resistance.
LOL.
The one that keeps jumping to mind is the mid 80's game "Paranoia" which was a cartoonish comedy about the drugged citizens
of a complex where the state oversaw everything, and the people were obsessed with celebrities and junk food and oh my goooooodd...
@arendt even
considering they were working from licenses half the time. They ended up essentially creating the universe bibles for Ghostbusters
and the Star Wars EU prior to the reboots.
Unfortunately, that didn't translate into respect. However, I still to this day am amazed at the complexity of thought that
went into many of the rules and the ability they had to match mechanics to maintaining the play feel.
Paranoia in particular was hilarious. Kafka and Three Stooges, and even a little Joseph Heller. Later editions even managed
to work in criticisms of late stage capitalism by having players ALWAYS broke and any unexpected expenses needing to be made up
through crime... which was illegal, to avoid budget shortfalls... which was also illegal...
Bob, thank you. As detailed and extensive as it is, your essay is concise by making it clear exactly what's so wrong with Mueller:
Mueller has presided over many cases where it's been important for the prosecutor to overlook the fingerprints of the CIA...
Mueller would invariably land on cases with Deep State intelligence connections...
Thus, as his career has shown, Mueller has been put in place not merely to prosecute those around Trump as a means of pressure
on his administration, but to not see the CIA's hand in it...
For me, the anthrax case is the most important. Biological weapons are no joke. I believe we learned, from whistle-blowing
scientists, not from the FBI investigation, that the CIA had one of the many illegal biological weapons programs being run with
our tax dollars leading up to the anthrax attack. So whether Battelle was one of the CIA's contractors or yet another cut out,
the investigation by Mueller simply stated those entities, all of them, were eliminated from the investigation.
The chief difference between the despotic and the totalitarian secret police lies in the difference between the "suspect" and
the "objective enemy". The latter is defined by the policy of the government and not by his own desire to overthrow it. He is
never an individual whose dangerous thoughts must be provoked or whose past justifies suspicion, but a "carrier of tendencies"
like a carrier of disease. Practically speaking, the totalitarian ruler behaves like a man who persistently insults another man
until everybody knows that the latter is his enemy, so that he can, with some plausibility, go and kill him in self-defense.
p423-4
"From a legal point of view, even more interesting than the change from the suspect to the objective enemy is the totalitarian
replacement of the suspected offense by the possible crime ...While the suspect is arrested because he is thought to be capable
of committing a crime that more or less fits his personality, the totalitarian possible crime is based on the logical anticipation
of objective developments.
The task of the totalitarian police is not to discover crimes, but to be on hand when the government decides to arrest a certain
category of the population.
"The only rule of which everybody in a totalitarian state may be sure is that the more visible government agencies are, the
less power they carry, and the less is known of the existence of an institution, the more powerful it will ultimately turn out
to be...Real power begins where secrecy begins. (p403)
"The only rule of which everybody in a totalitarian state may be sure is that the more visible government agencies are, the
less power they carry, and the less is known of the existence of an institution, the more powerful it will ultimately turn
out to be...Real power begins where secrecy begins. (p403)
The chief difference between the despotic and the totalitarian secret police lies in the difference between the "suspect"
and the "objective enemy". The latter is defined by the policy of the government and not by his own desire to overthrow it.
He is never an individual whose dangerous thoughts must be provoked or whose past justifies suspicion, but a "carrier of tendencies"
like a carrier of disease. Practically speaking, the totalitarian ruler behaves like a man who persistently insults another
man until everybody knows that the latter is his enemy, so that he can, with some plausibility, go and kill him in self-defense.
p423-4
"From a legal point of view, even more interesting than the change from the suspect to the objective enemy is the totalitarian
replacement of the suspected offense by the possible crime ...While the suspect is arrested because he is thought to be capable
of committing a crime that more or less fits his personality, the totalitarian possible crime is based on the logical anticipation
of objective developments.
The task of the totalitarian police is not to discover crimes, but to be on hand when the government decides to arrest a
certain category of the population.
"The only rule of which everybody in a totalitarian state may be sure is that the more visible government agencies are,
the less power they carry, and the less is known of the existence of an institution, the more powerful it will ultimately turn
out to be...Real power begins where secrecy begins. (p403)
Great history of how corrupt Mueller has always been and how he has covered up for so many crimes. I'm just stunned by
the number of people who have decided that Mueller's history and the history of the CIA, FBI and the other intelligence agencies
wasn't that bad after all just because they are going after Trump. This selective amnesia is simply amazing, isn't it?
Clinton's role in helping the CIA to smuggle drugs into Arkansas is never talked about either. Or if it is it's called
"a right wing attempt to bring them down."
I almost skipped reading this one, assumed at first from the headline it was going to be about the Russia "investigation" which
I've been steadfast in not paying any attention to.
But wow, this is so much better than I'd expected, a fascinating tapestry. A lot to absorb. At this point I'm just feeling
overwhelmed at how little "we the people" in this country have any say in, or even any knowledge about, what is going on.
Thank you for this excellent history and synthesis.
from those who believe the fairy tale of Russia Gate. John
Brennan has also become a darling of the left. Greenwald wrote about him after Obama appointed him to his cabinet.
Joe posted this
linkthat explains why centrist and liberal media have a disturbing tendency to rehabilitate some of the most vile, reactionary
forces on the American right simply because they say vaguely negative things about Donald Trump -- a phenomenon we call "Trumpwashing."
Just like Mueller, Brennan is one more war criminal whose actions seem to have been forgotten.
conclude from this, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the Mueller investigation of "Russiagate" won't get anywhere near the
Oval Office.
Mostly becuz "Deep State" itself is up to its eyebrows in the affair. And also becuz Trump has very little to do with it. I'm
sure they'd Love to bury Hillary in this, but it looks like that won't happen either. A shame.
I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies
for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they did.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted in
February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to lawyers
for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment accuses the
firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social media in order
to sow discord among American voters.
The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence
services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.
Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign
actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations,"
according to the filing.
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were
unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social
media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.
Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency placed
on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people still believe
that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!
@snoopydawg@snoopydawg
What the hell? Do these people even know they're on this list, or part of this evidence? Or, are they not even real people, or
are they maybe even govt employees needed to play a role? There's that cookbook again, maybe. Yikes!
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were unwittingly
recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies
for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they
did.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted
in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to
lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment
accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social
media in order to sow discord among American voters.
The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence
services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.
Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign
actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations,"
according to the filing.
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say
were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social
media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.
Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency
placed on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people
still believe that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!
It's obvious that the whole damn Russia Gate conspiracy was just made up. It started when Wikileaks said that they were going
to release the emails between Hillary and Podesta that showed how they rigged the primary against Bernie. The reason why they
did it was to keep people from talking about the contents of the emails. And it worked. The media didn't focus on their contents,
but only on how Wikileaks obtained them.
Another reason for the Russian propaganda crap is so people will give their permission for the upcoming war against Russia
that had already been planned for over two years before the election. And they will. I've seen so many comments that says what
Russia (Putin) did and is still doing was an act of war. Today on ToP one person said that "we need to assassinate Putin." Was
that person HRd for promoting violence which is against the site rules? Nope. Those that believe Russia actually did interfere
with the election also think that the republicans are also Putin's puppets and that is why they won't go against Trump. The front
pagers have been pushing lies about Russia's actions it should be obvious to anyone with a working brain. I'll see a definitive
statement like " The seas were calm and the skies were clear." But they will rewrite their statement to "The reason
why the ship went down is because of the massive storm that came out of nowhere." Hopefully you get my drift on how they're
blatantly lying in their statements.
Hillary's BFF, Nuland and McCain were the ones that worked the hardest on overthrowing the Ukraine government. The USA wanted
to put its own puppet government on Russia's border. Plus the USA and NATO have been installing troops into countries that surround
Russia's borders.
The original reason why the Mueller investigation was created was to find evidence that Trump colluded with Putin to win the
election. None of the Mueller indictments have anything to do with that charge. This is why he was taken off guard when the Russian
lawyers showed up to defend their clients. Hope that you read the entire article.
#13#13
What the hell? Do these people even know they're on this list, or part of this evidence? Or, are they not even real people,
or are they maybe even govt employees needed to play a role? There's that cookbook again, maybe. Yikes!
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were
unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
This also proves my point above how information is selectively posted over there. Just certain parts of the articles are posted,
but the parts of the articles that show the information in a different light are left out. This is from a comment..
It would appear at first glance this is basically an effort at espionage only , but I'm not much more sure than
you are.
If they don't have a US presence ( as it appears they don't ), I can't understand why they even care that Mueller
has charged them. As you point out, they won't be extradited, so none of this really matters. They could have their lawyers
just play a DVD of them confessing followed by giving Mueller the double birds all around and it wouldn't make any difference,
so the only logical answer for this is to try and pry state secrets out legally via the courts instead of through hacking and
spying.
Oops. From the article ..
I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against
the charges.
I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies
for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they
did.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted
in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to
lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment
accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social
media in order to sow discord among American voters.
The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence
services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.
Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign
actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations,"
according to the filing.
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say
were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social
media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.
Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency
placed on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people
still believe that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!
off the hook. @snoopydawg
Especially Mueller. Finding the 13 Russians guilty that is. Mueller can then claim, "See! The Russians did it," which gives Hillbots
a warm fuzzy and reason to scold BernieBros with a "told ya so!!" AND, no reason to investigate further. Investigation over. Case
closed! Everyone gets what they want. Alas... Their lawyer showed up.
I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies
for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they
did.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted
in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to
lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment
accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social
media in order to sow discord among American voters.
The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence
services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.
Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign
actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations,"
according to the filing.
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say
were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social
media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.
Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency
placed on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people
still believe that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!
As Powerline notes, Mueller probably didn't see that coming - and the indictment itself was perhaps nothing more than a PR
stunt to bolster the Russian interference narrative.
I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against
the charges. Rather, the Mueller prosecutors seem to have obtained the indictment to serve a public relations purpose, laying
out the case for interference as understood by the government and lending a veneer of respectability to the Mueller Switch
Project.
One of the Russian corporate defendants nevertheless hired counsel to contest the charges. In April two Washington-area
attorneys -- Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly of the Reed Smith firm -- filed appearances in court on behalf of Concord Management
and Consulting. Josh Gerstein covered that turn of events for Politico here. -Powerline Blog
@snoopydawg
Especially since it's supposed to contain all these names of stooges, duped into participating in US politics by the Kremlin.
It's ridiculous.
As Powerline notes, Mueller probably didn't see that coming - and the indictment itself was perhaps nothing more than
a PR stunt to bolster the Russian interference narrative.
I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against
the charges. Rather, the Mueller prosecutors seem to have obtained the indictment to serve a public relations purpose, laying
out the case for interference as understood by the government and lending a veneer of respectability to the Mueller Switch
Project.
One of the Russian corporate defendants nevertheless hired counsel to contest the charges. In April two Washington-area
attorneys -- Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly of the Reed Smith firm -- filed appearances in court on behalf of Concord Management
and Consulting. Josh Gerstein covered that turn of events for Politico here. -Powerline Blog
I have read here in a long time. While I linked ot our Twitter account last night, I did not have time to read it before I
posted it. I am going to link this again because I think it is such an important essay for others to read.
HILLARY CLINTON'S COMPROMISED EMAILS WERE GOING TO A FOREIGN ENTITY – NOT RUSSIA! FBI Agent Ignored Evidence Report from
Decameron
FBI Peter Strzok – the philandering FBI chief investigator who facilitated the FISA surveillance of Trump campaign officials in
2016 – has been exposed for ignoring evidence of major Clinton-related breaches of national security and has been accused of lying
about it.
Hillary Clinton's emails, "every single one except for four, over 30,000 of them, were going to an address that was not on the
distribution l ist," Texas Congressman Louis Gohmert said on Friday. And they went to "an unauthorized source that was a foreign
entity unrelated to Russia." The information came from Intelligence Community Inspector General Chuck McCullough, who sent his
investigator Frank Rucker, along with an ICIG attorney Janette McMillan, to brief Strzok.
Gohmert nailed Strozk at the open Congressional hearing on Friday the 13 th in Washington, but Strzok claimed no recollection.
Gohmert accused him of lying. Maybe Strzok's amnesia about the briefing on Hillary Clinton's email server is nothing but standard
FBI training: i.e., when in doubt, don't recall. It's far more likely that there is a campaign of deliberate obstructing justice,
selective prosecution, and political targeting by top officials embedded in the permanent bureaucracy of the Justice Department,
FBI, and broader IC. Strzok is not alone.
And what "foreign entity" got Hillary's classified emails? Trump haters in British Intelligence and those in Israel who want to
manipulate the US presidency – whatever party prevails – come to mind. Listen closely and you may hear rumors around Washington that
it was Israel, not Russia, that was the foreign power involved in approaching Trump advisers. Time to follow that thread.
Both Representatives Gohmert (TX) and Trey Gowdy (SC) did a great job trying to pierce the veil of denials. But, right after Strzok's
amnesia in Congress, the Justice Department announced the indictment of GRU members. Change of subject. The same foul stench noted
by Publius Tacitus about the GRU indictment filled Congress as Agent Strzok testified.
So, a foreign power (not Russia but "hostile" according to Gohmert) modified internal instructions in HC's server so that a blind
copy went to this other country, all 30,000 e-mails. I wonder what was different about the four that were not so copied. What
are likely countries? The UK, China and Israel would be at the top of my list
So the emails were being bcc-ed or the server was set up to copy all emails passing through it to some foreign server? I am curious
about the mechanics.
It seems that the server was the mechanism. Whether that was by physical access to the server or electronically at a distance.
Her entire system was not secure and could be easily penetrated.
As we sift through the ashes of Thursday's dumpster-fire Congressional hearing with still employed FBI agent Peter Strzok, Luke Rosiak
of the Daily Caller plucked out a key exchange between Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tx) and Strzok which revealed a yet-unknown bombshell
about the Clinton email case.
Nearly all of Hillary Clinton's emails on her homebrew server went to a foreign entity that isn't Russia. When this was discovered
by the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG), IG Chuck McCullough sent his investigator Frank Ruckner and an attorney to
notify Strzok along with three other people about the "anomaly."
Four separate attempts were also made to notify DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz to brief him on the massive security breach
, however Horowitz "never returned the call." Recall that Horowitz concluded last month that despite Strzok's extreme bias towards
Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump - none of it translated to Strzok's work at the FBI.
In other words; Strzok, while investigating Clinton's email server, completely ignored the fact that most of Clinton's emails
were sent to a foreign entity - while IG Horowitz simply didn't want to know about it.
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) found an "anomaly on Hillary Clinton's emails going through their private
server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except four, over 30,000 ,
were going to an address that was not on the distribution list," Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas said during a hearing
with FBI official Peter Strzok. - Daily
Caller
Gohmert continued; " It was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia. "
Strzok admitted to meeting with Ruckner but said he couldn't remember the "specific" content of their discussion.
"The forensic examination was done by the ICIG and they can document that," Gohmert said, "but you were given that information
and you did nothing with it ."
Meanwhile, "Mr. Horowitz got a call four times from someone wanting to brief him about this, and he never returned the call,"
Gohmert said - and Horowitz wouldn't return the call.
And while Peter Strzok couldn't remember the specifics of his meeting with the IG about the giant "foreign entity" bombshell,
he texted this to his mistress Lisa Page when the IG discovered the "(C)" classification on several of Clinton's emails - something
the FBI overlooked:
"Holy cow ... if the FBI missed this, what else was missed? Remind me to tell you to flag for Andy [redacted] emails we (actually
ICIG) found that have portion marks (C) on a couple of paras. DoJ was Very Concerned about this."
In November of 2017, IG McCullough - an Obama appointee - revealed to Fox News that
he received pushback when he tried to tell former DNI James Clapper about the foreign entity which had Clinton's emails and other
anomalies.
Instead of being embraced for trying to expose an illegal act, seven senators including Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca) wrote a letter
acusing him of politicizing the issue.
"It's absolutely irrelevant whether something is marked classified, it is the character of the information," he said.
McCullough said that from that point forward, he received only criticism and an "adversarial posture" from Congress when he
tried to rectify the situation.
"I expected to be embraced and protected," he said, adding that a Hill staffer "chided" him for failing to consider the "political
consequences" of the information he was blowing the whistle on. -
Fox News
That other Clinton whistleblower...
Meanwhile, a mostly overlooked facet of the Clinton email investigation was unearthed from the official "
FBI Vault " by Twitter researcher Katica (
@GOPPollAnalyst ) in November and updated on July 10 which somehow
never made it into the Inspector General's
report on the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation.
In January, 2016 a former State department official walked into the FBI with what they felt was smoking gun evidence in the Clinton
email investigation which was so sensitive he wouldn't talk about it unless it was in a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information
Facility).
Accompanying the evidence, the whistleblower wrote a letter to former FBI Director James Comey describing Hillary Clinton's mishandling
of clearly marked classified material. Comey ignored it - which led the whistleblower to file a complaint that Peter Strzok and FBI
agent Jonathan Moffa were CC'd on .
" The evidence I am providing, along with what you have already acquired, should lead to convictions for the many people involved
."
"America needs its Attorney General to show us that no employee of the United States Government is above its system of law
and justice."
"Since I am avoiding any classified information in this statement, I will not expand on this issue further in this letter.
I am prepared to discuss this issue in much greater depth in a properly secured location and with those agents having certain
TS/SCI clearances and an FBI letter showing need to know."
The whistleblower describes how there's no way Clinton couldn't have known certain emails were marked "classified."
"During the time that Hillary Rodham Clinton served as Secretary of State, the Department of State (DOS) produced a daily document
classified at the Secret level...
...Each of these daily classified documents began each paragraph with the actual classification of the information contained
in the paragraph...
...An investigation that compares the emails found on the private server or emails used by the Secretary will show the actual
classification any text which appears to be both in the Hillary emails and in the daily classified document produced by her official
office...
"Upon learning of this situation and listening to her saying that the information in these emails were not classified at the
time they were written, I make reference to the above paragraph about the daily classified document summarizing issues presented
to her on a daily basis."
The Whistleblower also goes on to explain that he couldn't find a sensitive communiqué between Clinton and the American Ambassador
in Honduras on the internal State Department archive, and suspected that it was due to being sent over her private email server.
Strzok knew that most of Hillary Clinton's emails were in the hands of a foreign entity
He also knew that a whistleblower from the State Department tried delivering significant evidence in the Clinton email investigation
which went nowhere
The FBI, and Comey in particular, ignored this whistleblower's evidence
So given that we now have at least two major bombshells that the FBI sat on, we revisit the case of CIA whistleblower Dennis Montgomery
- who similarly walked into the Washington D.C. FBI field office in 2015 with 47 hard drives and 600 million pages of information
he says proves that President Trump and others were victims of mass surveillance, according to
NewsMax .
Under grants of immunity, which I obtained through Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Curtis, Montgomery produced the hard drives
and later was interviewed under oath in a secure room at the FBI Field Office in the District of Columbia . There he laid out
how persons like then-businessman Donald Trump were illegally spied upon by Clapper, Brennan, and the spy agencies of the Obama
administration .
Montgomery left the NSA and CIA with 47 hard drives and over 600 million pages of information , much of which is classified,
and sought to come forward legally as a whistleblower to appropriate government entities, including congressional intelligence
committees, to expose that the spy agencies were engaged for years in systematic illegal surveillance on prominent Americans,
including the chief justice of the Supreme Court , other justices, 156 judges, prominent businessmen such as Donald Trump, and
even yours truly. Working side by side with Obama's former Director of National Intelligence (DIA), James Clapper, and Obama's
former Director of the CIA, John Brennan, Montgomery witnessed "up close and personal" this "Orwellian Big Brother" intrusion
on privacy , likely for potential coercion, blackmail or other nefarious purposes.
He even claimed that these spy agencies had manipulated voting in Florida during the 2008 presidential election , which illegal
tampering resulted in helping Obama to win the White House. -
NewsMax
In March of 2017, Montgomery and his attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch traveled to D.C. to meet with House Judiciary Committee
Chairman Devin Nunes in the hopes that he would ask Comey about the evidence - only to be "blown off" by the Chairman.
It seems like we have some serious issues to revisit as a country.
I want to see that hags emails dammnit! As we dig deeper every day, the foul stench of this woman keeps popping up. I know
we have not connected Ofaggot to it YET, but we WILL!!!! There are so many complicit pieces of shit that I don't there is enough
hemp in the world to do the job!!
Frog march, trial, death!
Hang them by the neck until dead for HIGH TREASON!!!! tap, tap, tap
In March of 2017, Montgomery and his attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch traveled to D.C. to meet with House Judiciary
Committee Chairman Devin Nunes in the hopes that he would ask Comey about the evidence - only to be "blown off" by the Chairman.
It seems like we have some serious issues to revisit as a country.
Armed revolts have happened for less than this kind of bullshit. It's time that the people of the USA start taking matters
of government into their own hands because the longer this kind of shit happens the more it looks like every one of those motherfuckers
in Dee See is dirty to some extent.
Oh yeah, how about we also make the use of "national security" secrecy claims that are made under false pretenses, or are made
to hide the illegal/unconstitutional actions of a person or group in government, punishable by death by firing squad??
Given they found that these emails were being sent to a server in a foreign country, I'd expect the hackers would know that
this could be found out. Thus, the hackers would have then had the emails forwarded to their server in their country. I wouldn't
be surprised that the owner of the server to which they were sent, never knew of it. My guess, considering all the circumstantial
evidence, is that it was Putin's hackers.
I've long suspected that Putin got all the emails off her server (including Bill's, Chelsea's, and possibly Clinton Foundation
officials), along with the 20 emails exchanged with Obama suspiciously using an alias, and about which he lied claiming he learned
of her server in news reports. That would be plenty for Putin to blackmail them into appeasement and flexibility. Which was exactly
what Obama and Hillary gave Putin and his allies Syria and Iran. Along with the US uranium. They had to cover it up, so Obama
could get re-elected (remember he promised Russian President Medvedev he'd "have more flexibility after the [2012] elections"
on a hot mic) and both could stay in power.
This would explain why the FBI and Strzok did nothing about the hacking of her server (it was too late to do anything about
it, other than arrest Clinton and Obama resign). And any investigation would document evidence Clinton committed a crime and potentially
leak to the press with the implication Clinton and Obama were now Putin puppets. The Democrats have an MO of claiming their political
opponents are doing exactly what the Democrats are doing.
They weren't supposed to deploy it...NSA wanted to save that puppy for a rainy day, but the beaks just couldn't help themselves.
It was too hot to use, because if you didn't make it count then the target now has the virus and can share it, tweak it and send
it back our way.
This will come out soon. Strzok was up to his ass in Stuxnet. General Cartwright was too. All this will come out. It will also
come out that this was another instance where action was taken completely without Obama's authorization or knowledge.
The phony OBL hit was another example. Obama didn't have the stones...and just told Panetta and Hillary to do whatever, he
didn't want to know or be involved. He was golfing. They snatched him off the green for that war room photo op.
"... In December, a letter from Senate Homeland Security Committee Chair Ron Johnson (R-WI) revealed that Strzok and other FBI officials effectively "decriminalized" Clinton's behavior through a series of edits to James Comey's original statement. ..."
"... The letter described how outgoing Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey's statement with senior FBI officials , including Strzok, Strzok's direct supervisor , E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson) - in a coordinated conspiracy among top FBI brass. ..."
"... In summary; the FBI launched an investigation into Hillary Clinton's private server, ignored evidence it may have been hacked, downgraded the language in Comey's draft to decriminalize her behavior, and then exonerated her by recommending the DOJ not prosecute. ..."
"... Meanwhile, a tip submitted by an Australian diplomat tied to a major Clinton Foundation deal launched the FBI's counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign - initially spearheaded by the same Peter Strzok who worked so hard to get Hillary off the hook. ..."
FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok reportedly ignored "an irregularity in the
metadata" indicating that Hillary Clinton's server may had been breached, while FBI top brass
made significant edits to former Director James Comey's statement specifically minimizing how
likely it was that hostile actors had gained access.
Sources told
Fox News that Strzok, who sent anti-Trump text messages that got him removed from the
ongoing Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe, was told about the metadata anomaly in
2016, but Strzok did not support a formal damage assessment. One source said: " Nothing
happened. "
In December, a letter
from Senate Homeland Security Committee Chair Ron Johnson (R-WI) revealed that Strzok and other
FBI officials effectively "decriminalized" Clinton's behavior through a series of edits to
James Comey's original statement.
The letter described how outgoing Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey's
statement with senior FBI officials , including Strzok, Strzok's direct supervisor , E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan
Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha
Anderson) - in a coordinated conspiracy among top FBI brass.
It was already known that Strzok - who was demoted to the FBI's HR department for sending
anti-Trump text messages to his mistress -
downgraded the language describing Clinton's conduct from the criminal charge of "gross
negligence" to "extremely careless."
Notably, "Gross negligence" is a legal term of art in criminal law often associated with
recklessness. According to Black's Law Dictionary, it is defined as " A severe degree of
negligence taken as reckless disregard ," and " Blatant indifference to one's legal duty,
other's safety, or their rights ." "Extremely careless," on the other hand, is not a legal term
of art.
18 U.S. Code §
793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifically uses the phrase
"gross negligence." Had Comey used the phrase, he would have essentially declared that Hillary
had broken the law.
In order to justify downgrading Clinton's behavior to "extremely careless," however, FBI
officials also needed to minimize the impact of her crimes. As revealed in the letter from Rep.
Johnson, the FBI downgraded the probability that Clinton's server was hacked by hostile actors
from " reasonably likely " to " possible ."
"Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained
access to Secretary Clinton's personal e-mail account," Comey said in his statement.
By doing so, the FBI downgraded Clinton's negligence - thus supporting the "extremely
careless" language.
The FBI also edited Clinton's exoneration letter to remove a reference to the "sheer volume"
of classified material on the private server, which - according to the original draft "supports
an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that
information." Furthermore, all references to the Intelligence Community's involvement in
investigating Clinton's private email server were removed as well.
Director Comey's original statement acknowledged the FBI had worked with its partners in the
Intelligence Community to assess potential damage from Secretary Clinton's use of a private
email server. The original statement read:
W]e have done extensive work with the assistance of our colleagues elsewhere in the
Intelligence Community to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile
actors in connection with the private email operation.
In summary; the FBI launched an investigation into Hillary Clinton's private server, ignored
evidence it may have been hacked, downgraded the language in Comey's draft to decriminalize her
behavior, and then exonerated her by recommending the DOJ not prosecute.
Meanwhile, a tip submitted by an Australian diplomat tied to a major Clinton Foundation deal
launched the FBI's counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign - initially
spearheaded by the same Peter Strzok who worked so hard to get Hillary off the hook.
And Strzok still collects a taxpayer-funded paycheck.
I find this interesting (from a link in ZH article)
...
Posted by: Pft | Jul 14, 2018 4:56:10 PM | 102
(Strzok's forgetfulness about a briefing he attended on the subject of the destination
address omitted from the distribution list)
You're not the only one. And it's fascinating, in a creepy way, that the address is known
to the investigators but remains undisclosed.
"Decameron" over at SST has indulged in some speculation on the possibilities... ...
Gohmert nailed Strozk at the open Congressional hearing on Friday the 13th in Washington, but
Strzok claimed no recollection. Gohmert accused him of lying. Maybe Strzok's amnesia about
the briefing on Hillary Clinton's email server is nothing but standard FBI training: i.e.,
when in doubt, don't recall. It's far more likely that there is a campaign of deliberate
obstructing justice, selective prosecution, and political targeting by top officials embedded
in the permanent bureaucracy of the Justice Department, FBI, and broader IC. Strzok is not
alone.
And what "foreign entity" got Hillary's classified emails? Trump haters in British
Intelligence and those in Israel who want to manipulate the US presidency – whatever
party prevails – come to mind. Listen closely and you may hear rumors around Washington
that it was Israel, not Russia, that was the foreign power involved in approaching Trump
advisers. Time to follow that thread.
...
Almost as interesting as the story itself is the fact that the thread at SST is struggling
to attract comments.
"Foreign actors" obtained access to some of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's
emails -- including at least one email classified as "secret" -- according to a new memo from
two GOP-led House committees and an internal FBI email.
Fox News obtained the memo prepared by the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, which
lays out key interim findings ahead of next week's hearing with Justice Department Inspector
General Michael Horowitz. The IG, separately, is expected to release his highly anticipated
report on the Clinton email case later Thursday.
The House committees, which conducted a joint probe into decisions made by the DOJ in 2016
and 2017, addressed a range of issues in their memo including Clinton's email security.
"Documents provided to the Committees show foreign actors obtained access to some of Mrs.
Clinton's emails -- including at least one email classified 'Secret,'" the memo says, adding
that foreign actors also accessed the private accounts of some Clinton staffers.
The memo does not say who the foreign actors are, or what material was obtained, but it
notes that secret information is defined as information that, if disclosed, could "reasonably
be expected to cause serious damage to the national security."
The committees say that no one appears to have been held accountable either criminally or
administratively.
Relatedly, Fox News has obtained a May 2016 email from FBI investigator Peter Strzok -- who
also is criticized in the House memo for his anti-Trump texts with colleague Lisa Page. The
email says that "we know foreign actors obtained access" to some Clinton emails, including at
least one "secret" message "via compromises of the private email accounts" of Clinton
staffers.
"... Mr. Rucker reported to those of you, the four of you there, in the presence of the ICIG attorney, that they had found this anomaly on Hillary Clinton's emails going through her private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except for four, over 30,000 of them, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list. It was a compartmentalized bit of information that was sending it to an unauthorized source. Do you recall that? ..."
"... you thanked him, you shook his hand. The problem is it was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia and from what you've said here, you did nothing more than nod and shake the man's hand when you didn't seem to be all that concerned about our national integrity of our election when it was involving Hillary Clinton. So the forensic examination was done by the ICIG -- and I can document that -- but you were given that information and you did nothing with it." ..."
Regardless of any findings re Russia- Trump -- -I would think a presidential campaign cc-ing
all of its emails to a foreign country, not Russia , needs its own investigation. As Putin
said not long ago 'maybe it was the Jews.
HILLARY CLINTON'S COMPROMISED EMAILS WERE GOING TO A FOREIGN ENTITY – NOT
RUSSIA
(excerpts)
"Hillary Clinton's emails, "every single one except for four, over 30,000 of them, were
going to an address that was not on the distribution list," Texas Congressman Louis Gohmert
said on Friday. And they went to "an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity
unrelated to Russia." The information came from Intelligence Community Inspector General
Chuck McCullough, who sent his investigator Frank Rucker, along with an ICIG attorney Janette
McMillan, to brief Strzok
And what "foreign entity" got Hillary's classified emails? Trump haters in British
Intelligence and those in Israel who want to manipulate the US presidency – whatever
party prevails – come to mind. Listen closely and you may hear rumors around Washington
that it was Israel, not Russia, that was the foreign power involved in approaching Trump
advisers. Time to follow that thread
The Gohmert/Strzok exchange:
Gohmert: You said earlier in this hearing you were concerned about a hostile
foreign power affecting the election. Do you recall the former Intelligence Community
Inspector General Chuck McCullough having an investigation into an anomaly found on Hillary
Clinton's emails?
Strzok: I do not.
Gohmert: Let me refresh your memory. The Intelligence Community Inspector General
Chuck McCullough sent his investigator Frank Rucker along with an IGIC attorney Janette
McMillan to brief you and Dean Chapelle and two other FBI personnel who I won't name at this
time, about an anomaly they had found on Hillary Clinton's emails that were going to and from
the private unauthorized server that you were supposed to be investigating?
Strzok : I remember meeting Mr. Rucker on either one or two occasions. I do not
recall the specific content or discussions.
Gohmert: Well then, I'll help you with that too then. Mr. Rucker reported to
those of you, the four of you there, in the presence of the ICIG attorney, that they had
found this anomaly on Hillary Clinton's emails going through her private server, and when
they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except for
four, over 30,000 of them, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list. It
was a compartmentalized bit of information that was sending it to an unauthorized source. Do
you recall that?
Strozk: Sir, I don't.
Gohmert: He went on the explain it. And you didn't say anything.
Strzok: No.
Gohmert: you thanked him, you shook his hand. The problem is it was going to an
unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia and from what you've said
here, you did nothing more than nod and shake the man's hand when you didn't seem to be all
that concerned about our national integrity of our election when it was involving Hillary
Clinton. So the forensic examination was done by the ICIG -- and I can document that -- but
you were given that information and you did nothing with it."
I find this interesting (from a link in ZH article)
"The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) found an "anomaly on Hillary
Clinton's emails going through their private server, and when they had done the forensic
analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except four, over 30,000, were going
to an address that was not on the distribution list," Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of
Texas said during a hearing with FBI official Peter Strzok.
"It was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia,"
he added."
I guess we can count on "Cover it Up" Mueller to look into this and sit on it.
According to a report by the Inspector General (IG) the FBI set up the now infamous
Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch tarmac meeting. Buried in the IG report of the FBI's
conduct during the 2016 election comes the revelation.
The 30-minute meeting on June 27, 2016, came just days before the Department of
Justice was set to conclude its investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a
private email server for communications that included classified documents,
reported the Conservative Tribune. Clinton maintained the tarmac
meeting was just a standard meeting and nothing in it was important enough for him
to postpone his flight for.
"It's absolutely not true," he told investigators about accusations he delayed
his takeoff to meet with Lynch. "I literally didn't know she was there until
somebody told me she was there. And we looked out the window and it was really
close and all of her staff was unloading, so I thought, 'she's about to get off and
I'll just go shake hands with her when she gets off.' "I don't want her to think
I'm afraid to shake hands with her because she's the Attorney General," Clinton
added.
Basically, according to the Conservative Tribune, Clinton had no idea
Lynch was on the tarmac in Phoenix, yet the IG report specifically says he asked to
meet with her. "The Deputy Chief of Staff (for Lynch) said that she had 'zero
knowledge' that former President Clinton was there before she saw him approach the
plane. She stated, 'And if I had knowledge, I would not have been in that van. I
would've stayed on the plane and got everybody off . No heads up or anything.'
"The Senior Counselor said she asked everyone in the van if they knew that
former President Clinton was going to be there, and they all said no. The OPA
(Office of Public Affairs) Supervisor said that he later learned that former
President Clinton's Secret Service detail had contacted Lynch's FBI security detail
and let them know that the former President wanted to meet with Lynch."
"... The U.S. was in talks for a deal with Julian Assange but then FBI Director James Comey ordered an end to negotiations after Assange offered to prove Russia was not involved in the DNC leak, as Ray McGovern explains. ..."
"... Special to Consortium News ..."
"... The report does not say what led Comey to intervene to ruin the talks with Assange. But it came after Assange had offered to "provide technical evidence and discussion regarding who did not engage in the DNC releases," Solomon quotes WikiLeaks' intermediary with the government as saying. It would be a safe assumption that Assange was offering to prove that Russia was not WikiLeaks' source of the DNC emails. ..."
"... If that was the reason Comey and Warner ruined the talks, as is likely, it would reveal a cynical decision to put U.S. intelligence agents and highly sophisticated cybertools at risk, rather than allow Assange to at least attempt to prove that Russia was not behind the DNC leak. ..."
"... On March 31, 2017, though, WikiLeaks released the most damaging disclosure up to that point from what it called "Vault 7" -- a treasure trove of CIA cybertools leaked from CIA files. This disclosure featured the tool "Marble Framework," which enabled the CIA to hack into computers, disguise who hacked in, and falsely attribute the hack to someone else by leaving so-called tell-tale signs -- like Cyrillic, for example. The CIA documents also showed that the "Marble" tool had been employed in 2016. ..."
"... In fact, VIPS and independent forensic investigators, have performed what former FBI Director Comey -- at first inexplicably, now not so inexplicably -- failed to do when the so-called "Russian hack" of the DNC was first reported. In July 2017 VIPS published its key findings with supporting data. ..."
"... Why did then FBI Director Comey fail to insist on getting direct access to the DNC computers in order to follow best-practice forensics to discover who intruded into the DNC computers? (Recall, at the time Sen. John McCain and others were calling the "Russian hack" no less than an "act of war.") A 7th grader can now figure that out. ..."
Did Sen. Warner and Comey 'Collude' on Russia-gate? June 27, 2018 •
68 Comments
The U.S. was in talks for a deal with Julian Assange but then FBI Director James Comey
ordered an end to negotiations after Assange offered to prove Russia was not involved in the
DNC leak, as Ray McGovern explains.
By Ray McGovern
Special to Consortium News
An explosive
report by investigative journalist John Solomon on the opinion page of Monday's edition of
The Hill sheds a bright light on how Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) and then-FBI Director
James Comey collaborated to prevent WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange from discussing "technical
evidence ruling out certain parties [read Russia]" in the controversial leak of Democratic
Party emails to WikiLeaks during the 2016 election.
A deal that was being discussed last year between Assange and U.S. government officials
would have given Assange "limited immunity" to allow him to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy in
London, where he has been exiled for six years. In exchange, Assange would agree to limit
through redactions "some classified CIA information he might release in the future," according
to Solomon, who cited "interviews and a trove of internal DOJ documents turned over to Senate
investigators." Solomon even provided a
copy of the draft immunity deal with Assange.
But Comey's intervention to stop the negotiations with Assange ultimately ruined the deal,
Solomon says, quoting "multiple sources." With the prospective agreement thrown into serious
doubt, Assange "unleashed a series of leaks that U.S. officials say damaged their cyber warfare
capabilities for a long time to come." These were the Vault 7 releases, which led then CIA
Director Mike Pompeo to call WikiLeaks "a hostile intelligence service."
Solomon's report provides reasons why Official Washington has now put so much pressure on
Ecuador to keep Assange incommunicado in its embassy in London.
Assange: Came close to a deal with the U.S. (Photo credit: New Media Days / Peter
Erichsen)
The report does not say what led Comey to intervene to ruin the talks with Assange. But it
came after Assange had offered to "provide technical evidence and discussion regarding who did
not engage in the DNC releases," Solomon quotes WikiLeaks' intermediary with the government as
saying. It would be a safe assumption that Assange was offering to prove that Russia was not
WikiLeaks' source of the DNC emails.
If that was the reason Comey and Warner ruined the talks, as is likely, it would reveal a
cynical decision to put U.S. intelligence agents and highly sophisticated cybertools at risk,
rather than allow Assange to at least attempt to prove that Russia was not behind the DNC
leak.
The greater risk to Warner and Comey apparently would have been if Assange provided evidence
that Russia played no role in the 2016 leaks of DNC documents.
Missteps and Stand Down
In mid-February 2017, in a remarkable display of naiveté, Adam Waldman, Assange's pro
bono attorney who acted as the intermediary in the talks, asked Warner if the Senate
Intelligence Committee staff would like any contact with Assange to ask about Russia or other
issues. Waldman was apparently oblivious to Sen. Warner's stoking of Russia-gate.
Warner contacted Comey and, invoking his name, instructed Waldman to "stand down and end the
discussions with Assange," Waldman told Solomon. The "stand down" instruction "did happen,"
according to another of Solomon's sources with good access to Warner. However, Waldman's
counterpart attorney David Laufman , an accomplished federal prosecutor picked by the
Justice Departent to work the government side of the CIA-Assange fledgling deal, told Waldman,
"That's B.S. You're not standing down, and neither am I."
But the damage had been done. When word of the original stand-down order reached WikiLeaks,
trust evaporated, putting an end to two months of what Waldman called "constructive, principled
discussions that included the Department of Justice."
The two sides had come within inches of sealing the deal. Writing to Laufman on March 28,
2017, Waldman gave him Assange's offer to discuss "risk mitigation approaches relating to CIA
documents in WikiLeaks' possession or control, such as the redaction of Agency personnel in
hostile jurisdictions," in return for "an acceptable immunity and safe passage agreement."
On March 31, 2017, though, WikiLeaks released the most damaging disclosure up to that
point from what it called "Vault 7" -- a treasure trove of CIA cybertools leaked from CIA
files. This disclosure featured the tool "Marble Framework," which enabled the CIA to hack into
computers, disguise who hacked in, and falsely attribute the hack to someone else by leaving
so-called tell-tale signs -- like Cyrillic, for example. The CIA documents also showed that the
"Marble" tool had been employed in 2016.
Misfeasance or Malfeasance
Comey: Ordered an end to talks with Assange.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, which includes among our members two former
Technical Directors of the National Security Agency, has repeatedly called
attention to its conclusion that the DNC emails were leaked -- not "hacked" by Russia or
anyone else (and, later, our suspicion that someone may have been playing Marbles, so to
speak).
In fact, VIPS and independent forensic investigators, have performed what former FBI
Director Comey -- at first inexplicably, now not so inexplicably -- failed to do when the
so-called "Russian hack" of the DNC was first reported. In July 2017 VIPS published its
key
findings with supporting data.
Two month later , VIPS published the results of
follow-up experiments conducted to test the conclusions reached in July.
Why did then FBI Director Comey fail to insist on getting direct access to the DNC computers
in order to follow best-practice forensics to discover who intruded into the DNC computers?
(Recall, at the time Sen. John McCain and others were calling the "Russian hack" no less than
an "act of war.") A 7th grader can now figure that out.
Asked on January 10, 2017 by Senate Intelligence Committee chair Richard Burr (R-NC) whether
direct access to the servers and devices would have helped the FBI in their investigation,
Comey replied
: "Our forensics folks would always prefer to get access to the original device or server
that's involved, so it's the best evidence."
At that point, Burr and Warner let Comey down easy. Hence, it should come as no surprise
that, according to one of John Solomon's sources, Sen. Warner (who is co-chairman of the Senate
Intelligence Committee) kept Sen. Burr apprised of his intervention into the negotiation with
Assange, leading to its collapse.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and then a CIA
analyst for a total of 30 years and prepared and briefed, one-on-one, the President's Daily
Brief from 1981 to 1985.
If you enjoyed this original article please consider
making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this
one.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is refusing to release intercepted material alleging that former
Attorney General Loretta Lynch conspired with the Clinton campaign in a deal to rig the Clinton
email investigation, reports Paul Sperry of
RealClear Investigations
.
The information remains so secret that Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz
had to censor it from his recently released 500-plus-page report on the FBI's investigation of
Clinton, and even withhold it from Congress.
Not even members of Congress with top secret security clearance have been allowed to see the
unverified accounts intercepted from presumed Russian sources
in which the head of the
Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, allegedly implicates the Clinton campaign
and Lynch in the scheme
.
"It is remarkable how this Justice Department is protecting the corruption of the Obama Justice
Department," notes Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch, which is suing the DOJ for the material.
Wasserman Schultz, Lynch and Clinton have denied the allegations and characterized them as
Russian disinformation.
True or false, the material is consequential because it appears to have influenced former FBI
Director James B. Comey's decision to break with bureau protocols because he didn't trust Lynch.
In his recent book, Comey said he took the reins in the Clinton email probe, announcing Clinton
should not be indicted, because of a "development still unknown to the American public" that
"cast serious doubt" on Lynch's credibility – clearly the intercepted material.
If the material documents an authentic exchange between Lynch and a Clinton aide, it
would appear to be strong evidence that the Obama administration put partisan political
considerations ahead of its duty to enforce the law
. -
RealClear
Investigations
Then again, if the intercepts are fabricated, it would constitute Russia's most tangible success
in influencing the 2016 U.S. election - since Comey may not have gone around Lynch cleared Clinton
during his July 2016 press conference - nor would he have likely publicly announced the reopening
of the investigation right before the election - an act Clinton and her allies blame for her
stunning loss to Donald Trump.
The secret intelligence document
purports to show that Lynch told the Clinton campaign
she would keep the FBI email investigation on a short leash
- a suggestion included in the
Inspector General's original draft, but relegated to a classified appendix in the official report
and
entirely blanked out
.
What is known, based on press leaks and a letter Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck
Grassley sent Lynch, is that in March 2016,
the FBI received a batch of hacked documents
from U.S. intelligence agencies that had access to stolen emails stored on Russian networks
.
One of the intercepted documents revealed
an alleged email from then-DNC Chairwoman
Wasserman Schultz to an operative working for billionaire Democratic fundraiser George Soros
.
It claimed Lynch had assured the Clinton campaign that investigators and prosecutors
would go easy on the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee regarding her use of a private
email server
while serving as secretary of state. Lynch allegedly made the promise
directly to Clinton political director Amanda Renteria. -
RealClear
Investigations
"T
he information was classified at such a high level by the intelligence community that
it limited even the members [of Congress] who can see it, as well as the staffs
," Horowitz
explained last week during congressional testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
which has oversight authority over Justice and the FBI.
Congressional sources told RealClearInvestigations
the material is classified
"TS/SCI," which stands for Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information
. -
RealClear
Investigations
Horowitz said that he has asked Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray to
work with the CIA and Office of the Director of National Intelligence to figure out if the
intercepted material can be rewritten to allow congress to see it. Once appropriately redacted to
protect "sources and methods," said Horowitz, he hopes that members of congress can then go to the
secure reading room in the basement of the Capitol Building, called the "tank," and view the
materials.
"We very much want the committee to see this information," Horowitz said.
For some strange reason, CNN, WaPo and the New York Times have uncritically taken Lynch, Clinton
and Wasserman Schultz's denials at face value, dismissing the compromising information as possibly
fake and unreliable. Horowitz even quotes non-FBI "witnesses" in his report describing the secret
information as "objectively false."
FBI Sandbagging
While the FBI apparently took the intercept seriously, it never interviewed anyone named in it
until Clinton's email case was closed by Comey in July 2016. In August, the FBI informally quizzed
Lynch about the allegations - while Comey also reportedly confronted the former AG and was told to
leave her office.
Comey said he had doubts about Lynch's independence as early as September 2015 when she
called him into her office and asked him to minimize the probe by calling it "a matter" instead
of an "investigation," which aligned with Clinton campaign talking points. Then, just days
before FBI agents interviewed Clinton in July 2016, Lynch privately met with former President
Bill Clinton on her government plane while it was parked on an airport tarmac in Phoenix. In a
text message that has since been brought to light, the lead investigators on the case, Peter
Strzok and Lisa Page, made clear at the time their understanding that Lynch knew that "no
charges will be brought" against Clinton.
Renteria, the Clinton campaign official, who ran for governor of California but
failed to secure a top-two spot in the primary, insists the intelligence citing her was
disinformation created by Russian officials to dupe Americans and create discord and turmoil
during the election
. -
RealClear
Investigations
While Lynch has never been directly asked under oath by Congress about the allegation - she
swore in a July 2016 session in front of the House Judiciary Committee "I have not spoken to anyone
on either the [Clinton] campaign or transition or any staff members affiliated with them."
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) says he'll
issue a subpoena for Lynch
, but the panel's top Democrat Dianne Feinstein (CA) has to agree to
it per committee rules. Grassley also said he would be open to exploring immunity for Comey's
former #2, Andrew McCabe.
Feinstein may be hesitant to sign on, as she says she thinks Comey acted in good faith - which
means she thinks Congress shouldn't have a crack at questioning a key figure in the largest
political scandal in modern history.
"While I disagree with his actions, I have seen no evidence that Mr. Comey acted in bad faith or
that he lied about any of his actions," said Feinstein during a Monday Judiciary
panel hearing. Former Feinstein staffer and FBI investigator Dan Jones, meanwhile,
continues
to work with
Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS on a
$50
million investigation
privately funded by
George Soros
and other
"wealthy donors" to continue the investigation into Donald Trump.
Of interest, Amanda Renteria is also former Feinstein staffer. Also recall that
Feinstein leaked
Fusion
GPS founder Glenn Simpson's Congressional testimony in January.
Lynch was dinged in the IG report over an "ambiguous" incomplete recusal from the Clinton email
"matter" despite a clandestine 30-minute "tarmac" meeting with Bill Clinton
one
week before
the FBI exonerated Hillary Clinton
.
Interesting how a "dossier" full of falsehoods about Trump not only released to the public, but
was used by the FBI as part of an espionage operation on the Trump campaign - while an intercepted
communication from Russia is suddenly classified as so top-secret that even members of
Congressional intelligence oversight committees can't see it.
Vote up!
20
Vote down!
2
So the redacted emails, are those part of the
original Hillary server emails? If so, what about
the rest of the emails - I gotta know what kind of
yoga pants she prefers!
Or are they emails
between the russkies about stuff they saw in emails
exfiltrated from the DNC? Or from Podesta?
And why are the methods being protected? If
these documents are on a generically connected to
the internet server, there are plenty of ways those
could have been lifted. The only legitimate reason
behind protecting the method/source is that they
gleaned from official Russian networks behind
whatever firewalls/protections they employ for
classified information, otherwise this is the
$75,000 conference room table excuse.
My recent thought is they are all corrupt enough
that no one wants an out and out outing...... So
it drags along just threatening enough with hope
that Clintons die and then it just enough more
will be released to justify the whole drawn out
process....
Secret classification is intended to protect
national security.
Use of classification to
hide malfeasance or incompetence by
government agents is illegal.
When are we going to get a crackdown on
this? Justice should be rooting out those
who sign off on this classification and
putting them in jail, pure and simple.
Incarceration, felony stamp on the forehead,
cancellation of all government benefits and
pensions.
Purposefully withholding
the information won't sit
well with the population at
this point. With all
credibility at the Govt
level basically gone govt
officials can't block
public information without
taking a huge beating.
Someone needs to release
the info, if you don't
you'll be asking for a big
fight. This is not only
because of the Clinton
linkages but because it
involves how the whole case
against Hillary by Comey
was dismissed as
nothing...which we all know
now was not a nothing.
If people can't count on
equity in the judicial
system then you will have
angry mobs to deal with.
~One of the
intercepted documents
revealed an alleged
email from then-DNC
Chairwoman Wasserman
Schultz to an operative
working for billionaire
Democratic fundraiser
George Soros.~
Look this is not hard to understand. The NSA has
all the emails and data. If Trump wanted this to
come out he could order the military to seize
all the data and start the process for
prosecution. Ether in Military court or thru the
normal process.
It all goes to show, except
to trumptards that this is a charade. Theater
for the easily distracted to keep the peoples
eye's off the treason going on by those running
this shit show. Zionists of which Trumpenstien
is firmly in their grip.
Curious that Russian-sourced material against Trump is accepted as reliable
enough to go for a FISA warrant, but Russian-sourced material about Lynch
and other Clintonistas is presumed to be unreliable.
Curious that Russian-sourced material against Trump is accepted as
reliable enough to go for a FISA warrant, but Russian-sourced material
about Lynch and other Clintonistas is presumed to be unreliable.
Too bad we can't get the attention of the fickle public by bypassing the
corporate media's irresponsible coverage gaps on other issues, like the
mass underemployment of US citizens, the SS-retirement fund's shortfall
despite the fact that our welfare-buttressed workforce of
womb-productive citizens & noncitizens produced the biggest generation
of working-age youth in US history, global debt and all of these
currency issues that help to keep the rent too d****d high. Trump has
done pretty good, getting the ratings-only attention spans of the US
media focused back on the southern border and what a majority of not
just Deplorables, but American citizens at large, want done about [that
matter]. They have to cover the border in this histrionic way, with all
of the baby / mommy tear-jerking to raise their ratings. Trump and the
two Steves seem to be back on it. Wonder if it will last after the
midterms. Deplorables can only hope.
Trump could trump this by declassifying it all. The b.s. about it being so
top secret is just that. B.S. I am losing any hope that I had that the
swamp will be drained. The Dems control the narrative through their
constant crying and their control of the media. They also have their army
of unhinged brown shirts now roaming the streets looking for any
conservatives they can harass into submission. Soon it will come to the
point where conservatives will be too afraid to go out or speak out.
Republicans and their staffers are being advised to get conceal & carry
permits in D.C. now. Soon the body count will start. From what I see, the
left are the ones willing to do what it takes to take control. The right
just talks and talks and talks. Time for talking is just about past. The
left has declared open war (lead by crazy Auntie Max of all people)on
conservatives. Crickets from the other side.
Peter Strzok, the FBI counterintelligence agent removed from Special Counsel Robert
Mueller's Russia investigation over anti-Trump bias, appeared before a closed door session in
front of two House committees on Wednesday, where he tried to explain anti-Trump text exchanges
with his FBI mistress as " Just an intimate conversation between intimate friends, "
according to Texas Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee , quoting Strzok's description of the
controversial messages.
While Jackson Lee gladly accepted Strzok's answer, Republican Mark
Meadows of North Carolina wasn't buying it:
While Jackson Lee said she believed Strzok's account that his "intimate" messages didn't
reflect political bias in his work, Republican Representative Mark Meadows said, " None of my
concerns about political bias have been alleviated based on what I've heard so far ." -
Bloomberg
" If you have intimate personal conversations between two people, that normally would show
the intent more so than perhaps something that would be said out in public ," said Meadows.
Meadows said that some of the questions on Wednesday revolved around "who knew what when -
and what was the genesis of the Russia collusion investigation," into Trump's campaign.
Rep Matt Gaetz (R-FL) wasn't buying it either, as Sara Carter details : "
It was a waste -- Strzok is full of it and he kept hiding behind [the] classified information
excuse."
Others had similarly disappointed reactions: Freedom Caucus & Judiciary Committee
member, Matt Gaetz (R-FL) attended today's deposition and reacted to Strzok's testimony,
telling the Sean Hannity Radio Show, that " I am shocked at the lack of curiosity with Robert
Mueller. I mean Sean, if you were in Mueller's shoes, and you had found these text messages, I
would think that you would want to ask whether or not they impacted the investigative decisions
that were made, whether there was bias, whether there was contact with other members of the FBI
regarding the investigation and where it was going and who was making the critical judgment
calls," the Florida Congressman said. " I just cannot believe the lack of curiosity on the part
of Robert Mueller. It was the strongest reaction I had today from Peter Strzok's
testimony."
* * *
Strzok and his paramour Lisa Page - known as the FBI "lovebirds" - harbored extreme
political bias for Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump while actively involved in cases
against each candidate during the 2016 US election.
Their raging hatred of Donald Trump was discovered in a trove of over 50,000 texts between
Strzok and Page which were discovered by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz. While Strzok
was relegated to the HR department and marched out of his FBI office in mid-June, Page
tendered her resignation in May.
In one of the most controversial text exchanges - perhaps because the DOJ withheld it until
it came to light in the Inspector Genera's report, Page asks Strzok whether Trump will ever
become President:
Page: "(Trump's) not ever going to become president, right? Right?!"
Strzok: "No. No he's not. We'll stop it. "
After the Inspector Genera's report came out in mid-June, President Trump tweeted: "The IG
Report totally destroys James Comey and all of his minions including the great lovers, Peter
Strzok and Lisa Page, who started the disgraceful Witch Hunt against so many innocent
people."
The Judiciary Committee will be meeting with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI
Director Christopher Wray on Thursday to discuss the OIG report. Moreover, GOP Rep. Jim Jordan
of Ohio is expected to bring a House floor vote demanding that the DOJ turn over documents.
Also Thursday, a Republican resolution demanding that Rosenstein and the Justice
Department turn over more internal documents is expected to be brought to the House floor for
a vote. It will be a test of how widely Republicans back the push by party conservatives to
probe inner workings of the FBI and Justice Department and cast doubt on the legitimacy of
the continuing Russia probe. -
Bloomberg
"All we are asking for are documents we deserve to get -- and they are giving us the
finger," said Jordan.
Meanwhile, every Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to protest Jordan's
resolution on "emergency bias," as they say that it shows the committee "has been hijacked by
its most extreme majority members at the expense of upholding longstanding committee rules and
minority rights."
It was not exactly clear how Congress asking the DOJ to see documents related to a massive
political scandal constitute a hijacking.
No one ever mentions how fucking stupid the FBI idiots must be to have ever text this
stupidity with each other. These people are overpaid clowns. Get rid of them ALL.
Meet Mystery FBI "Agent 5" Who Sent Anti-Trump Texts While On Clinton Taint Team
by Tyler Durden
Fri, 06/22/2018 - 21:25 32.9K SHARES
A recently unmasked FBI agent who worked on the Clinton email investigation and exchanged
anti-Trump text messages with her FBI lover and other colleagues has been pictured for the
first time by the Daily Mail .
Sally Moyer, 44, who texted 'f**k Trump,' called President Trump's voters 'retarded' and
vowed to quit 'on the spot' if he won the election , was seen leaving her home early Friday
morning wearing a floral top and dark pants.
She shook her head and declined to discuss the controversy with a DailyMail.com reporter,
and ducked quickly into her nearby car in the rain without an umbrella before driving off. -
Daily Mail
Moyer - an attorney and registered Democrat identified in the Inspector General's report as
"Agent 5" is a veritable goldmine of hate, who had been working for the FBI since at least
September of 2006.
When Moyer sent the texts, she was on the "filter team" for the Clinton email investigation
- a group of FBI officials tasked with determining whether information obtained by the FBI is
considered "privileged" or if it can be used in the investigation - also known as a taint team
.
Moyer exchanged most of the messages with another FBI agent who worked on the Clinton
investigation, identified as 'Agent 1' in the report.
Moyer and Agent 1 were in a romantic relationship at the time, and the two have since
married , according the report. Agent 1's name is being withheld. -
Daily Mail
Some of Moyer's greatest hits:
"fuck Trump"
"screw you trump"
"She [Hillary] better win... otherwise i'm gonna be walking around with both of my guns.
"
Moyer also called Ohio Trump supporters "retarded"
"Agent 1" who is now married to Moyer, referred to Hillary Clinton as "the President" after
interviewing the Democratic candidate as part of the email investigation.
Another FBI official, Kevin Clinesmith, 36, sent similar text messages. A graduate of
Georgetown Law, Clinesmith - referred to in the Inspector General's report as "Attorney 2," -
texted several colleagues lamenting the "destruction of the Republic" after former FBI Director
James Comey reopened the Clinton email investigation.
In response to a colleague asking he had changed his views on Trump, Clinesmith responded "
Hell no. Viva le resistance ," a reference to the Trump opposition movement that clamed to be
coordinating with officials inside the Trump administration.
Two high-ranking FBI officials - Peter Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page, were discovered by
the Inspector General to have sent over 50,000 text messages to each other - many of which
showed the two harbored extreme bias aginst Trump and for Hillary Clinton. Like Moyer and
"Agent 1," Strzok and Page worked on the Clinton email investigation.
Note, female plumbing and a law degree have been the only real qualifications Hillary
Clinton had. Anyone who backed such an obvious criminal and worked within the FBI has
questionable assets to be in the FBI.
They pushed Clinton on us because she was a woman and because there are hundreds, if not
hundreds of thousands of high powered hands that have been greased by her and Billy. The
server wasn't about national security.
It was about hiding dirty deals and treason. Did Hillary have a plan other than to
continue to turn the USA over to the UN and other international neofascist, socialist
organizations? We were always referred to her website for her plans. The Democratic Party no
longer cares for the Constitution. Which means they have no charter with which to order us
around.
Really need to get Mueller in front of a TV camera to explain why Strzok/Page were removed
from his investigation, but deemed not biased in the IG report. Like to see how he threads
that needle.
I'm beginning to think the IG report is intended to provide a firewall between all the
eager-to-please go-getters who stepped over the line and the upper levels of the DoJ and the
Obama White House. The theme that was leaked ahead of time was that Comey was insubordinate
and did what he wanted (looks to be partially true), gives a great background where the
higher ups can shake their heads and say 'we only wanted impartial investigations'. The
problem being Lowretta's tarmac meeting with Bill. She had to get something out of that
meeting - and nailing down what she got would really shake the house of cards. Wonder if she
suddenly had the cash for a beach front home.
Perhaps not. Loretta owes her existence to Bill, she's smart/dumb enough not to leverage
against anything he demands of her- she's seen up-close how it goes when you say "no" to the
Clintons.
The entire Clinton administration is loyal to Bill- that's his one power. I went to school
with a guy who worked in Bill's inner circle in the White House- a guy who I thought was
capable of critical thinking.... He told me Bill's charm with people was unreal- if he told
you to kill your mother to make him happy, you'd find a way to do it;
To this day, my friend still doesn't understand how, but he knows he was under that
Clinton spell. And no, his mother isn't around anymore....
After 9/11 Mueller decided to change the make up of the FBI, he wanted nerds. This was
written in many articles of how Mueller was staffing the FBI with a new FBI. Considering
Mueller's actions at the FBI, I would say he shouldn't be in charge of anything....
Old lost stories from the past are never correlated to the future events it causes. The
media refuses to tell the truth on anything. The media workers who lie are the same as the
FBI agents and the entire government that lies, it is accepted by the Deep State to lie
because they are the rulers, not congress and a president, that's for show.
Here's a good one, when Obama went to Harvard, it was a major program to bring people from
other countries and pay their way, it became Harvard's new method of operation to deflect and
to escape critical comments about Legacy, which means if a parent went to Harvard, then one
can get into Harvard ahead of everyone else. So the reason Obama will not release any data on
Harvard is because he said he was from Kenya to get in and to have his way paid because he
was considered a foreigner.
Very interesting and perceptive. I listen to talk show hosts in the independent media who
bemoan lack of accountability: "Why is nobody indicted? Why isn't [a particular sociopath] in
jail?" The answer is simple, and you just provided it.
Yes, this government is corrupt in its entirety, bloated and twisted beyond recognition.
Once an organization is hijacked by sociopaths, complete destruction is just a matter of
time, but the trouble is, unless their power is taken away, the sociopaths get to do much
more damage, as they take down everyone else with them. i know; I've witnessed in microcosm
(a medium-sized business). Small wonder that they want to disenfranchise and disempower the
electorate. Sociopaths fear a reckoning.
Will there BE a reckoning? Just look at what some of the worst scum are getting away with
over the last few decades. Does anybody seriously believe the time will come again when
crowds gather around lampstands?
USA used to be the most respectable and respected nation in the world. Talk to people
around the world now, and you find it's just an object of pity and scorn.
If the many managerial positions are assumed by individuals deprived of sufficient
abilities to feel and understand the majority of other people, and who also exhibit
deficiencies in technical imagination and practical skills - (faculties indispensable for
governing economic and political matters) - this then results in an exceptionally serious
crisis in all areas, both within the country in question and with regard to international
relations. Within, the situation becomes unbearable even for those citizens who were able
to feather their nest into a relatively comfortable modus vivendi. Outside, other societies
start to feel the pathological quality of the phenomenon quite distinctly. Such a state of
affairs cannot last long. One must then be prepared for ever more rapid changes, and also
behave with great circumspection. (2nd. ed., p. 140)
It is time for thee, LORD, to work: for they have made void thy law . Ps 119:126, KJV
"USA used to be the most respectable and respected nation in the world. Talk to people
around the world now, and you find it's just an object of pity and scorn."
The world was taught that JFK was an anomaly cancelled out by Apollo and that Korea and
Vietnam were anomalies too.
Since then we have had the obvious false flag of 9/11 and the world learned the hard way
that Korea and Vietnam were the normal and peace was the anomaly, and that Apollo was also a
pack of lies, the world has also seen the US break every agreement it ever made including big
ones like the ABM. In breaking the Iran agreement and staying in Syria the world has learned
that the US supports ISIS and cannot be trusted at any level or at any time.
Parallel to the externally visible decline of the US the infrastructure was abandoned at
the same time as it's principals and morals: Bush junior, to have had 260,000 people ar
Oroville put into danger as a dam nearly collapsed due to lack of a basic and well known low
cost venturi fix to eliminate cavitation on the spillway from eating the containment.
Added to this the US is still making bad decision after bad decision (hosting the World
cup next is the latest - that will backfire badly) as all its decision making is overtly now
taken by Israel - it's not going to end well.
We've been Tyrannically Lawless for so long that when even the most logical laws are
broken, enforcing them becomes impossible with the constant barrage of Deep State PsyOp
carried out by their Presstitute appendages.
The Criminal actions of spying, Political Persecution & Espionage carried out by
highly Compartmentalized Levels of the CIA, FBI & DOJ on a Presidential Candidate should
be indicative of the absolute, complete, open, in your Faces Tyrannical Lawlessness the
Republic and The American People find themselves in today.
The National Security Elimination Act of 2018
The United States survived quite nicely for 130+ years with neither a Criminal FBI, CIA,
IRS nor the Federal Reserve. Let's return to those better days ASAP.
Would precisely achieve that objective & more by recentrailizing the "Intelligence"
Agencies. By Elimination of rouge Criminal Agencies such as the Pure Evil War Criminal
Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths at & in the CIA.
So what Criminals at large Obama, Clapper & Lynch have done 17 days prior to former
CEO Criminal Obama leaving office was to Decentralize & weaken the NSA. As a result, Raw
Intel gathering was then regulated to the other 16 Intel Agencies.
Thus, taking Centuries Old Intelligence based on a vey stringent Centralized British
Model, De Centralized it, filling the remaining 16 Intel Agenices with potential Spies and a
Shadow Deep State Mirror Government.
And, If Obama, Lynch & Clapper all agreed 17 days out to change the surveillance
structure of the NSA. What date exectly did the changes occur in relation to the first FISA
request for the Trump Wire Taps? (We now know that the Criminal FISA requests occurred in
October 2016.)
Elimination of the Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths in the Deep
State & CIA.
As easily as The National Security Act was signed in 1947 it can & must be
Eliminated.
Former Secret Serviceman, Gary Byrne, who filed rico against Clinton, Soros, Brock and
others a few days ago, said it best. The secret service doesn't work to protect the
President. It works to protect the Secret Service. So does the FBI, DOJ, HUD and all the
other Federal bureaucracies. They don't work for us, they work for them. They are aiding and
abetting the theft of trillions from us, people who work for a living. No one else pays
taxes, as the rich, many who work for a living very hard (witness our President, who at age
72 can work rings around about every bureaucrat in DC), get their money from those who work
for a living, directly or indirectly.
This begs the question, why so much resistance in Trump fixing trade and immigration? We
must ask also, why is the Constitution not being taught in schools? Not just the first
amendment, but the limitations of Washington DC, which seems to get its power from the
preamble, throwing all other limitations of the DC government contained in the body of
Article 1, 2 and 3 out the window. Who gets the bill for trade imbalances? Who gets the
money? The entire economy is a balance sheet. Is there so much debt around the world that it
requires the mortgaging of every piece of real estate and improvements to support it? What
about gold and silver coin, which kept debt in check along with trade? Bank runs were really
only bad for bankers. Massive supplies of unskilled labor merely keeps those jobs cheap and
the unskilled, who develop skills never get paid. The education system is a costly farce and
over 1/2 of Americans have no business in college, or for that matter, high school after
about the 8th grade. Why is the United States being drained of its capital?
Do you think it has stopped. The career management is still in place and will not rooted
out.
The FBI, and others IRS for example), have evolved into a political strong arm agency,
with an agenda. They will shield illegal activity they fell supports their agenda. They will
use selective enforcement to stomp down their political opponents. They will use false
persecution to destroy their political opponents, including the use of false evidence, false
"professional interpretation" of data/info while on the witness stand, entrapment, special
deals for those who provide the needed testimony and so on.
As far as I'm concerned the entirety of the 17 three-letter Gestapo* (Geheime
Staatspolizei) agencies are fucking domestic enemies. It's getting close to the point where
we all just say fuck it, kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out, if that is it's his day to
give a fuck, which I hope it isn't.
*The Gestapo was modeled on the FBI, not the other way around folks.
Good point. I'd forgotten about their good buddies in the Cheka and successors, OGPU, NKVD
People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs (Narodnyi Komissariat Vnutrennikh Del) and KGB
(Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti).
"... Comey's memo was a key component in Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's decision to launch a special counsel investigation headed by former FBI Director Robert Mueller. ..."
"... Some have also suggested ( Paul Sperry to be exact) that Cambridge professor and FBI "informant" (spy) Stefan Halper, may have had a much larger role in the operation. ..."
"... Halper is a longtime spook whose ex-father-in-law, Ray Cline , was the former chief Soviet analyst and Deputy Director of the CIA from 1962 - 1966. Halper also spied on the Carter campaign during the 1980 election for Reagan - whose Vice President was former CIA director George H.W. Bush ( Ray Cline denied the spying took place). ..."
"... Papadopoulos' statement of offense also detailed his April 26, 2016, meeting with Mifsud at a London hotel. Over breakfast Mifsud told Papadopoulos "he had just returned from a trip to Moscow where he had met with high-level Russian governmental officials." Mifsud explained "that on that trip he (the Professor) learned that the Russians had obtained 'dirt' on then-candidate Clinton." Mifsud told Papadopoulos "the Russians had emails of Clinton." - The Federalist ..."
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) says he'll issue subpoenas for former FBI Director James Comey and former Attorney
General Loretta Lynch, but the panel's top Democrat Dianne Feinstein (CA) has to agree to it per committee rules. Grassley also said
he would be open to exploring immunity for Comey's former #2, Andrew McCabe.
"I will want to subpoena him," Grassley said of Comey during an appearance on C-SPAN's Newsmakers ."
The Iowan added that committee rules require that he and Feinstein "agree to it, and at this point I can't tell you if she
would agree to it. But if she will, yeah, then we will subpoena . " -
Politico
Feinstein may be hesitant to sign on, as she says she thinks Comey acted in good faith - which means she thinks Congress shouldn't
have a crack at questioning a key figure in the largest political scandal in modern history.
"While I disagree with his actions, I have seen no evidence that Mr. Comey acted in bad faith or that he lied about any of his
actions," said Feinstein during a Monday Judiciary panel hearing. Former Feinstein staffer and FBI investigator Dan Jones, meanwhile,
continues to work with Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS on a
$50 million investigation privately funded by George Soros and other "wealthy donors" to continue the investigation into Donald
Trump.
Also recall that
Feinstein
leaked Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson's Congressional testimony in January.
Comey skipped out on appearing before Grassley's committee this week following the June 14 release of DOJ Inspector General Michael
Horowitz's (OIG) report on FBI conduct during the Hillary Clinton email investigation - which dinged Comey for being "insubordinate"
and showing poor judgement. Horowitz is conducting a separate investigation into the FBI's counterintelligence operation on the Trump
campaign, including allegations of FISA surveillance abuse.
Maybe Comey also decided to bail after Horowitz admitted on Monday that
he's under a separate investigation for mishandling classified information after leaking a memo to the press documenting what
he felt was President Trump obstructing the FBI's probe into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn - which was conducted
by the FBI under dubious circumstances, and for which evidence may have been
tampered
with .
Comey's memo was a key component in Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's decision to launch a special counsel investigation
headed by former FBI Director Robert Mueller.
Loretta Lynch, on the other hand , was dinged in the IG report over an "ambiguous" incomplete recusal from the Clinton email "matter"
despite a clandestine 30-minute "tarmac" meeting with Bill Clinton
one week before the FBI exonerated
Hillary Clinton .
All part of the bigger picture...
Despite IG Horowitz ultimately concluding that pro-Clinton / anti-Trump bias among the FBI's top brass did not make its way into
the Clinton email investigation, his report revealed alarming facts about FBI officials handling parallel investigations into each
candidate who received vastly different treatment.
For starters, it's clear that the FBI rushed to wrap up the Clinton email investigation before the election, while at the same
time the agency launched an open-ended counterintelligence operation against those in Trump's orbit.
We also know that opposition research paid for by Hillary Clinton was used by the FBI to justify surveilling the Trump campaign
- while new facts point to a multi-pronged campaign of espionage and deceit spanning several continents, governments and agencies
which was deployed at the highest levels in an effort to undermine Donald Trump before and after the 2016 U.S. election.
Some have also suggested ( Paul Sperry to be exact) that Cambridge
professor and FBI "informant" (spy) Stefan Halper, may have had a much larger role in the operation.
Halper is a longtime spook whose ex-father-in-law, Ray Cline , was the
former chief Soviet analyst and Deputy Director of the CIA from 1962 - 1966. Halper also
spied on the Carter campaign during the 1980 election for Reagan - whose Vice President was former CIA director
George H.W. Bush (
Ray Cline denied the spying took place).
From 2012 - 2017, the Pentagon under Obama awarded Halper over
$1 million in "research" contracts - nearly half of which was awarded during the 2016 US election .
Then there's the mysterious Maltese professor, Joseph Mifsud - a key witness in the Mueller investigation who
disappeared last fall , and who told Trump aide George Papadopoulos that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton. Papadopoulos would
drunkenly repeat the rumor to seasoned Australian diplomat (and
Clinton ally ) Alexander Downer in a London Bar, only to be construed by the FBI as potential collusion in order to justify their
counterintelligence operation against Trump.
And just Monday Trump advisor Roger Stone said that a
second FBI informant , Henry Greenberg, tried to entrap the Trump campaign with an offer to sell dirt on Hillary Clinton in exchange
for $2 million.
While the entire mosaic of events is multi-faceted and requires perhaps the world's biggest corkboard - here's a basic timeline
of various espionage or other spycraft conducted against the Trump campaign.
Papadopoulos' statement of offense also detailed his April 26, 2016, meeting with Mifsud at a London hotel. Over breakfast
Mifsud told Papadopoulos "he had just returned from a trip to Moscow where he had met with high-level Russian governmental officials."
Mifsud explained "that on that trip he (the Professor) learned that the Russians had obtained 'dirt' on then-candidate Clinton."
Mifsud told Papadopoulos "the Russians had emails of Clinton." -
The Federalist
May 10, 2016 - Papadopoulos tells this to former Australian Diplomat Alexander Downer during an alleged "
drunken barroom admission ."
Late May, 2016 - Roger Stone is approached by Greenberg with the $2 million offer for dirt on Clinton
July 2016 - FBI informant (spy) Stefan Halper meets with Trump campaign aide Carter Page for the first time, which would be one
of many encounters.
July 31, 2016 - the FBI officially launches operation
Crossfire Hurricane , the code name given to the counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign.
September, 2016 - Halper invites Papadopoulos to London, paying him $3,000 to work on an energy policy paper while wining and
dining him at a 200-year-old private London club on September 15.
While the FBI has yet to find any evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, they were able to use information Mifsud
planted with Papadopoulos to launch a
counterintelligence operation .
And as new facts and revelations continue to emerge, and IG Horowitz continues to unravel the FBI's counterintelligence operation
on Donald Trump, several rank-and-file FBI employees say
they want Congress to subpoena them so that they can step forward and testify against Comey and Andrew McCabe.
Funny - for two "innocent" people, Comey and Lynch want the exact opposite!
~Grassley also said he would be open to exploring immunity for Comey's former #2, Andrew McCabe.~
Screw you, Chuck. No one gets immunity. Stay the fuck out of what should be the business of a federal criminal grand jury.
Diane has enough trouble of her own with the leaky aide.
No, I think she will. They have the goods on her for leaking like a sieve through her aide and on to the entry level Pulitzer
Prize media whore (remember, they raided the newspaper. The goods are still there).
Rumor has it there is a subpoena waiting for DiFi out there. It would be best if she complied.
If two or more
persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States , conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the
United States , or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder,
or delay the execution of any law of the
United States , or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the
United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty
years, or both.
We don't need Commey and Lynch questioned by those losers on Capitol Hill, that is a waste of money and time. What is required
is a DOJ inquiry, or better yet, a special council for the HRC Mail Server and Corruption in the Meuller probe.
I am normally against a special council, but in this case the DOJ is clearly biased. They should get to the bottom of the crimes
committed by hillery on her mail server including realated crime transacted on the server like uranium one. That is what the FBI
would do to us, and they should be no different. Equal protection under the law means equal punishment under the law as well.
An additional special council should be formed to get to the bottom of the FISA warrant to used for surveillance on the Trump
team and find out if there was any malfeasance obtaining those warrants. This would also bring up the question of whether the
meuller probe obstructed justice by obscuring exonerating evidence that the probe was established with junk evidence.
If a good prosecutor was used, there is enough evidence in the public forum now to throw a bunch of the obama administration
in prison for political corruption and the higher echelon members of the FBI in jail for bribery. That's right, the FBI can't
take gifts, even if the media are offering them. This is corruption of the highest order and our country will not survive this
if it is not prosecuted properly.
IF WE WANT THE SWAMP DRAINED PEOPLE HAVE TO GO TO PRISON FOR LIFE TO PUT THE FEAR OF GOD AND THE PEOPLE BACK INTO BUTEAUCRATS.
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed publicly Monday that his
office is investigating James Comey for his handling of classified information as part of memos
he shared documenting discussions with President Trump.
The inspector general's comments confirmed reports dating back to April that the ex-FBI
director was facing scrutiny, amid revelations that at least two of the memos he shared with
his friend, Columbia University Professor Daniel Richman, contained information now deemed
classified.
The confirmation came during Monday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, where Horowitz and
FBI Director Christopher Wray testified on the findings in the IG's report on the handling of
the Hillary Clinton email probe.
"We received a referral on that from the FBI," Horowitz said, in response to questioning
from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, about the Comey memos. "We are
handling that referral and we will issue a report when the matter is complete and consistent
with the law and rules." Comey, back in April, confirmed to Fox News' Bret Baier that the IG's
office had interviewed him with regard to the memos, but downplayed the questions over
classified information as "frivolous" -- saying the real issue was whether he complied with
internal policies.
Grassley, though, told Horowitz on Monday, "I don't happen to think that is frivolous."
Comey, in testimony before Congress last year, acknowledged he shared the memos with the
intention of leaking to the press and spurring the appointment of a special counsel.
In April, Fox News initially learned that Horowitz was looking into whether classified
information was given to unauthorized sources as part of a broader review of Comey's
communications outside the bureau -- including media contact.
Comey, whom Trump fired in May 2017, denied that sharing the memos with his legal team
constituted a leak of classified information. Instead, he compared the process to keeping "a
diary."
"I didn't consider it part of an FBI file," Comey said. "It was my personal aide-memoire I
always thought of it as mine."
In his testimony last year before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Comey said he made the
decision to document the interactions in a way that would not trigger security
classification.
But in seven Comey memos handed over to Congress in April, eight of the 15 pages had
redactions under classified exceptions.
"... "The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally feared" -Well, obviously; or Hillary would be President NOW ..."
"... The Deep State may not have been very competent ( Gee,whudda surprise!)) but– it's still in place. And that fact alone should make all of us uneasy. ..."
"... I'm satisfied that we have the final word on Clinton's guilt and the special treatment she and her staff were given by criminal investigators who believed she was going to win the election. ..."
"... I think a good book to explain what we are seeing is The Fiefdom Syndrome by Robert Herbold. That highlights how various managers set up their own sub organizations in a groups. It focuses on the corporate model yet it can equally apply to any other human organization. ..."
"... Comey took Lynch completely off the hook. She had not recused herself from the case. Prosecution or not was her decision, not Comey's. And even if she had recused herself, the decision would have gone to Yates. Lynch had no good options. If she had said there were no grounds for prosecution, she would have been crucified for partisanship. If she had decided that Clinton should be prosecuted, all hell would have broken loose. Well, there is no way she would have ever made the decision to prosecute, but point is, Comey took her completely off the hook. No wonder Lynch made no big deal about his "insubordination". ..."
"... there were NO pro-Trump factions inside the Bureau. ..."
"... What anti-Clinton faction? Every one of the five agents identified as sending politically biased communications was anti-Trump. As best I can determine every decision by biased decision makers that Horowitz is baffled by, or reports himself "unpersuaded" by the explanations advanced, was anti-Trump. Even when Strzok writes a text message that Horowitz admits is a smoking gun (~"We'll stop Trump") Horowitz says it's no biggie because other decision-makers were involved, "unbiased" ones like, explicitly, Bill Priestap, he of the procedures-violating spy launch against Trump BEFORE any investigation was opened! ..."
"... The real take away is that the Deep State is a reality, far more entrenched than anyone of us knows. Whether it is particularly competent or not ( compared to what? Government in general? ) is irrelevant. No one of any stature in any part of the government bureaucracy will be held accountable ever. They never are. As soon as the media circus moves on, it will be back to business as usual in DC. ..."
"... Speaking of idiocracy, some personal emails between FBI agents were made public this week with the release of the IG report. They give a glimpse into the infantilisation of our ruling "class". It is clear that fatherlessness and the replacement of education with indoctrination have produced a generation of child-men and child-women who view the State as parent, provider, deity (even as lover – supplier of ideologically acceptable bed-mates). ..."
"... jp: "Hard to see how the FBI's mistakes didn't benefit one candidate over the other." That's the standard line from the Clinton campaign. They believe everything begins and ends with Comey causing her to lose. Of course, they never mention why the FBI was investigating her, personally, and key members of her State Dept. staff, not her campaign by the way. ..."
"... The FBI may have hurt her campaign, but only because they were doing their job, albiet badly. She hurt her campaign infinitely by breaking the law and compromising national security, which required a criminal probe into her lawbreaking. ..."
"... Dave: "Peter and Lisa were 2 cops talking about a criminal." Well, that's one more reason not to trust federal law enforcement. I can cite the criminal statutes Hillary Clinton was being personally investigated for. Can anyone cite any criminal statute that Donald Trump was being personally investigated for at the same time? Was he even being personally investigated? A counterintelligence investigation is not a criminal investigation. ..."
"a chaotic cluster of competing pro- and anti- Clinton/Trump factions inside the Bureau"
Which is what the FBI looked like at the time and over the last two years, the
anti-Clinton faction seeming to be centered in New York, and the anti-Trump faction in, what,
D.C.?
This report merely provides more talking points for politicians. And, talk they will.
IG Michael Horowitz had a specific mandate. It was to investigate "violations of criminal
and civil law." It was not to investigate breaches of protocol and bureaucratic
regulations.
This report makes no allegations of criminal activity. As such, it can only be read as
exonerating those under investigation, of same. The ultimate remedy for "breaches of protocol and bureaucratic regulations" is termination
of employment. And, Comey has already been fired. The rest is irrelevant and/or superfluous.
Agreed. the report sheds light on some truly incompetent (and unprofessional, inappropriate
behavior). Disagree – the 'deep state' is behind this. perhaps the most depressing
aspect of this circus is the realization there was incompetence and malfeasance in the Obama
administration. there was incompetence and malfeasance in the Clinton campaign.
There was incompetence and malfeasance in the DoJ, there was incompetence and malfeasance
in the Trump campaign, and there is a whole lot of incompetence and malfeasance in the
current administration. see where this is going? "malfeasance" recognized and leveraged by
"foreign actors" (some other 'deep state' as it were) demonstrates competence in terms of
their job(s).
I am reminded of the Seinfeld episode in which "Puddy" and "Elaine" meet with a priest to
discuss their relationship and its impact on their eternal lives – with Puddy being
Christian and Elaine not. the priest says, "oh that's easy, you're both going to hell "
"It will be too easy, however, to miss the most important conclusion of the report: there is
no longer a way to claim America's internal intelligence agency, the FBI, did not play a role
in the 2016 election."
SO we are expected to believe the FBI, et. al; never played a role before? Spare me
"The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally feared" -Well, obviously; or Hillary would be President NOW
Way funny, this! And all the time we've been looking for enemies abroad-in this case the
Rooshians-the real enemy was right in our own backyard. The Deep State may not have been very
competent ( Gee,whudda surprise!)) but– it's still in place. And that fact alone should
make all of us uneasy.
If you are going to have a deep state, and in a large nation, it does seem necessary, then it
should be a meritocracy. Clearly the system of recruiting high level officials from certain
Ivy League schools does not result in a meritocracy.
Erik: "It was not to investigate breaches of protocol and bureaucratic regulations."
Well, he did, and thank goodness. I'm satisfied that we have the final word on Clinton's guilt and the special treatment she
and her staff were given by criminal investigators who believed she was going to win the
election.
If that's not political bias, then we need another word for it. Political consideration in
the outcome of a criminal probe.
Think about that if it had been a GOP candidate, what would the progressives be saying
about the same behavior?
I think a good book to explain what we are seeing is The Fiefdom Syndrome by Robert Herbold. That highlights how various managers set up
their own sub organizations in a groups. It focuses on the corporate model yet it can equally
apply to any other human organization.
What I find amusing is the emphasis on texts between Strzok and Page. They sure were sloppy
in using govt cell phones for their texting. However, at the end of the day, their texts were
the equivalent of pillow talk. What's the remedy? Everybody wear a wire to bed to trap people
in the act of gossiping? Does anybody think that these casual conversations go on all the
time. There is no group of people more cynical that law enforcement people.
At the end of the day, people did their jobs and prevented their opinions from the proper
execution of their jobs.
Comey took Lynch completely off the hook. She had not recused herself from the case.
Prosecution or not was her decision, not Comey's. And even if she had recused herself, the
decision would have gone to Yates. Lynch had no good options. If she had said there were no
grounds for prosecution, she would have been crucified for partisanship. If she had decided
that Clinton should be prosecuted, all hell would have broken loose. Well, there is no way
she would have ever made the decision to prosecute, but point is, Comey took her completely
off the hook. No wonder Lynch made no big deal about his "insubordination".
H. Clinton squirreled away over 30 thousand emails into a private server. I am reliably
informed that if any other federal employee pulled a move like that they would have been
fired, with loss of pension and possible jail time in as much as this is grand jury fodder.
Not ol' Hillary though.
"There is only to argue which side they favored and whether they meddled via clumsiness, as a
coordinated action, or as a chaotic cluster of competing pro- and anti- Clinton/Trump
factions inside the Bureau. "
More fake news – there were NO pro-Trump factions inside the Bureau.
Michael Kenny
June 15, 2018 at 11:29 am
The important point is that Trump has no need to worry about any of this if he really is as
innocent as he claims. In fact, infiltrated informers, wiretaps etc. are a godsend to Trump
if he's innocent because they prove that innocence. Thus, Trump's making such a fuss about
these things is a tacit admission of guilt.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
Yes, of course. Because if someone spied on you looking for a crime of which you were
innocent, you'd be totally ok with it and would keep quiet. Only someone who's guilty of a
crime would speak up being spied upon.
"There is only to argue whether they meddled via clumsiness, as a coordinated action, or as a
chaotic cluster of competing pro- and anti- Clinton/Trump factions inside the Bureau."
What anti-Clinton faction? Every one of the five agents identified as sending politically
biased communications was anti-Trump. As best I can determine every decision by biased
decision makers that Horowitz is baffled by, or reports himself "unpersuaded" by the
explanations advanced, was anti-Trump. Even when Strzok writes a text message that Horowitz
admits is a smoking gun (~"We'll stop Trump") Horowitz says it's no biggie because other
decision-makers were involved, "unbiased" ones like, explicitly, Bill Priestap, he of the
procedures-violating spy launch against Trump BEFORE any investigation was opened!
To believe Horowitz' conclusions about lack of bias in decision making you have to be as
willfully reluctant to connect the dots as he is. And I'm not, nor should you be.
The real take away is that the Deep State is a reality, far more entrenched than anyone of us
knows. Whether it is particularly competent or not ( compared to what? Government in general?
) is irrelevant. No one of any stature in any part of the government bureaucracy will be held
accountable ever. They never are. As soon as the media circus moves on, it will be back to
business as usual in DC.
Those Russians are so clever. They trained agents for a lifetime to master accents of rural
Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin then duped the bible thumping gun lovers into rejecting her
highness Hillary. The immense Russian powers are extraordinary when one considers the Russian
economy is smaller than Texas.
But seriously, we had eight years of a Democratic president and people had enough and
chose a Republican even though he was outspent. That is the consistent pattern. After Trump
another Democrat will move into the White House.
Speaking of idiocracy, some personal emails between FBI agents were made public this week
with the release of the IG report.
They give a glimpse into the infantilisation of our ruling "class". It is clear that
fatherlessness and the replacement of education with indoctrination have produced a
generation of child-men and child-women who view the State as parent, provider, deity (even
as lover – supplier of ideologically acceptable bed-mates).
A cosmic ignorance radiates from these email exchanges. These agents appear to have been
dropped here from another planet. They not only seem to have been disconnected from or to
have forgotten the Civilisation that gave birth to the society in which they live, but they
seem never to have had any knowledge or awareness of it in the first place.
(Reading between the lines, deducing their "principles" from their mentality, one could
confidently conclude that these adolescents truly believe that State is God and Marx is His
prophet.)
They're going to get away with it with no adequately serious repercussions meaning they're
competent enough, aren't they? That also means they won't be properly deterred and will
simply do it better next time.
jp: "Hard to see how the FBI's mistakes didn't benefit one candidate over the other." That's the standard line from the Clinton campaign. They believe everything begins and
ends with Comey causing her to lose. Of course, they never mention why the FBI was investigating her, personally, and key
members of her State Dept. staff, not her campaign by the way.
The FBI may have hurt her campaign, but only because they were doing their job, albiet
badly. She hurt her campaign infinitely by breaking the law and compromising national security,
which required a criminal probe into her lawbreaking.
If you're going to fault the FBI, you can't then not fault Secretary Clinton. The two go
hand-in-hand, and she comes first in the chain of event.
Case closed. Though she didn't get her just desserts in court, at least she received
political justice. 🙂
Dave: "Peter and Lisa were 2 cops talking about a criminal." Well, that's one more reason not to trust federal law enforcement. I can cite the criminal statutes Hillary Clinton was being personally investigated
for. Can anyone cite any criminal statute that Donald Trump was being personally investigated
for at the same time? Was he even being personally investigated? A counterintelligence investigation is not a criminal investigation.
In a way we now can talk about Intelligence Industrial complex
Notable quotes:
"... The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally feared. ..."
"... In a damning passage , the 568 page report found it "extraordinary and insubordinate for Comey to conceal his intentions from his superiors for the admitted purpose of preventing them from telling him not to make the statement, and to instruct his subordinates in the FBI to do the same. By departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the department as fair administrators of justice." Comey's drafting of a press release announcing no prosecution for Clinton, written before the full investigation was even completed, is given a light touch though in the report, along the lines of roughly preparing for the conclusion based on early indications. ..."
"... Enough: The DOJ Must Show Its Cards to the American Public A Higher Loyalty is Jim Comey's Revenge, Served Lukewarm ..."
"... Attorney General Loretta Lynch is criticized for not being more sensitive to public perceptions when she agreed to meet privately with Bill Clinton aboard an airplane as the FBI investigation into Hillary unfolded. "Lynch's failure to recognize the appearance problem and to take action to cut the visit short was an error in judgment." Her statements later about her decision not to recuse further "created public confusion and didn't adequately address the situation." ..."
"... Page and Strzok also discussed cutting back the number of investigators present for Clinton's in-person interview in light of the fact she might soon be president, and thus their new boss. Someone identified only as Agent One went on to refer to Clinton as "the President" and in a message told a friend "I'm with her." The FBI also allowed Clinton's lawyers to attend her interview, even though they were also witnesses to a possible crimes committed by Clinton. ..."
"... Page and Strzok were among five FBI officials the report found expressed hostility toward Trump and have been referred to the FBI's internal disciple system. The report otherwise makes only wishy-washy recommendations about things every agent should already know, like "adopting a policy addressing the appropriateness of department employees discussing the conduct of uncharged individuals in public statements." ..."
"... In that sense, the IG just poured a can of jet fuel onto the fires of the 2016 election and walked away to watch it burn. ..."
"... One concrete outcome, however, is to weaken a line of prosecution for Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The chief Russiagate investigator has just seen a key witness degraded -- any defense lawyer will characterize Comey's testimony as tainted now -- and a possible example of obstruction weakened. ..."
"... The report thus underscores one of the stated reasons for Comey's dismissal. Firing someone for incompetence isn't obstructing justice; it's the boss' job. ..."
"... the most important conclusion of the report: there is no longer a way to claim America's internal intelligence agency, the FBI, did not play a role in the 2016 election. There is only to argue which side they favored and whether they meddled via clumsiness, as a coordinated action, or as a chaotic cluster of competing pro- and anti- Clinton/Trump factions inside the Bureau. And that's the tally before anyone brings up the FBI's use of a human informant inside the Trump campaign, the FBI's use of both FISA warrants and pseudo-legal warrantless surveillance against key members of the Trump team, the FBI's use of opposition research from the Steele Dossier , and so on. ..."
June
15, 2018The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally
feared.
It will be easy to miss the most important point amid the partisan bleating over what the
Department of Justice Office of Inspector General report on the FBI's Clinton email
investigation really means.
While each side will find the evidence they want to find proving the FBI, with James Comey
as director, helped/hurt Hillary Clinton and/or maybe Donald Trump, the real takeaway is this:
the FBI influenced the election of a president.
In January 2017 the Inspector General for the Department of Justice, Michael Horowitz (who
previously worked on the 2012 study of "Fast and Furious"), opened his probe into the FBI's
Clinton email investigation, including public statements Comey made at critical moments in the
presidential campaign. Horowitz's focus was always to be on how the FBI did its work, not to
re-litigate the case against Clinton. Nor did the IG plan to look into anything regarding
Russiagate.
In a damning
passage , the 568 page report found it "extraordinary and
insubordinate for Comey to conceal his intentions from his superiors for the admitted purpose
of preventing them from telling him not to make the statement, and to instruct his subordinates
in the FBI to do the same. By departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and department
norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the department as fair
administrators of justice." Comey's drafting of a press release announcing no prosecution for
Clinton, written before the full investigation was even completed, is given a light touch
though in the report, along the lines of roughly preparing for the conclusion based on early
indications.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch is criticized for not being more sensitive to public
perceptions when she agreed to meet privately with Bill Clinton aboard an airplane as the FBI
investigation into Hillary unfolded. "Lynch's failure to recognize the appearance problem and
to take action to cut the visit short was an error in judgment." Her statements later about her
decision not to recuse further "created public confusion and didn't adequately address the
situation."
The report also
criticizes in depth FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who exchanged texts disparaging
Trump before moving from the Clinton email to the Russiagate investigation. Those texts
"brought discredit" to the FBI and sowed public doubt about the investigation, including one
exchange that read, "Page: "[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Strzok: "No.
No he's not. We'll stop it." Another Strzok document
stated "we know foreign actors obtained access to some Clinton emails, including at least
one secret message."
Page and Strzok also discussed cutting back the number of investigators present for
Clinton's in-person interview in light of the fact she might soon be president, and thus their
new boss. Someone identified only as Agent One went on to refer to Clinton as "the President"
and in a message told a friend "I'm with her." The FBI also allowed Clinton's lawyers to attend
her interview, even though they were also witnesses to a possible crimes committed by
Clinton.
Page and Strzok were among five FBI officials the report found expressed hostility
toward Trump and have been referred to the FBI's internal disciple system. The report otherwise
makes only wishy-washy recommendations about things every agent should already know, like
"adopting a policy addressing the appropriateness of department employees discussing the
conduct of uncharged individuals in public statements."
But at the end of it all, the details really don't matter, because the report broadly found
no political bias, no purposeful efforts or strategy to sway the election. In aviation disaster
terms, it was all pilot error. Like an accident of sorts, as opposed to the pilot boarding
drunk, but the plane crashed and killed 300 people either way.
The report is already being welcomed by Democrats -- who feel Comey
shattered Clinton's chances of winning the election by reopening the email probe just days
before the election -- and by Republicans, who feel Comey let Clinton off easy. Many are now
celebrating it was only gross incompetence, unethical behavior, serial bad judgment, and
insubordination that led the FBI to help determine the election. No Constitutional crisis.
A lot of details in those 568 pages to yet fully parse, but at first glance there is not
much worthy of prosecution (though Attorney General Jeff Sessions says he will review the
report for possible
prosecutions and IG Horowitz will testify in front of Congress on Monday and may reveal
more information.) Each side will point to the IG's conclusion of "no bias" to shut down calls
for this or that in a tsunami of blaming each other. In that sense, the IG just poured a
can of jet fuel onto the fires of the 2016 election and walked away to watch it burn.
One concrete outcome, however, is to weaken a line of
prosecution for Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The chief Russiagate investigator has just
seen a key witness degraded -- any defense lawyer will characterize Comey's testimony as
tainted now -- and a possible example of obstruction weakened. As justification for firing
Comey, the White House initially pointed to an earlier Justice Department memo criticizing
Comey for many of the same actions now highlighted by the IG (Trump later added concerns about
the handling of Russiagate.) The report thus underscores one of the stated reasons for
Comey's dismissal. Firing someone for incompetence isn't obstructing justice; it's the boss'
job.
It will be too easy, however, to miss the most important conclusion of the report: there
is no longer a way to claim America's internal intelligence agency, the FBI, did not play a
role in the 2016 election. There is only to argue which side they favored and whether they
meddled via clumsiness, as a coordinated action, or as a chaotic cluster of competing pro- and
anti- Clinton/Trump factions inside the Bureau. And that's the tally before anyone brings up
the FBI's use of a human informant inside the Trump campaign, the FBI's use of both FISA
warrants and pseudo-legal
warrantless surveillance against key members of the Trump team, the FBI's use of opposition
research from the
Steele Dossier , and so on.
The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally feared. But even if
one fully accepts the IG report's conclusion that all this -- and there's a lot -- was not
intentional, at a minimum it makes clear to those watching ahead of 2020 what tools are
available and the impact they can have. While we continue to look for the bad guy abroad, we
have already met the enemy and he is us.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the
Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People and Hooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. Follow him on Twitter
@WeMeantWell .
"... "take immediate action on the Weiner laptop" ..."
"... "willing to take official action to impact a presidential candidate's electoral prospects." ..."
"... "Under these circumstances, we did not have confidence that Strzok's decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the [Hillary Clinton]-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias," ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
The FBI's inquiry into hundreds of thousands of emails found on a laptop belonging to former
Congressman Anthony Weiner may have been improperly shelved to focus on the agency's Russia
investigation, a DOJ report states. A review of the FBI's investigations into Hillary Clinton's
use of a private email server by the DOJ inspector general
concluded that federal investigators failed to "take immediate action on the Weiner
laptop" due in part to a decision to "prioritize" the investigation into claims
that Donald Trump " colluded" with Russia.
The FBI leadership waited nearly a month after receiving initial information about the
laptop to reopen the investigation and notifying Congress about it, the IG report
shows.
Citing text messages written by FBI agent Peter Strzok, who said in one message that he
would "stop" then-candidate Trump from being elected, the report notes that federal
investigators may have been "willing to take official action to impact a presidential
candidate's electoral prospects."
"Under these circumstances, we did not have confidence that Strzok's decision to
prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the [Hillary Clinton]-related
investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias," the report
concludes on page
329.
The contents of Weiner's laptop became the subject of widespread speculation during the
FBI's 2016 probe into Clinton's private email server and alleged mishandling of classified
data. Weiner, the now ex-husband of top Clinton aide and adviser Huma Abedin, became a person
of interest for federal investigators after it was discovered that he had sent sexually
explicit messages to a 15-year-old girl in 2016.
Weiner had resigned from Congress in 2011 after it was revealed he sent lewd photographs and
messages to women.
In September 2016, as part of the investigation into his communication with the underage
teen, an FBI agent in New York found hundreds of thousands of emails on Weiner's laptop that
were possibly relevant to the Clinton investigation.
In December 2017, it was revealed that at least
five of the emails stored on Weiner's laptop were marked "confidential" and involved
delicate talks with Middle Eastern leaders and Abedin.
Weiner is currently serving a 21-month sentence in federal prison for sending obscene
material to a minor.
The DOJ IG report also noted that then-FBI Director James Comey violated procedure in
announcing to Congress that the bureau was reopening an investigation into Clinton's emails
just days before the 2016 presidential election.
Clinton has repeatedly claimed that the
announcement contributed to her loss to Trump.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
...Robert Mueller, who was Director of the FBI from September 4, 2001 to September 4,
2013. In those 12 years as Director, he served as Obama's FBI Director for 5 years, from Jan.
2009 until Sept. 2013. "President Barack Obama gave his original ten-year term
a two-year extension, making him the longest-serving FBI director since J. Edgar Hoover ."
He knows where every unconstitutional skeleton in both Baby Bush and Barack Obama's is
buried...
Thursday's DOJ Inspector General report covering the
Obama DOJ/FBI conduct during the Hillary Clinton email investigation confirms a bombshell that had previously been hinted at through
WikiLeaks disclosures:
Obama lied when he said in 2015 that he learned of Hillary Clinton's private email server through a New York Times report.
Specifically, Obama told CBS News the following a March 7, 2015 report:
President Obama only learned of Hillary Clinton's private email address use for official State Department business after a
New York Times report, he told CBS News in an interview
CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante asked Mr. Obama when he learned about her private email system after
his Saturday appearance in Selma, Alabama.
' The same time everybody else learned it through news reports,' the president told Plante. -
CBS
The OIG report reveals this was a lie . A footnote on page 89 reads " President Barack Obama was one of the 13 individuals with
whom Clinton had direct contact using her clintonemail.com account "
What's more, FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok told the Inspector General that the top brass of the agency wrestled over
whether or not to include Obama's involvement in Clinton's exoneration statement - and that former FBI Director James Comey knew
Obama had lied :
"A paragraph [in Comey's "exoneration" statement] summarizing the factors that led the FBI to assess that it was possible that
hostile actors accessed Clinton's server was added, and at one point referenced Clinton's use of her private email for an exchange
with then President Obama while in the territory of a foreign adversary, " the IG report reads. " This reference later was changed
to 'another senior government official,' and ultimately was omitted ."
My recollection is that the early Comey speech drafts included references to emails that Secretary Clinton had with President
Obama and I think there was some conversation about, well do we want to be that specific? -Peter Strzok
We already knew all of this though...
In October of 2016, a round of emails released by WikiLeaks featured an email from top Clinton aide Cheryl Mills reacting Obama's
statement that he didn't know about Obama's server - writing to John Podesta "we need to clean this up - he has emails from her -
they do not say state.gov"
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest
later claimed
that Obama was simply "not aware of the details of how that email address and that server had been set up," and that "The President,
as I think many people expected, did over the course of his first several years in office exchange emails with his Secretary of State."
The
Washington Examiner , meanwhile, reported in October 2016 that FBI agents "revealed in notes from their closed investigative
file that Obama communicated with Clinton on her private server using a pseudonym . "
The ramifications of what the World is witnessing are Gargantuan to say the least.
"Clinton, Obama might have be labeled Democrat but their Foreign Policy was 100% percent neocon"
Suffice it to, say, you can add Bush Senior, Jr to you list & the last 30 years of a Globalist Foreign Policy.
We're at a National Emergency & Constitutional Crises.
"This entire case is built on a fake piece of information in the Dossier. Or multiple pieces of information in a Fake Dossier,
I should say to be more precise. Breaking yesterday, Brennan has insisted that to multiple people by the way, that he didn't know
much about the Dossier. Wait till we play this audio. Get the Chuck Todd one ready Joe."
"This is Devastating audio. But hold on a minute. Why is Brennan doing this? Because Brennan knows that the Dossier was his
case. And, the minute he admits on the record. That as a Senior Level, powerful member of the Intelligence Community. That John
Brennan started a Political Investigation based on Fake Information he may very well of known was not verified. John Brennan is
going to be in a World of trouble. So he has to run from this thing."
"Now I'll get to this Sberry piece in a second. And, why it's important. But just to show you that Brennan has run from this
Dossier. Despite the fact, we know he knew about it. And, he Lied about it. Here's him basically telling Chuck Todd....listen
to how he emphasizes on the Dossier played no role, no, no, no role, no, no, no, no, no to the Dossier. Listen to him with Chuck
Todd:"
Chuck Todd Interview 3:30 Mark. Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath John Brennan admits the Fake Dossier
Played:
"and it did not play any role whatsoever in the Intelligence Community Assessment that was done. That was presented to then...President
Obama & President Elect Trump."
It was Brennan, Obama and Clapper. I can remember when Obama said we were going after the Russians for election interference.
It became so big, the Homeland Security director said he would have to federalize elections, then the push back-out cry from states
shut that down.
Brennan has always worked with Obama in political dirty tricks operations, Brennan worked for the Obama election campaign,
providing political intelligence.
Clapper created his own intelligence network. He conducted political dirty tricks to damage Trump before and after. The secret
wars conducted by the CIA, involved Clinton, Brennan, Clapper and Obama, I remember when Obama was asked when he was on his way
to the UN to be crowned president of the world, he said the secret wars was "smart war". Nobel Prize winning Obama, conducted
genocide smart war on the Christians of Syria, killing over 500K using Brennan CIA funded by Saudi and Qatar money. Look at what
they have done, and how the MSM spewed lies to hide and are still hiding the crimes. Ukraine, Libya, Egypt? Why?
Clinton, Brennan, Obama, Clapper is the center of the Russian collusion narrative, it's a coordinated plan to prevent Trump
from being president, and when it was known Trump would be president, to sabotage Trump by destroying the last vestige of relations
with Russia and to accuse Trump of campaign collusion with the Russians, knowingly using false information paid for by Clinton,
coordinated with operatives of MI6. Who made the contacts with MI6, and the UK GHQ, the NSA of the UK? Clapper. Also remember
McCain hand carrying the false data, the Steele Dossier to the FBI? How sick was that? McCain is lower than dog shit and can't
vote on his death bed, thus why won't he resign for health reasons to allow his vote to be used to help rebuild the nation? It's
because he's mentally ill and wants to do as much damage, working with the communist, to this nation as possible, ask anyone who
is for this nation.
The extent of the criminal activity is so great, it can't see the light of day, it would cause a civil war to take down the
last administration. The precedence for Obama crimes were Bush II crimes, it was a continuation. The Bush II imperial presidency,
created the foundation, the huge intelligence apparatus created by Bush II, the Homeland Security police state, all built by Bush
II, was expanded and used against the American people. Not the terrorist the extreme corrupt media brainwashed into everyone to
submit to the state and to give up our rights.
The reason Clapper and Brennan are giving the most delusional analysis to confuse the truth is they know they are guilty so
they must take Trump down to survive. Obama is quite because he knows he is guilty, and more questions of real crimes are coming
out. Clinton, she's taunting everyone and believes she will be able to have revenge on the American people through a long term
plan to use the Clinton Foundation billions to build her revenge socialist communist homosexual reform of the American people.
They plan on buying the government through more manipulation of the vote and political campaigns, money rules and the Clinton's
have the money to rule America.
That's where we are, the Clinton Foundation is a racketeering operation, most all of the money was acquired illegally. If it
wasn't for loans provided by the Clinton Foundation, the DNC wouldn't have been able to run the election campaign.
Have a listen to this Greg Hunter/USA Watchdog interview with Dr David Janda. He's a courageous individual and he addresses
Zero Hedge commenters specifically in parts. Here's what he says about all this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rri-Ngj8QoE
"but his name was removed from the IG report and replaced with "government agent"..."
Correction: I believe you mean Comey's exoneration speech. The IG report (which is referenced above in the article we are commenting
on) did just the opposite and clearly stated that Obama emailed the wicked wench.
"The IG report was a whitewash, nothing about clinton herself".
I'm surprised to read that here on ZH. I've not been spending much time in the comments section here lately, but hadn't realized
that things had gotten this bad. ZHers used to be more aware.
The IG was not a whitewash. It is loaded with absolute bombshells. We're talking game-changing-save-the-republic bombshells.
There are tons of findings that will likely end up in criminal charges.
But, see, that's the point. IG's do not make criminal charges. They investigate internal processes. They can share their findings
or coordinate with actual US Attorney Generals, WHOSE JOB IT IS TO MAKE CRIMINAL DETERMINATIONS!
What's nice is, is that this is exactly what is happening. Horowitz has been working side by side with Huber, who is actually
an AUSAG, and who has already convened at least one grand jury (meaning criminal charges are likely).
"no one implicated other than underlings and it's obvious that Horowitz is on the deep state team"
The key to getting kingpins is to get his underlings first and have them turn on the kingpins to save their own skin.
I disagree with your conclusions on Horowitz. I think he is exactly what his reputation says he is: a rigidly straight arrow
who is narrowly focused on his holy mission to preserve the proper procedures in his blessed Bureau of Matters. This makes him
a White Hat in this whole saga.
Sorry if I picked on you with my reply, but I just think this story is so important to get right, particularly in light of
how blatantly untruthful CNN and the MSM are being (even more blatant than normal).
When the real bombshell hits, a lot of our fellow Americans are going to be very confused as their entire worldview is shaken.
It is our job to make that as painless as possible, and setting expectations based on what is actually happening/going to happen
is a huge step towards that worthy goal.
"... Excellent piece, dexterously explaining the similarity between the IG's dilemma and Mueller's shot at obstruction. If Mueller claims Trump obstructed, and must be prosecuted, Comey must be prosecuted. ..."
James Comey once
described his position in the Clinton investigation as being the victim of a "500-year flood."
The point of the analogy was that he was unwittingly carried away by events rather than
directly causing much of the damage to the FBI. His "500-year flood" just collided with the
500-page report of
the Justice Department inspector general (IG) Michael Horowitz.
The IG sinks Comey's narrative with a finding that he "deviated" from Justice Department
rules and acted in open insubordination.
Rather than portraying Comey as carried away by his
biblical flood, the report finds that he was the destructive force behind the controversy. The
import of the report can be summed up in Comeyesque terms as the distinction between flotsam
and jetsam. Comey portrayed the broken rules as mere flotsam, or debris that floats away after
a shipwreck. The IG report suggests that this was really a case of jetsam, or rules
intentionally tossed over the side by Comey to lighten his load. Comey's jetsam included rules
protecting the integrity and professionalism of his agency, as represented by his public
comments on the Clinton investigation.
The IG report concludes, "While we did not find that these decisions were the result of
political bias on Comey's part, we nevertheless concluded that by departing so clearly and
dramatically from FBI and department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of
the FBI and the department as fair administrators of justice."
The report will leave many unsatisfied and undeterred. Comey went from a persona non grata
to a patron saint for many Clinton supporters. Comey, who has made millions of dollars with a
tell-all book portraying himself as the paragon of "ethical leadership," continues to maintain
that he would take precisely the same actions again.
Ironically, Comey, fired FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe , former FBI agent Peter Strzok and
others, by their actions, just made it more difficult for special counsel Robert Mueller to prosecute Trump for
obstruction. There is now a comprehensive conclusion by career investigators that Comey
violated core agency rules and undermined the integrity of the FBI. In other words, there was
ample reason to fire James Comey.
Had Trump fired Comey immediately upon taking office, there would be little question about
his conduct warranting such termination. Instead, Trump waited to fire him and proceeded to
make damaging statements about how the Russian investigation was on his mind at the time, as
well as telling Russian diplomats the day after that the firing took "pressure off" him.
Nevertheless, Mueller will have to acknowledge that there were solid, if not overwhelming,
grounds to fire Comey.
To use the Comey firing now in an obstruction case, Mueller will have to assume that the
firing of an "insubordinate" official was done for the wrong reason. Horowitz faced precisely
this same problem in his review and refused to make such assumptions about Comey and others.
The IG report found additional emails showing a political bias against Trump and again
featuring the relationship of Strzok and former FBI attorney Lisa Page. In one exchange, Page
again sought reassurance from Strzok, who was a critical player in the investigations of both
Hillary Clinton and
Donald Trump , that Trump
is "not ever going to become president, right? Right?!" Strzok responded, "No. No he won't.
We'll stop it."
The IG noted that some of these shocking emails occurred at that point in October 2016 when
the FBI was dragging its feet on the Clinton email investigation and Strzok was a critical
player in that investigation. The IG concluded that bias was reflected in that part of the
investigation with regard to Strzok and his role. Notably, the IG was in the same position as
Mueller: The IG admits that the Strzok-Page emails "potentially indicated or created the
appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations." This
includes the decision by Strzok to prioritize the Russian investigation over the Clinton
investigation. The IG states that "[w]e concluded that we did not have confidence that this
decision by Strzok was free from bias."
However, rather than assume motivations, the IG concluded that it could not "find
documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias,
directly affected the specific investigative decisions." Thus, there was bias reflected in the
statements of key investigatory figures like Strzok but there were also objective alternative
reasons for the actions taken by the FBI. That is precisely the argument of Trump on the Comey
firing. While he may have harbored animus toward Comey or made disconcerting statements, the
act of firing Comey can be justified on Comey's own misconduct as opposed to assumptions about
his motives.
Many of us who have criticized Comey in the past, including former Republican and Democratic
Justice Department officials, have not alleged a political bias. As noted by the IG report,
Comey's actions did not benefit the FBI or Justice Department but, rather, caused untold harm
to those institutions. The actions benefited Comey as he tried to lighten his load in heading
into a new administration. It was the same motive that led Comey to improperly remove FBI memos
and then leak information to the media after he was fired by Trump. It was jetsam thrown
overboard intentionally by Comey to save himself, not his agency.
The Horowitz report is characteristically balanced. It finds evidence of political bias
among key FBI officials against Trump and criticizes officials in giving the investigation of
Trump priority over the investigation of Clinton. However, it could not find conclusive
evidence that such political bias was the sole reason for the actions taken in the
investigation. The question is whether those supporting the inspector general in reaching such
conclusions would support the same approach by the special counsel when the subject is not
Comey but Trump.
Comey is simply two-legged pond scum. He did what he thought would preserve his privileged
position. No way a POS like him would go against the wishes of Barry, Loretta and Hillary.
The question I have is this: were those three acting in concert to beat Trump or did Barry
direct Jimmy to do in Hillary with that late-stage reopening of the inquiry? Barry would have
hated to have Hillary replace him, because - if she actually lived through it - she would
probably have reduced him to a minor historical footnote. His ego couldn't handle that. Heck,
I wouldn't even exclude the possibility that Bubba's meeting with Loretta, perhaps including
a phone call with Barry, was about keeping Hillary out of the White House. It might have
cramped Bubba's style, being first dude and all and under close scrutiny.
Although damning in many respects, the IG's report falls short in identifying prosecutable
actions on the part of FbI / DoJ officials... There may be some firings, but that's about
it...
Comey will get to skate with the $$$ from his book tour / Trump bashing tour, Stroczk
and Page sail off into the sunset and likely go to work for some Dim think tank, the rank and
file all go back to work thinking, phew, that one was close...
McCabe is going to be the
poster child that gets the stick, while at the same time the underlying bias in these two
agencies will continue unabated...
This report whitewashed the worst crimes.... The OIG reports recommendations and what they
chose to ignore is reminiscing of Comey's now infamous indictment and exoneration of Hillary Clinton from that 2016 press conference.
The FBI takes bribes from the media for secret insider information and used the media
connections for disinformation to twist the narrative for Clinton. Hundreds of interactions
with MSM, bribes being handed out. These jerks must feel their power to be the unnamed
sources, looks like they've dug their own grave. Literally hundreds of contacts, recorded
bribes and an extreme close relation with CNN and New York Times. This is the source of all
the disinformation, lies, rumors and destruction to our nation. The FBI is the enemy with
their unlawful alliance with communist and homosexuals in the media. I wonder how many FBI
agents are communist and homosexuals?
The key in all this is the political slush fund of over a $100 billion which everyone
ignores, the Clinton Foundation will make or break politicians for a corrupt elitist
communist agenda for the next generation. It's being protected from investigation because of
the previous crimes of Mueller, Comey, Rosenstein, and who knows how many others. The Clinton
Foundation was bribed by foreigners for access, favors and the plan to use the money to take
over the US government.
Uranium One is just one covert operation which ensnares all of these opportunist. The
Haitian relief money, remember Bush II sat right next to Clinton stating the reason or his
purpose was to prevent the Haitian money from being stolen. That was on national full
throated MSM. Are there murders connected to the Clinton Foundation? Considering
Congresswoman Wasserman Shultz most likely ordered an FBI agent to look into Seth Rich,
Pakistanis infiltrating the highest level of leadership, Iranian cocaine smuggling network
the FBI was prepared to take down stopped by Obama because it would interfere with the Iran
nuke deal. None of this is being added to the equation, incredible FBI and overall government
corruption.
It's worse than a swamp, it's an army aligned against us with no honor, decency or even
allegiance to this nation, only their gang, allegiance to an organization, a gang covering up
to continue to do the same. Each agency of the federal government is of this culture, the
break down in this country is apart of every aspect of the government.
Excellent piece, dexterously explaining the similarity between the IG's dilemma and
Mueller's shot at obstruction. If Mueller claims Trump obstructed, and must be prosecuted, Comey must be prosecuted.
Slow-walking an investigation resulting in no charges being filed despite clear evidence
of multiple crimes -- I would call THAT clear obstruction. McCabe and Comey have conspired to
try to dump this on Strzok. It would be funny if it weren't so despicable.
What can you expect from Comey, paid $7 million a year by HSBC, the bank that laundered
some $12 billion in narco trafficker (read CIA proxy) narcotic money? Lock him up in SuperMax
in a narrow cell next to jewboy Rosenstein.i
The thing is, Trump was his boss, and if he decided the Russia coup was a waste of FBI
time, he has every right to fire the head of the FBI, for continuing to waist time and money,
purposely trying to undermine the election.
Remember, this is before there was a special counsel, and if after a year of investigating
there's no there there, there sure as shit wasn't anything back then to investigate!
There is nothing illegal about the President telling Comey to knock it off, or else.
He should tell the press what they want to here. Of course the phony Russia scam played a
part in getting Comey fired, rightfully so. Then stand with his fist in the air shouting Fuck
the Prestitutes!
For a year now, they've been in a search for something, anything, to investigate.
He should fire Sessions, Rosenstein, and Mueller, TODAY, and watch their heads
explode!
There is an evil intent in all this, beyond the obvious.
Many believe WWG1WGA means, "Where we go one we go all".
A Ponzi always collapses the minute it stops growing, it's a 100% certainty. From the
start, ~100 years ago, the Oligarchs who gathered on Jekyll Island knew that their debt money
would grow right up to the day it suddenly collapsed, and planned it with all it's allure,
hooks, and traps, to consume everything, before that day, so that all would be in the same
boat when it collapses. They planned it to fail from the start. It's a mutual suicide Trap,
set up to consume the world, consolidate power, then collapse all the Nation's currencies in
one fail swoop!
For in a single hour such fabulous wealth has been destroyed!
They'll have their grand New World Order, and a knew single currency waiting in the wings,
to rescue the useful idiots from the disaster they've planned.
They'll attempt to number us all, track everything, and dictate how you buy and sell -
through them of course. But not just what you buy with, but what you buy, who you buy from,
how much you buy, and how much you will pay!
That is their plan. How far they'll get nobody knows. I suspect they'll fail miserably,
but the truth is, they're already a long way down this road.
It did not just impact perception. It factually altered the FBI protocol. Comey was high on power of co-running the deep state and subverting justice and the
Constitution. This is high treason, covering high crimes and attempting to unseat Trump at every
juncture.
The FBI isn't and you still think J.Edgar was an aberration ? The FBI is the swamps gamekeeper, nurturing the critters, weeding out the weak, until
only the foulest and strongest they can be unleashed on us. Take two red pills and report back in the morning.
Famous story in the FBI. Young Special Agent selected to drive Mr Hoover
from the office to the airport. As the SA opens the door for the Director
he overhears a fragment of the Director and SAC's farewell conversation...
".............I am very angry about too many Left turns in this country".
Later in the day, "standing tall" in front of the SAC's desk he explains
why a normal 45 minute drive turned into a 3 hour fiasco. Not wishing to anger
the Director any further he explained, he plotted a course to the airport which involved only "Right" turns.
"... A lot of water muddying today - and it's being stirred from a lot of seemingly unrelated directions. Distract and confuse, great ploys - now who benefits more is the most likely source of today's leafletting. ..."
DOJ Watchdog Finds Comey "Defied Authority" And Was "Insubordinate"
by Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/06/2018 - 22:44 763 SHARES
The Department of Justice's internal watchdog has found that James Comey defied authority
several times while he was director of the FBI,
according to ABC , citing sources familiar with the draft of a highly anticipated OIG
report on the FBI's conduct during the Clinton email investigation .
One source told ABC News that the draft report explicitly used the word "insubordinate" to
describe Comey's behavior . Another source agreed with that characterization but could not
confirm the use of the term.
In the draft report, Inspector General Michael Horowitz also rebuked former Attorney
General Loretta Lynch for her handling of the federal investigation into Hillary Clinton's
personal email server, the sources said. -
ABC
President Trump complained on Tuesday of "numerous delays" in the release of the Inspector
General's report, which some have accused of being slow
walked or altered to minimize its impact on the FBI and DOJ.
"What is taking so long with the Inspector General's Report on Crooked Hillary and Slippery
James Comey," Trump said on Twitter. "Hope report is not being changed and made weaker!"
"It's been almost a year and a half and it is time that Congress receives the IG report,"
said Congressman Ron DeSantis (R-FL), who has been on the front lines of the battle against
the DOJ and FBI's stonewalling of lawmakers requesting documentation. "This has gone on long
enough and the American people's patience is wearing thin. We need accountability," said
DeSantis.
Another congressional official, who's been fighting to obtain documents from the DOJ and
FBI, said it is no surprise that they are putting pressure on Horowitz. According to the
official, "They continue to slow roll documents, fail to adhere to congressional oversight
and concern is growing that they will wait until summer and then turn over documents that are
heavily redacted."
ABC reports that there is no indication Trump has seen - or will see - the draft of the
report prior to its release. Inspector General Horowitz, however, could revise the draft report
now that current and former officials have offered their responses to the report's conclusions,
according to the sources.
The draft of Horowitz's wide-ranging report specifically called out Comey for ignoring
objections from the Justice Department when he disclosed in a letter to Congress just days
before the 2016 presidential election that FBI agents had reopened the Clinton probe,
according to sources . Clinton has said that letter doomed her campaign.
Before Comey sent the letter to Congress, at least one senior Justice Department official
told the FBI that publicizing the bombshell move so close to an election would violate
longstanding department policy , and it would ignore federal guidelines prohibiting the
disclosure of information related to an ongoing investigation, ABC News was told. -
ABC
During an April interview, Comey was asked by ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos "If
Attorney General Lynch had ordered you not to send the letter, would you have sent it?"
"No," replied Comey. "I believe in the chain of command."
Deputy Attorney General slammed Comey's letter to congress while recommending that Trump
fire Comey last year - saying it "was wrong" for Comey "to usurp the Attorney General's
authority" when he revealed in July 2016 that he would not be filing charges against Hillary
Clinton or her aides (many of whom were granted immunity).
"It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement," Rosenstein wrote in a
letter recommending that Comey be fired. "At most, the Director should have said the FBI had
completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors."
The draft OIG report dings Comey for not consulting with Lynch and other senior DOJ
officials before making his announcement on national TV. Furthermore, while Comey said there
was no "clear evidence" that Hillary Clinton "intended to violate" the law, he also said that
Hillary Clinton had been "extremely careless" in her "handling of very sensitive, highly
classified information."
And as we now know, Comey's senior counterintelligence team at the FBI made
extensive edits to Clinton's exoneration letter, effectively decriminalizing her behavior
.
"I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice
or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say," Comey said on
live TV July 5, 2016.
By then, Lynch had taken the unusual step of publicly declaring she would accept the FBI's
recommendations in the case, after an impromptu meeting with former president Bill Clinton
sparked questions about her impartiality.
Comey has defended his decisions as director, insisting he was trying to protect the FBI
from even further criticism and "didn't see that I had a choice." -
ABC
"The honest answer is I screwed up a couple of things, but ... I think given what I knew at
the time, these were the decisions that were best calculated to preserve the values of the
institutions," Comey told ABC News. " I still think it was the right thing to do. "
Comey is currently on a tour promoting his new book, " A Higher Loyalty."
About that delay...
As many wonder just where the OIG report is after supposedly being "finished" for a while,
the Washington Examiner 's Chief political correspondent, Byron York, offers some keen insight
(tweeted before details of the draft were leaked):
• Byron York
A series of tweets on what to expect from the much-anticipated inspector general report on
DOJ/FBI handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation... 1/
10:42 AM - Jun 6, 2018
• Byron York
First, looks like it might be delayed yet again. Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled a June
5 hearing to discuss IG report.
After delay, had to be rescheduled for next Monday, June 11.
Now looks like might be delayed again.
10:42 AM-Jun 6, 2018
• Byron York
Why delays? Feet are clearly being dragged. There are snags over classified information.
Also, and this is intriguing: appears in last several weeks IG got new information, interviewed
new witnesses. Could have contributed to delay. Don't know what it's about. 3/
10:43 AM-Jun6, 2018
Byron York
@ByronYork
Replying to @ByronYork
So, when IG report is finally released-looking like mid-June -- what will it cover? Don't
know its conclusions, but here are some subjects you can expect to be reading about: 4/
10:43 AM-Jun 6, 2018
• Byron York
Expect discussion of 6/27/16 Loretta Lynch-Bill Clinton meeting on tarmac in Arizona. IG has
done extensive investigation.
What was said? What were the intentions of those involved? Expect it to be covered
carefully. 5/
10:44 AM-Jun 6, 2018
• Byron York
Expect discussion of James Comey's decision to begin drafting an exoneration memo for
Hillary Clinton long before the FBI had even interviewed her, or at least a dozen other key
figures in the case.
Also: Why hand out so much immunity? 6/
10:45 AM-Jun6, 2018
• Byron York
Expect discussion of Comey's intentions when he announced reopening of Clinton investigation
on 10/28/16, shortly before election day. Democrats specifically asked IG to investigate
that.
10:45 AM-Jun 6, 2018
• Byron York
Expect discussion of what Andrew McCabe did when he first learned about existence of Clinton
emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop in early October 2016. Did he sit on information? If so, why?
What did Comey know? 8/
10:46 AM-Jun 6, 2018
• Byron York
Expect discussion on rationale for Comey's controversial 7/5/16 statement announcing no
charges would be filed against Clinton.
To say it was unorthodox would be an understatement. What was he doing? 9/
10:46 AM-Jun 6, 2018
• Byron York
Expect discussion of Lynch's refusal to recuse herself from investigation or to appoint
special counsel. Plus, look for discussion of why McCabe waited so long to recuse himself
even after public reporting of Clinton-related political contributions to his wife. 10/
10:47 AM-Jun6, 2018
• Byron York
Finally, don't expect to learn much new about McCabe 'lack of candor' situation re:
leaks.
Not clear whether IG will reveal much beyond what has already been released in wake of
McCabe firing. End/
10:48 AM-Jun 6, 2018
Also, and this is intriguing: appears in last several weeks IG got new information,
interviewed new witnesses. Could have contributed to delay. Don't know what it's about.
How many more new witnesses with new information will crawl out of the woodwork at the
most opportune moment to delay releasing the report. I'm guessing they interviewed McCabe's
hairdresser at Sport Clips to see which direction he combs.
If the strongest language in this report to describe Comey's actions is merely
"insubordinate" and "defied authority", then it's a big, fat, nothingburger... Not a GD thing
is going to happen, lift rug, sweep vigorously...
If the blue team leaked this, then they're trying to get ahead of damaging
information. If it's the red team, then you're right Keyser and a behind the scenes agreement has been
reached letting both teams off the hook for some unleaked transgression.
"Expect discussion of what Andrew McCabe did when he first learned about existence of
Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop in early October 2016. Did he sit on
information"
I wouldn't sit on anything related to Weiner or his LAPtop.
A lot of water muddying today - and it's being stirred from a lot of seemingly unrelated
directions. Distract and confuse, great ploys - now who benefits more is the most likely
source of today's leafletting.
Your lips to God's ears! This is ridiculous! Insubordinate? That's it? 90% of the people in DC need a good wearing out with a belt! This politically correct nonsense has to end. Call it what it is you lily-livered pansies!
It's treason and sedition. It's a den of snakes!
You want to see America bounce back as a strong and proud nation? START HANDING OUT REAL
PUNISHMENT! Otherwise, it will be the same old sleazy crap over and over again.
agree...that's why we need to stay diligent and demand the proper dissemination of the
impartial facts...
with McCabe seeking immunity...and Comey playing 'Patriot'...and Brennon being and old
lair...and Clapper portraying all previous actions were 'honorable'...we have to ask
ourselves a question...
Anything I hear/see involving Clapper and Brennan I figure is a fictitious psyop. Brian
Cox and Albert Finney already portrayed them in the Bourne films.
SEVERAL Ex FBI agents and current FBI Agents are BEGGING to be subpoenaed, WHY hasn't this
happened, THEY want this MESS OUT in the open, yet TRUMP does nothing?. I would have Congress
do it asap, under OATH and with Criminal repercussions. Horowitz is a EUNUCH.
Exactly. That's why Lockheed Martin paid him $6 million a year. Does anyone think they hired him for his abilities as an attorney when he lacked any
experience in corporate law? Then he went on to Ray Dalio's Bridgewater associates. Wonder how much they paid him
there. What experience did he have for working as an attorney for a hedge fund?
Then he leaves these extremely lucrative jobs to go back to government at $170,00 a
year.
I'd be insubordinate too if Satan's Slut Hillary was breathing hellfire down my neck.
Comey probably likes living as much as the rest of us. Now that the noose is getting tighter,
will he give up the slut???? Hopefully a few of these pukes will turn on her in unison. The
Magical Homo will be tougher to snare.
The former ever-so-sanctimonious FBI Director, classified document leaker and Clinton
water boy Jimmy Comey was "Insubordinate?" Who could have guessed? But remember, Trump fired
the asswipe in order to "obstruct justice." Jail Jimmy without delay.
While we are on the subject, this shows you the type of "friends" that Saint Mueller
keeps.
If reports are true, then IG Horowitz is fudging Coney-Lynch's real crimes; namely the
events leading up to the July whitewash of Killary which include drafting the exoneration
letter before interviewing Clinton, twisting the facts to decriminalize Clinton's offenses
and pressuring FBI agents to alter reports regarding the Clinton investigation.
If the IG brushes past these matters, whatever else he says is worthless. Just tarnishes
Comey's image a tad bit and will be forgotten.
This sounds like they are trying to decriminalize Comey's actions, not indict him. How the fuck does the headline equate
to a criminal charge? Maybe they (OIG) are trying to let this asshole off the hook? What's he going to get? A severe tongue
lashing because he was insubordinate?
"... Hopefully that means he'll respond to genuine lines of criticism against him, including his decision to investigate both Hillary Clinton and the Trump campaign during the 2016 election but only discuss one of those investigations in public . ..."
A Higher Loyalty drops on Tuesday, but, in keeping with longstanding publishing tradition, the good bits have already been
selectively leaked to outlets in advance. We've learned that the former FBI director compares Trump to
a mafia boss , that
Trump's "leadership is transactional, ego driven, and about personal loyalty," and that Comey admits that the widespread belief that
Clinton would become president may have
played a role in his decision to announce that the FBI was reopening an investigation into her use of a private email server
less than two weeks before the election.
We also learn that Trump was
obsessed
with the "pee tape," the most salacious allegation in the infamous Steele Dossier. Comey writes that Trump "strongly denied the
allegations, asking -- rhetorically, I assumed -- whether he seemed like a guy who needed the service of prostitutes. He then began
discussing cases where women had accused him of sexual assault, a subject I had not raised. He mentioned a number of women, and seemed
to have memorized their allegations."
Trump took the bait, sending out two tweets attacking Comey on Friday morning.
James Comey is a proven LEAKER & LIAR. Virtually everyone in Washington thought he should be fired for the terrible job he
did-until he was, in fact, fired. He leaked CLASSIFIED information, for which he should be prosecuted. He lied to Congress under
OATH. He is a weak and.....
....untruthful slime ball who was, as time has proven, a terrible Director of the FBI. His handling of the Crooked Hillary
Clinton case, and the events surrounding it, will go down as one of the worst "botch jobs" of history. It was my great honor to
fire James Comey!
But of course, Trump admitted, only days after Comey's dismissal, that he really fired Comey over the Russia investigation.
... ... ...
The Republicans are scared of James Comey.
The Republican National Committee just unveiled a new website, LyinComey.com
, to counter whatever allegations the former FBI director levels against President Donald Trump in his new book, which goes on sale
next week. As CNN reports, the RNC is also buying digital ads and sending talking points sent to GOP politicians. This counter-information
campaign is a sign of how worried Republicans are about Comey's potential to inflict political damage -- and is wholly unconvincing.
For example, the RNC's Comey site says that he "stated under oath that he never posed as an anonymous source to leak information
to the press," then notes that he "later testified that he 'asked a friend of [his] to share the content of the memo with a reporter.'"
The presentation makes these two factual statements seem contradictory when they're not. Comey
testified in a May 3, 2017, congressional hearing that he had never been an anonymous source; he
told lawmakers
the following June that he sent his bombshell memos to The New York Times through an intermediary only after his
May 9 ouster.
Those memos laid the groundwork for allegations that Trump obstructed justice by firing the FBI director. "Comey may use his book
tour to push the phony narrative that President Trump obstructed the Russia investigation," the website warns, citing Comey's testimony
last June in which he said Trump never ordered him to halt the Russia investigation. The framing is somewhat misleading, since legal
experts believe the obstruction question
instead revolves
around Comey's firing itself.
The website's release comes after Comey taped an interview with ABC News that's set to air on Sunday night. Axios
quoted an unnamed source present during the interview who said that Comey "answered every question" posed to him. Hopefully
that means he'll respond to genuine lines of criticism against him, including his decision to investigate both Hillary Clinton and
the Trump campaign during the 2016 election but
only discuss one of those investigations in public .
Everything is so convoluted. Sometime I have impression that I am reading depiction of the operations of
Meyer Lansky not a government agency.
Notable quotes:
"... Bill Priestap is cooperating. When you understand how central E.W. "Bill" Priestap was to the entire 2016/2017 ' Russian Conspiracy Operation ', the absence of his name, amid all others, created a curiosity. I wrote a twitter thread about him last year and wrote about him extensively, because it seemed unfathomable his name has not been a part of any of the recent story-lines. ..."
"... So there we have FBI Director James Comey telling congress on March 20th, 2017, that the reason he didn't inform the statutory oversight "Gang of Eight" was because Bill Priestap (Director of Counterintelligence) recommended he didn't do it. Apparently, according to Comey, Bill Priestap carries a great deal of influence if he could get his boss to NOT perform a statutory obligation simply by recommending he doesn't do it. ..."
"... Then again, Comey's blame-casting there is really called creating a "fall guy". FBI Director James Comey was ducking responsibility in March 2017 by blaming FBI Director of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap for not informing congress of the operation that began in July 2016. (9 months prior). ..."
"... In essence, Bill Priestap was James Comey's fall guy . We knew it at the time that Bill Priestap would likely see this the same way. The guy would have too much to lose by allowing James Comey to set him up. ..."
"... Immediately there was motive for Bill Priestap to flip and become the primary source to reveal the hidden machinations. Why should he take the fall for the operation when there were multiple people around the upper-levels of leadership who carried out the operation. ..."
"... Our suspicions were continually confirmed because there was NO MENTION of Bill Priestap in any future revelations of the scheme team, despite his centrality to all of it. ..."
"... Bill Priestap would have needed to authorize Peter Strzok to engage with Christopher Steele over the "Russian Dosssier"; Bill Priestap would have needed to approve of the underlying investigative process used for both FISA applications (June 2016, and Oct 21st 2016). Bill Priestap would be the person to approve of arranging, paying, or reimbursing, Christopher Steele for the Russian Dossier used in their counterintelligence operation and subsequent FISA application. ..."
"... Parallel to Priestap in main justice his peer John P Carlin resigned, Sally Yates fired, Mary McCord quit, Bruce Ohr was busted twice, and most recently Dave Laufman resigned. All of them caught in the investigative net . Only Bill Priestap remained, quietly invisible – still in position. ..."
"... With all of that in mind, there is essentially no-way the participating members inside the small group can escape their accountability with Mr. Bill Priestap cooperating with the investigative authorities. ..."
"... Now it all makes sense. Devin Nunes interviewed Bill Priestap and Jim Rybicki prior to putting the memo process into place. Rybicki quit, Priestap went back to work. ..."
FBI Counterintelligence chief, Bill Priestap, will sit down for a closed-door session with lawmakers on Tuesday, according to
John Solomon of The Hill .
Priestap will be answering questions about the Hillary Clinton email case as well as the counterintelligence operation on the
Trump campaign - both of which he oversaw . Priestap was the direct supervisor of Peter Strzok - the FBI agent whose anti-Trump /
pro-Clinton bias was revealed after 50,000 text messages to his FBI-attorney mistress, Lisa Page, were discovered by the DOJ's Inspector
General, Michael Horowitz.
All accounts say that Priestap is a cooperating witness . In other words, if there's one person who can confirm that the FBI counterintelligence
operation on the Trump campaign was politically motivated - or that malfeasance occurred during the process, it's Bill Priestap.
Note how excited Solomon looks breaking the news of Priestap's testimony...
Solomon: "I think tomorrow is going to be a pivotal day. I think Congress is going to learn a lot of new information tomorrow
during these interviews."
Dobbs: He is going to be speaking candidly about his employer, the FBI, and those who were running the agency during that period.
Solomon: He was very high up. Had a bird's-eye view of everything that went on in both of these investigations.
While the session will be closed-door, we imagine leaks will be forthcoming as seems to be standard operating procedure these
days.
Just who is Bill Priestap really?
The Conservative Treehouse presented an in-depth analysis in February. We recommend reading this before deciding on what size
popcorn to buy:
***
The game is over. The jig is up. Victory is certain... the trench was ignited... the enemy funneled themselves into the valley...
all bait was taken everything from here on out is simply mopping up the details. All suspicions confirmed.
Why has Devin Nunes been so confident? Why did all GOP HPSCI members happily allow the Democrats to create a 10-page narrative?
All questions are answered.
Fughettaboudit.
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence member
Chris Stewart appeared on Fox News with
Judge Jeanine Pirro, and didn't want to "make news" or spill the beans, but the unstated, between-the-lines, discussion was as subtle
as a brick through a window. Judge Jeannie has been on the cusp of this for a few weeks.
Listen carefully around 2:30 , Judge Jeanine hits the bulls-eye; and listen to how Chris Stewart talks about not wanting to make
news and is unsure what he can say on this...
...Bill Priestap is cooperating. When you understand how central E.W. "Bill" Priestap was to the entire 2016/2017 ' Russian
Conspiracy Operation ', the absence of his name, amid all others, created a curiosity. I wrote a
twitter thread about him last year and wrote
about him extensively, because it seemed unfathomable his name has not been a part of any of the recent story-lines.
E.W. "Bill" Priestap is the head of the FBI Counterintelligence operation. He was FBI Agent Peter Strozk's direct boss. If anyone
in congress really wanted to know if the FBI paid for the Christopher Steele Dossier, Bill Priestap is the guy who would know everything
about everything.
FBI Asst. Director in charge of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap was the immediate supervisor of FBI Counterintelligence Deputy
Peter Strzok.
Bill Priestap is #1. Before getting demoted Peter Strzok was #2.
The investigation into candidate Donald Trump was a counterintelligence operation. That operation began in July 2016. Bill Priestap
would have been in charge of that, along with all other, FBI counterintelligence operations. FBI Deputy Peter Strzok was specifically
in charge of the Trump counterintel op. However, Strzok would be reporting to Bill Priestap on every detail and couldn't (according
to structure anyway) make a move without Priestap approval.
On March 20th 2017 congressional testimony, James Comey was asked why the FBI Director did not inform congressional oversight
about the counterintelligence operation that began in July 2016.
FBI Director Comey said he did not tell congressional oversight he was investigating presidential candidate Donald Trump because
the Director of Counterintelligence suggested he not do so. *Very important detail.* I cannot emphasize this enough. *VERY* important
detail . Again, notice how Comey doesn't use Priestap's actual name, but refers to his position and title. Again, watch [Prompted]
FBI Director James Comey was caught entirely off guard by that first three minutes of that questioning. He simply didn't anticipate
it.
Oversight protocol requires the FBI Director to tell the congressional intelligence "Gang of Eight" of any counterintelligence
operations. The Go8 has oversight into these ops at the highest level of classification. In July 2016 the time the operation began,
oversight was the responsibility of this group, the Gang of Eight: Obviously, based on what we have learned since March 2017, and what has surfaced recently, we can all see why the FBI would want
to keep it hidden that they were running a counterintelligence operation against a presidential candidate. After all, as FBI Agent
Peter Strzok said it in his text messages, it was an "insurance policy".
"I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office that there's no way he gets elected – but I'm
afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40."
So there we have FBI Director James Comey telling congress on March 20th, 2017, that the reason he didn't inform the statutory
oversight "Gang of Eight" was because Bill Priestap (Director of Counterintelligence) recommended he didn't do it. Apparently,
according to Comey, Bill Priestap carries a great deal of influence if he could get his boss to NOT perform a statutory obligation
simply by recommending he doesn't do it.
Then again, Comey's blame-casting there is really called creating a "fall guy". FBI Director James Comey was ducking responsibility
in March 2017 by blaming FBI Director of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap for not informing congress of the operation that began
in July 2016. (9 months prior).
At that moment, that very specific moment during that March 20th hearing, anyone who watches these hearings closely could see
FBI Director James Comey was attempting to create his own exit from being ensnared in the consequences from the wiretapping and surveillance
operation of candidate Trump, President-elect Trump, and eventually President Donald Trump.
In essence, Bill Priestap was James Comey's fall guy . We knew it at the time that Bill Priestap would likely see this the
same way. The guy would have too much to lose by allowing James Comey to set him up.
Immediately there was motive for Bill Priestap to flip and become the primary source to reveal the hidden machinations. Why
should he take the fall for the operation when there were multiple people around the upper-levels of leadership who carried out the
operation.
Our suspicions were continually confirmed because there was NO MENTION of Bill Priestap in any future revelations of the scheme
team, despite his centrality to all of it.
Bill Priestap would have needed to authorize Peter Strzok to engage with Christopher Steele over the "Russian Dosssier"; Bill
Priestap would have needed to approve of the underlying investigative process used for both FISA applications (June 2016, and Oct
21st 2016). Bill Priestap would be the person to approve of arranging, paying, or reimbursing, Christopher Steele for the Russian
Dossier used in their counterintelligence operation and subsequent FISA application.
Without Bill Priestap involved, approvals, etc. the entire Russian/Trump Counterintelligence operation just doesn't happen. Heck,
James Comey's own March 20th testimony in that regard is concrete evidence of Priestap's importance. Everyone around Bill Priestap, above and below, were caught inside the investigative net.
Above him: James Comey, Andrew McCabe and James Baker.
Below him: Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Jim Rybicki, Trisha Beth Anderson and Mike Kortan.
Parallel to Priestap in main justice his peer John P Carlin resigned, Sally Yates fired, Mary McCord quit, Bruce Ohr was busted
twice, and most recently Dave Laufman resigned. All of them caught in the investigative net . Only Bill Priestap remained, quietly
invisible – still in position.
The reason was obvious. Likely Bill Priestap made the decision after James Comey's testimony on March 20th, 2017, when he realized what was coming. Priestap
is well-off financially; he has too much to lose. He and his wife, Sabina Menschel, live a comfortable life in a $3.8 million DC
home; she comes from a family of money.
While ideologically Bill and Sabina are aligned with Clinton support, and their circle of family and friends likely lean toward
more liberal friends; no-one in his position would willingly allow themselves to be the scape-goat for the unlawful action that was
happening around them. Bill Priestap had too much to lose and for what? With all of that in mind, there is essentially no-way the participating members inside the small group can escape their accountability
with Mr. Bill Priestap cooperating with the investigative authorities.
Now it all makes sense. Devin Nunes interviewed Bill Priestap and Jim Rybicki prior to putting the memo process into place. Rybicki
quit, Priestap went back to work.
Bill Priestap remains the Asst. FBI Director in charge of counterintelligence operations.
It's over.
I don't want to see this guy, or his family, compromised. This is probably the last I am ever going to write about him unless
it's in the media bloodstream. I can't fathom the gauntlet of hatred and threats he is likely to face from the media and his former
political social network if they recognize what's going on. BP is Deep-Throat x infinity nuf said.
The rest of this entire enterprise is just joyfully dragging out the timing of the investigative releases in order to inflict
maximum political pain upon the party of those who will attempt to excuse the inexcusable.
All this is an interesting information. But Trump folded long ago. So why they continues so relentlessly pursue him.
Some of the statements are iether naive, or incorrect, or both. For example: ""The Anglo-American response to this development can
be seen in the events in Ukraine, where Obama, the British, and the National Endowment for Democracy staged a coup in February 2014,
overthrowing the government of the duly elected President, Victor Yanukovych, because he refused to turn his country into a western
satrapy to be wielded against Putin's Russia. " also " We know that Paul Manafort was considered practically an enemy combatant in Anglo-American
swamp circles by 2014, because of his Ukraine work with Yanukovych and the Party of the Regions. He apparently chose the wrong side
by fighting against a Nazi coup. The same was true even of Democratic consultants such as Tony Podesta, who worked with Manafort on
Ukraine and were subject to the same reported 2014 FISA surveillance warrant"
Notable quotes:
"... Victoria Nuland, who helped oversee the coup from her perch at Hillary Clinton's State Department, was famously caught on tape dictating the Ukraine succession, after bands of murderous neo-Nazis did the scut-work for the coup. According to Nuland, the price for this handiwork was some $5 billion. ..."
"... The actual "swamp" of the British and their accomplices in the U.S. intelligence community and aligned trans-Atlantic institutions, like NATO, have viewed themselves as being in a state of war against Russia and China since the 2013-2014 events. ..."
"... Flynn had already driven Obama crazy by proposing a determined U.S.-Russian collaboration in the war on terror, and going after the Administration's policy aimed at dismembering Syria. Obama had fired him. ..."
"... Page had already functioned as an FBI informant in a major 2013 New York City FBI case against Russian organized crime figures, and stated on CNN that he briefed both the CIA and FBI regularly on these business dealings in Russia. ..."
"... Was he used as a front to get a FISA warrant directed at the Trump campaign? Was he a spy sent by the FBI both to Russia and into the Trump campaign? The targeting of the alleged activities of the St.Petersburg Internet Research Agency (IRA) in DNI Clapper's January report, again points to the heavy British hand in the coup against the President. ..."
"... Crowdstrike's Dimitri Alperovitch -- the person with sole access to the DNC's allegedly "hacked" computers, whose forensic analysis was adopted wholesale by James Comey's FBI and the U.S. intelligence community -- is a senior fellow in the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Service. ..."
"... What exactly was the relationship of the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and the other black propagandists operating against the President, together with their reporters, with the NED, the Information Warfare Initiative, NATO's Strategic Communications Service, and The Institute for Modern Russia in New York City, or other British or U.S. intelligence agencies during the Obama Administration and subsequently? ..."
"... Steele and Orbis claim that the 17th memo, produced in December 2016, which referenced the salacious and disgusting claim that Trump engaged in perverse sexual activities at a Russian hotel, was solely produced to one David Kramer as a representative of John McCain, Senator John McCain himself, and a representative of the British security services. ..."
"... It has been widely reported that James Comey's FBI was also offering Steele and Orbis $50,000 or more at this point to corroborate aspects of the dodgy dossier smearing the President-elect. ..."
"... David Kramer is the former President of the CIA and NED quango, Freedom House, was a fellow of the neo-conservative Project for a New American Century, held State Department positions dedicated to Project Democracy and soft power coups in Russia and the former East Bloc, and presently serves as Senior Director for Human Rights and Human Freedoms at Senator McCain's Institute for International Leadership in Arizona. ..."
"... Department of Justice concerning four participants in the Trump Tower meeting and others for failure to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Browder's complaint claimed that these people were engaged in unregistered Russian lobbying activities, namely, attempting to overturn the Magnitsky Act. Browder renounced his American citizenship in 1989 to become a British subject and has operated at the highest levels of British finance and intelligence. ..."
The Real Story: Issues of War, Peace, and the Future
Beginning with an announcement of President Xi Jinping, at a conference in Kazakhstan in July of 2013, China has set into motion
an entirely new dynamic in the world, a new paradigm of cooperation between nation states, to build vital modern infrastructure allowing
nations in the former "developing sector" to reach their full economic potentials.
Xi Jinping's vision of the New Silk Road or "One Belt, One Road" project has been endorsed by Russia's Vladimir Putin.
Russia and China are joining in projects which will fully develop the Eurasian landmass, creating a "new financial architecture"
in the Asia-Pacific region.
On July 16, 2014, the BRICS group of nations meeting in Fortaleza, Brazil, joined by the Latin American heads of state, agreed
with Xi Jinping's proposal on the creation of an entirely new economic and financial system, representing a fundamental alternative
to the casino economy of the present system of globalization.
The Anglo-American globalist system is based on maximized profit of the few, and the impoverishment of billions of people.
In the new paradigm, financing for joint great projects is to come from development banks, such as the newly created Asian Infrastructure
Investment Bank, ending dependence on such globalist institutions as the IMF or World Bank.
Globalization as administered by the IMF and World Bank is effectively a system of imperial debt slavery, keeping the nations
dependent on their loans in primitive economic conditions, while their raw materials are looted.
As Prime Minister Narenda Modi from India remarked,
"The BRICS is unique as an international institution.
In this first instance, it unifies a group of nations, not on the basis of their existing prosperity or common identities, but
rather their future potentials.
The idea of the BRICS itself is thus aligned with the future.
"
It is not incidental to this remark that Russia, China, and India have set future goals for space exploration, including most
specifically exploration of the Moon and possible exploitation of Helium 3 on the Moon, which has the potential of finally realizing
nuclear fusion power as a primary energy source powering the world.
China has made clear that no small part of this initiative is inspired by the work of Lyndon and Helga LaRouche.
The methods employed echo the ideas of political economy first developed by Alexander Hamilton, and deployed by Abraham Lincoln
and Franklin Roosevelt -- ideas uniquely developed and expanded by Lyndon LaRouche.
Xi Jinping has asked the United States to join this great venture, which could produce thousands of productive jobs and jump-start
infrastructure projects in this country.
Obama adamantly refused Xi's offer, and did everything in his power to block and defeat the Chinese initiative.
President Trump has indicated an openness to the proposition.
These 2013-2014 events were and are a direct challenge to the British imperial system.
They directly challenge the monetary system which is the source of Anglo-American domination of the world.
They directly challenge fundamental British strategic policy extant since the days of Halford Mackinder.
Under the "One Belt, One Road" initiative, joined with Russia's Eurasian Union, Mackinder's "world island" of Eurasia and Africa
will be developed, crisscrossed with new high-speed rail links, new cities, and vital modern infrastructure, based on the mutual
benefit of all of the nation states existing there.
Under the British geopolitical model, this area of the world has been subjected to endless instability, war, and raw materials
looting.
Xi Jinping has also attacked the geopolitical axioms by which the United States and the British have operated.
He proposes instead a model of "win-win" cooperation in which nation states collaborate for development based on the common aims
of mankind.
The Anglo-American response to this development can be seen in the events in Ukraine, where Obama, the British, and the National
Endowment for Democracy staged a coup in February 2014, overthrowing the government of the duly elected President, Victor Yanukovych,
because he refused to turn his country into a western satrapy to be wielded against Putin's Russia.
Victoria Nuland, who helped oversee the coup from her perch at Hillary Clinton's State Department, was famously caught on tape
dictating the Ukraine succession, after bands of murderous neo-Nazis did the scut-work for the coup. According to Nuland, the price for this handiwork was some $5 billion.
The actual "swamp" of the British and their accomplices in the U.S. intelligence community and aligned trans-Atlantic institutions, like NATO, have viewed themselves as being in a state of war against
Russia and China since the 2013-2014 events.
Think about former DNI Clapper's unhinged speech in Australia of June 7, 2017. Clapper ranted that it was in Putin's and Russia's "genes" to attack the United States. Since Trump pursues better relations and shared intelligence with Russia on terrorism, Clapper ranted, Watergate (where Richard
Nixon committed proven crimes) paled in comparison to Russiagate (where both Clapper and Comey have testified that to date the President
has committed no crimes). Clapper told the Aussies also to target China, accusing the Chinese, without any offer of proof, of meddling in Australia's elections.
Former FBI Director James Comey backed Clapper in his testimony on June 8, 2017, attempting to wax eloquent in response to Senator
Joe Manchin, about how Putin exists with one purpose in mind -- to shred and dismember the United States. But China and Russia have completely outflanked these cretins, and the new paradigm is rapidly coming to life with "shovels in
the ground" everywhere.
In response, the Anglo-American elites have absolutely nothing to offer the world except the same dying, decadent globalist "order."
This explains why many in official Washington let loose their inner alien monster every time the President mentions a desire for
better relations with Russia, or evinces his friendship with President Xi Jinping of China.
This is why Hillary Clinton has literally gone insane, raving like Lady Macbeth, and obsessing about Putin's "man-spreading."
That is why, also, they would risk World War III rather than see the "Belt and Road," the New Silk Road, go forward with its "community
of principle" idea of relations among nations.
What Did Trump Do?
Like LaRouche, Trump represents an existential challenge to the post-War British-dictated monetarist and imperial order.
In his campaign platform he called for the reinstitution of Glass-Steagall banking separation.
This would end the casino economy which is about to blow up again -- the real economy never having recovered from the collapse
of 2008.
He wants to build huge modern infrastructure and revitalize the manufacturing sector of the economy with modern manufacturing
techniques.
He wants to return the United States to space exploration and the funding of fundamental science, recognizing the optimistic national
morale which will result from that.
In his public speeches, Trump has repeatedly invoked what he understands as "The American System" of political economy, a concept
developed and elaborated in recent history by only one man, Lyndon LaRouche.
This centers economic systems in nation states, rather than global institutions, and calls for harnessing the resources of the
nation state to develop the economy to higher and higher levels of physical productivity and human culture.
While Trump has features in his version of the American System which LaRouche would not endorse as historically accurate or politically
wise, even the use of the term, invoking Alexander Hamilton and Lincoln's economist Henry Carey, is a direct challenge to the free
trade, small-government nostrums foisted on the United States by a parade of British agents during the Twentieth Century.
The British, up to this point, have been largely successful in burying the actual ideas of Alexander Hamilton and Franklin Roosevelt,
and burying the fundamental advances in these ideas resulting from original discoveries by LaRouche.
Through deliberate miseducation of Americans, the British have made their economic theories and systems, against which Americans
explicitly fought in our Revolution, appear to be universal laws of human behavior.
As his recent speech to the United Nations emphasized, Trump envisions a system of sovereign nations, each striving to develop
and enrich their populations, engaged in cooperative trade relationships, reciprocal in nature and targeted for the benefit of each
party.
His U.N.
speech echoed the foreign policy of John Quincy Adams, a policy which forbade our nation from "going abroad, seeking monsters
to destroy." This is the very opposite of the imperial-gendarme, perpetual-war policy long favored by the British for the United
States.
Trump's positive vision, under present circumstances, requires active collaboration with Russia and China.
To stop the coup, the President's team and his supporters must stop reacting defensively.
He must act on the aspects of his program -- Glass-Steagall, large scale infrastructure development funded by national banking
mechanism devoted to that purpose, space exploration, fusion power development, and joining the "One Belt, One Road" program with
China, which can actually save the economy and produce high paying jobs.
At the same time, they should look at the actual crimes involved in the coup which are already on the public record, investigate
them -- including in the Congress -- and prosecute them.
With respect to Mueller, they should investigate his obstruction of the investigation into the crimes committed on 9/11, together
with a full public unveiling of the Saudi and British role in international terrorism.
In aid of such an effort we present seven crimes implicated in the events in the coup against the President to date.
Seven Actual Crimes
The crimes outlined below make clear that a Special Counsel, not Robert Mueller, should be investigating the U.S.-British response
to China's Belt and Road Initiative, beginning with the illegal coup in Ukraine which has resulted in the targeting of Paul Manafort.
In the British account of the American election, largely published in pieces in the Guardian, they began warning their American
counterparts about the dangers of Donald Trump's accommodating views toward Putin and Russia in 2015.
These warnings were followed by the specific claim that the Democratic National Committee's servers had been hacked by the Russians
as of July of 2015.
According to the British account, their American counterparts were slow to respond, although the FBI says it notified the DNC,
which did nothing about the alleged Russian hack until June of 2016.
The obvious should be stated here.
If the British were developing dossiers on Trump and his associates as early as 2015, Trump and his associates were under surveillance
as of that date or sooner by British GCHQ and/or the NSA.
We know that Paul Manafort was considered practically an enemy combatant in Anglo-American swamp circles by 2014, because of his
Ukraine work with Yanukovych and the Party of the Regions.
He apparently chose the wrong side by fighting against a Nazi coup.
The same was true even of Democratic consultants such as Tony Podesta, who worked with Manafort on Ukraine and were subject to
the same reported 2014 FISA surveillance warrant.
What was the FBI affidavit which justified the 2014 Manafort, Podesta FISA court surveillance warrant, and what was the British
role in obtaining it? What role did the British play, including GCHQ and MI6, in the Manafort counterintelligence investigation?
What were the British "concerns" about Trump communicated to U.S.
intelligence as early as 2015? What was the specific British warning about hacks of the DNC computer in July 2015? By December
of 2015, according to James Clapper's dodgy January, 2017 report on alleged Russian meddling in the election, hundreds of paid Russian
trolls associated with the St.
Petersburg, Russia, Internet Research Agency had begun to advocate for Trump's election.
At the same time, Michael Flynn attended a dinner at RT in Russia, sitting across the table from Putin.
Flynn had already driven Obama crazy by proposing a determined U.S.-Russian collaboration in the war on terror, and going
after the Administration's policy aimed at dismembering Syria. Obama had fired him.
Is this the date when surveillance on Flynn actually began, or did it begin sooner? What was the British role in this surveillance?
Carter Page has also been a subject in Mueller's Russiagate hysteria.
He apparently walked in to volunteer for the Trump campaign without any prior association with the President, and was disavowed
by the campaign soon after.
He went to school in London, had a variety of business dealings in Russia, and had volunteered for the Trump campaign as a foreign
policy advisor by simply walking in the door.
Page had already functioned as an FBI informant in a major 2013 New York City FBI case against Russian organized crime figures,
and stated on CNN that he briefed both the CIA and FBI regularly on these business dealings in Russia.
Was he used as a front to get a FISA warrant directed at the Trump campaign? Was he a spy sent by the FBI both to Russia and
into the Trump campaign? The targeting of the alleged activities of the St.Petersburg Internet Research Agency (IRA) in DNI Clapper's
January report, again points to the heavy British hand in the coup against the President.
According to French journalist Thierry Meyssan, in September 2014, the British government created the 77th Brigade, a unit tasked
with countering foreign propaganda, which worked with the U.S. military in Europe to interfere with websites considered to be distributing
Russian propaganda. This project ultimately morphed into NATO's Strategic Communications Service, tasked with suppressing any news
or person favorable to the Russian position concerning strategic topics, but particularly Ukraine. From its inception, the NATO Strategic
Communications Service incorporated a service of the Atlantic Council, the Digital Forensics Service.
Crowdstrike's Dimitri Alperovitch -- the person with sole access to the DNC's allegedly "hacked" computers, whose forensic
analysis was adopted wholesale by James Comey's FBI and the U.S. intelligence community -- is a senior fellow in the Atlantic Council's
Digital Forensic Service.
News about Russian trolls operating out of the IRA and poisoning the Western mind filled the British press in 2015. In line with
this NATO project is the Information Warfare Initiative in the U.S., centered at the Washington Center for European Policy Analysis
and founded by Washington Post neo-con Anne Applebaum. It is a pseudopod of the National Endowment for Democracy and the U.S. intelligence
community, and has concentrated its attacks on the Russian broadcasters RT and Sputnik.
2
https://www.youtube.com/embed/uc-JTs2BkDw?wmode=opaque&controls=&rel=0
Watch LaRouchePAC's full interview of former CIA Officer Ray McGovern and the VIPS report.
William Binney has insisted from the first reference to Russian hacking as the source of the WikiLeaks Podesta/DNC documents,
that if such an event had occurred, the NSA would have traced it and could say so with certainty. In their report, the VIPS point
out that the CIA's "Marble Framework" program allows for obfuscation of cyberattacks and false flag attribution to other state actors.
WikiLeaks has consistently claimed that the source of its dossier was an inside leak from the DNC, implying that Seth Rich, a DNC
data management staffer who supported Bernie Sanders, was one of its sources.
Rich was murdered in July of 2016 in Washington, D.C., in a crime which remains unsolved at this date.
Congressman Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA) recently met with Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, and states that he has evidence confirming that
the WikiLeaks DNC/John Podesta email trove was the result of a leak, not a Russian hack.
(3). The Trump Tower Meeting -- Entrapping a Presidential Campaign
On June 9, 2016, a meeting took place in Trump Tower involving Donald Trump, Jr., Paul Manafort, at the time the campaign manager
for the Trump Presidential campaign, Jared Kushner, the President's son-in-law, and five other people. As opposed to media accounts,
only one of the participants in the Trump Tower meeting was a Russian, the lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. By all accounts provided
by participants, the meeting was very short, and involved the Magnitsky Act sanctions imposed by the U.S. Congress on certain Russians.
Many consider these 2012 sanctions to be the opening shot of the New Cold War. This meeting has attracted extensive attention
from Special Counsel Mueller, as the media has painted it as a "smoking gun." The emails setting up the meeting do not reflect
what actually happened at the meeting.
Instead, they bear all the marks of an intelligence-agency entrapment attempt against Donald Trump, Jr., designed to fix the "Manchurian
candidate" label on Trump early in the general election campaign. The emails setting up the meeting specifically offered "dirt" on
Hillary Clinton to be provided by the Russian government itself.
On July 15, 2016, at the same time as the FBI was opening an investigation of the Russians for interfering in the U.S.election
and of the Trump campaign for colluding with them, another British intelligence operative, Bill Browder, was filing a complaint with
the U.S.
Department of Justice concerning four participants in the Trump Tower meeting and others for failure to register under the
Foreign Agents Registration Act. Browder's complaint claimed that these people were engaged in unregistered Russian lobbying activities,
namely, attempting to overturn the Magnitsky Act. Browder renounced his American citizenship in 1989 to become a British subject
and has operated at the highest levels of British finance and intelligence.
Undoubtedly, by the time of the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting, the British government's Trump file already included a full
history of Donald Trump's sponsorship of the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow and its players, Trump's real estate dealings with
Russians anywhere in the world, all of candidate Trump's conciliatory statements toward Russia, and complaints that campaign advisor
Michael Flynn was soft on Russia, and a rebel against the U.S. intelligence establishment from within that establishment.
The file also included surveillance of Trump's campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who was considered an outright enemy of Anglo-American
interests given his political work for the former President of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovych and his Party of the Regions, and Trump's
relationship with Felix Sater, a Russian-American and high level FBI informant.
3 The official British government file also probably included surveillance of apartments at Trump Tower associated with a then
ongoing investigation of a Russian organized crime ring said to operate there and figures involved in the FIFA corruption investigation
who also lived there. The FIFA investigation was worked by the FBI Eurasian Organized Crime Strike Force and Christopher Steele.
So, even before the Trump Tower meeting, we find following intelligence services in motion and attempting to concoct illicit dirt
about Trump and Putin: British intelligence, Ukrainian intelligence, the DNI and the CIA in the United States, the FBI, and NATO's
Strategic Communications Service and its U.S. offshoots.
But wait, as they say in infomercial sales, that's not even close to all involved. According to Foreign Policy Magazine
and others, on July 11, 2017, a hacker going by the name of "Johnnie Walker" published a trove of emails from the private account
of Lieutenant Robert J.Otto, who is tasked to a secretive unit in the U.S.State Department focused on Russia. Newsweek magazine states
that Otto is the nation's "foremost" intelligence guy concerning Russia. The emails have not been authenticated. However, they contain
an email purported to be on the day of the Trump Tower meeting between Otto and Kyle Parker, of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs,
featuring a picture of Russian attorney Natalia Velselnitskaya's house in Russia.
Parker credits himself as the actual author of the Magnitsky Act sanctions against Russia, and a close friend of Bill Browder.
Velselnitskaya claims that her children have been threatened as a result of her participation in a legal case questioning the bona
fides of Bill Browder and the factual foundations of the Magnitsky Act. The picture of her house in this context suggests another
level of intense surveillance directed at Trump Tower on the day of the meeting, and the possibility that threats to her family were
actually governing Veselnitskaya's behavior.
The Set-Up
On June 3rd, Trump Jr.was emailed by publicist Ron Goldstone, a British national who operates out of the U.S., whose first career
was as a British tabloid journalist. Goldstone's Facebook account appears to indicate that he is presently on a break from his businesses
and on a world tour of gay bathhouses in which the proudly obese Goldstone takes pictures of himself wearing various strange hats
and shirts in the company of young men.
Who is financing this tour apparently outside the reach of Grand Jury subpoenas? Goldstone has also been photographed with Kathy
Griffin, who famously posted a picture of herself with President Trump's severed head. Goldstone emailed Donald Trump, Jr.
that Aras Agalarov wanted Goldstone to set up a meeting with Trump, Jr. in which sensitive Russian government files about Hillary
Clinton's dealings with Russia would be provided to the Trump campaign as a gesture of official Russian government support of the
campaign. Trump Jr. agreed to the meeting. Goldstone is the publicist for Emin Agalarov, an Azerbarjani pop star. Aras Agalarov
and his son Emin partnered with Trump for the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow. The base of operations for the Agalarov family
is the Moscow regional government, not Putin's Kremlin.
The actual twenty-minute meeting involved Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya, who did most of the speaking by all accounts;
Rinat Akhmetshin, a well-known Washington D.C.-based lobbyist and American citizen; Ike Kaveladze, a U.S. citizen and vice-president
at one of the Agalarov's companies; Ron Goldstone; and the translator for Natalia Veselnitskaya, Anatoli Samochornov. Samochornov
is also an American citizen who worked with Veselnitskaya frequently, since she does not speak English. He has also worked extensively
for the FBI and the U.S. State Department.
Although Akhmetshin has been linked to Russian counterintelligence repeatedly in the news media, that all appears to be based
on his bragging about his two-year stint in the Russian military as a young man.
The topic addressed by Veselnitskaya was the Magnitsky Act sanctions against Russia, which resulted from a campaign conducted
by violently anti-Putin British operative William Browder, allied with Senator John McCain and the D.C. public relations firm Ashcroft
and Glover.
Any sound investigation about this meeting would focus on who, out of the small army of intelligence operatives watching this
meeting, designed and implemented the clear entrapment attempt against Donald Trump, Jr. for later use.
Since it was surveilled and recorded by multiple intelligence agencies tripping all over one another at the time, (you get the
image of Keystone cops), why was it only surfaced as the "smoking gun" recently? Natalia Veselnitskaya had been paroled into the
United States to serve as the Russian lawyer in a legal case in the Southern District of New York based solely on money-laundering
allegations made by Bill Browder against her Russian clients.
At the time of the Trump Tower meeting, however, Veselnitskaya was traveling on a business visa issued by the U.S. Department
of State after having been previously denied such a visa, and after efforts by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New
York to prevent any free travel by her in the U.S. at all. Immigration attorneys I have spoken to describe this situation as extremely
strange.
(4). Obama's Final Days In Office -- Insurrection Against the President-Elect, Felonious Leaks
In an apparent effort to influence the Electoral College vote following the election, the Obama Administration leaked a preliminary
intelligence community "assessment" that the Russians had hacked the Democrats' computers and otherwise intervened to swing the election
to Donald Trump.
According to the New York Times of March 1, 2017, Obama and his national security colleagues additionally spent the months after
the election and prior to President Trump's inauguration dropping a trail of "leads" in official documents and leaking information,
in the effort to delegitimize Trump and to continue their policies against Russia and China.
Certainly, there is a document trail on this process which appears to be confined to a period of a little over two months.
Evelyn Farkas, formerly of the Defense Department's Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia Desk and the Atlantic Council, virtually admitted
to MSNBC in March that she had participated in this process. This is where the illegal unmasking of names in FISA and E.O. 12333
surveillance occurred, when these crimes were committed. Samantha Power, the U.N. Ambassador, was reportedly involved in 260 unmasking
requests bearing little relationship to her function. Other targets of the House Intelligence Committee concerning illegal unmasking
and leaks include Susan Rice, John Brennan, and Ben Rhodes.
On December 15, 2016, DNI James Clapper signed new procedures allowing the NSA to distribute raw intercept data throughout the
entire intelligence community. These procedures became official on January 3, 2017 when Attorney General Loretta Lynch signed off
on them.
At issue is modification of secret procedures under E.O. 12333, deemed by Edward Snowden and others as the most significant authority
for our present, completely unconstitutional surveillance state. Previously, the NSA was required to filter and redact information
regarding U.S. citizens monitored in foreign counterintelligence activities. DNI Clapper had also implemented a cloud intelligence
data platform accessible by all intelligence agencies, and obliterating many paper and digital access trails and safeguards.
Were these new procedures implemented in any way based on a desire to facilitate leaks and obscure their origin to future investigators?
(5). The January Blackmail/Extortion Attempt
On January 6, 2017, according to James Comey's June 8th Congressional testimony, the intelligence chiefs went to Trump Tower to
present the Obama Administration's report on Russian hacking, hoping to convince the skeptical President-elect to abandon his campaign
promise for better relations with Putin and Russia.
Following that briefing, in a pre-arranged move with the rest of Obama's intelligence directors, Comey cleared the room of everyone
but himself and Trump.
He presented Trump with the Steele dossier's most salacious allegations, namely that Trump had engaged in sexually perverse acts
with Russian prostitutes while visiting Moscow, and Putin had taped it. This is exactly what the infamous J.Edgar Hoover did -- blackmail
Washington politicians with FBI dossiers, assuring them that he could protect them so long as they did as Hoover wished.
In fact, Comey described this as a "J.Edgar Hoover moment" in answers to questions by Senator Susan Collins on June 8th. Dick
Morris describes the entire affair as "just about as close as you can get to a political assassination without holding a gun to the
President's head." Trump appears to have demanded that the entirely fake dossier be investigated, and refused to back down
in efforts to achieve better relations with Russia. In fact, Trump denounced the intelligence community publicly as acting like Nazis.
He also denounced the McCarthyite hysteria they were generating.
While Comey recorded the President-elect's responses on a classified computer moments after leaving him, Buzzfeed, which had frequently
published raw Clinton/Obama "oppo" stories, published the December 2016 British/Clinton dodgy dossier in full.
The U.S.
intelligence community, particularly Obama's ghoulish grand inquisitor, CIA head John Brennan, proceeded to give it credibility
by leaking that both President-elect Trump and President Obama had been briefed on its contents.
Publication of the Trump Russian sex allegations accompanied James Clapper's factless "official intelligence community assessment"
that the Russians hacked the DNC and Podesta, and that they did so to influence the election in favor of Donald Trump.
Put together by analysts "hand-picked" by the CIA's John Brennan, that assessment was backed by no actual evidence.
It has now been thoroughly debunked as "the hack that wasn't" by the analysis presented by the Veteran's Intelligence Professionals
for Sanity.
John Brennan subsequently explained to Congress and the public that he does not "do evidence."
The Democrats, the news media, and their Republican allies led by John McCain and Lindsay Graham, went berserk over the factless
Obama Administration "assessment," demanding special prosecutors and Congressional investigations, and sneering that "other shoes"
were about to drop.
The New York Times' Thomas Friedman, having clearly lost it, claimed that Russia had committed an "act of war," presumably seeking
to invoke Article 5 of the NATO treaty.
(6).
The President Calls Out Comey, Brennan et al.
for Wiretapping Him, They Lie About It To Congress
On March 4, 2017, after General Flynn was fired, and after a deluge of leaks of classified surveillance of members of Trump's
transition and national defense teams, President Trump interrupted the entire fake media narrative by tweeting what had become obvious:
that Obama had him "wiretapped" in Trump Tower prior to the election, and that what was happening to him reeked of McCarthyism.
The media, which had been publishing allegations about FISA warrants and intercepts of Trump or his associates for months, erupted
in what has to be one the most shameless demonstrations of the Big Lie ever known.
They declared that Trump was offering wild claims with no evidence, essentially circling back on their very own reporting and
labeling it, "fake news."
Now it has been revealed that FISA warrants existed on Paul Manafort from 2014 through some period in 2016, and from some period
in 2016 through this year, conveniently omitting the period when he was Trump's campaign manager.
Manafort lives in Trump Tower, and was originally investigated under the Foreign Agents Registration Act for his Ukraine activities.
It is fairly obvious that the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower was the subject of massive surveillance.
It is also abundantly clear from the leaks which occurred concerning contacts with the Russians by Trump's campaign officials
and supporters, that the Trump Tower offices of his transition were subject to massive surveillance, either as the result of extant
FISA warrants or under E.O.
12333.
James Comey and James Clapper were both asked directly in their appearances before Congressional Committees whether there was
any evidence at all to substantiate the President's wiretapping claims.
Both of them gave emphatic answers that there was not, and went out of their respective ways to paint the President as a paranoid
wacko.
So now, Robert Mueller is investigating the President of the United States for obstruction of justice, because he fired an FBI
Director who lied to Congress.
Really?
(7).
The Comey Firing-Attempted Entrapment of the President
On March 20, 2017, former FBI Director Comey breathed new life into what was, by then, an insurrection which had run out of steam.
People were simply tired of Democrats, like Adam Schiff,
4 Schiff has a watermelon face combining features of the comic Charlie Brown and a Conehead; his personality is like the grasping
and crazy personality of Peanuts cartoon character, Lucy Van Pelt.
As a prosecutor it took him three tries to convict the hapless former FBI agent Richard Miller of espionage despite overwhelming
and salacious evidence. trying on McCarthyite tinfoil hats before TV cameras and pontificating about the outrage du jour.
Comey, in testimony before the House Select Committee on Intelligence, made it officially public, for the first time, that the
FBI had been investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian interference in the election since July of 2016.
He opined that the FBI counterintelligence investigation (which had been leaking like a sieve since its instigation in July, without
producing any verifiable facts about either Russian interference or Trump campaign collusion) could continue for many more months,
if not years.
He refused to say whether the President himself was under investigation, despite the fact that he had told the President that
he was not, and had told Congress the same thing behind closed doors.
Despite the daily press instructions about events which the public must view as scandalous (why scandalous was never explained),
and highly publicized Congressional hearings concerning "Russia! Russia! Russia!" all of President Obama's men, at this late date,
had only managed to arrange the human sacrifice of Michael Flynn for lying to the Vice-President about his conversations with the
Russian ambassador in December.
5 Flynn's scalping itself was the result of the unmasking of Flynn's name and illegal leaks of same to the press as a result
of classified surveillance.
This fact was obliterated by sensational press coverage of the hyperventilated visit of Obama Assistant Attorney General Sally
Yates to the White House to warn, nonsensically, that Flynn had been "compromised" by the Russians because he lied to the Vice-President.
Exactly how this makes any sense at all we have not been told.
As Shakespeare's MacBeth intoned, "it is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." They had
also generated ethics, foreign intelligence registration, and tax questions about their other Trump campaign targets -- typical of
what happens when an entire life is put under a microscope, in a dedicated search for something, anything, that could be construed
feasibly as wrongdoing.
Ask yourself, what have any of these people allegedly done? Spoken with the Russians? Talked about lifting sanctions imposed because
Putin reacted to a coup Obama ran against the duly elected government of Ukraine? Lobbied on behalf of foreign governments? Really?
The actual testimony of Obama's intelligence officials before Congressional Committees, shorn of the media hype surrounding it,
was that there was absolutely no evidence of any Trump campaign collusion with alleged Russian efforts to interfere in the U.S.
elections.
In fact, on March 15, 2017, Comey himself had told Senators Chuck Grassley and Diane Feinstein behind closed doors, that the President
was not a target of his investigations, despite planted press stories to the contrary.
Comey had otherwise continually stone-walled Grassley concerning the Senator's persistent questions about the FBI's relationship
to British operative Christopher Steele.
While unable to produce any saleable legal goods, the illicit investigations had significantly bogged down the President's political
agenda, while fostering an increasingly toxic and divisive national political environment.
The strategy of official Washington, the Republicans who opposed the President's election, the Obama/Clinton Democratic establishment,
and the intelligence agencies operating on behalf of British strategic policies and axioms is clear -- use complicit Republicans
to trap the President in failed and obnoxious policies, such as the healthcare bill; hope that the President's silent majority remains
exactly that -- silent; hope that some of the smelly stuff they are throwing up against the wall actually sticks; distract, distract,
distract the President, and prevent him from working with Russia and China to develop the world, end wars, and implement the massive
infrastructure and space exploration projects which will actually save our economy.
On May 3, 2017, Comey followed his March drama-queen performance before the House, with even more theatrical speechifying before
the Senate Judiciary Committee.
He bloviated that despite the fact that his unprecedented disclosures and handling of the Clinton email investigation may have
impacted the election, and it made him nauseous, he, Mr.
Eagle Scout and True Crime Detective rolled into one, would do the same thing all over again.
He exaggerated the significance of the Anthony Weiner computer discovery by stating that it contained thousands of new Clinton
emails, not previously produced, some of which were classified -- a statement the FBI had to subsequently correct.
As Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein rightly argued, Comey violated numerous Justice Department regulations and ethical
norms in his outrageous actions in the Clinton email investigation.
It is the Attorney General's job to prosecute cases -- to open and close them -- not that of the FBI.
At the same Senate Judiciary hearing, Comey refused to state publicly that President Trump was not under investigation, despite
repeatedly assuring the President of that fact privately.
He knew this allowed the media and Democratic party "color revolution" to continue.
He refused to confirm that there was any investigation into the torrent of illegal classified leaks at the center of the media
campaign.
On May 9th, President Trump fired Comey, setting the stage for Robert Mueller's appointment as Special Prosecutor.
At the center of Mueller's inquiry will be a conspiracy to obstruct justice charge against the President for firing James Comey,
along with any so-called process crimes he can find during his investigation -- registration offenses under the Foreign Agents Registration
Act, tax offenses, or false statements to FBI agents or Congress.
As he builds his case, Mueller will follow his standard playbook, putting unrelenting psychological pressure on those Trump loyalists
he can implicate in the process crimes.
He will continue to target and investigate the President's family for similar offenses in order to destabilize the President himself.
He will continue the relentless demonization of the President, in order to ensure that neutral officials in Washington who witnessed
key events will testify not according to the truth, but according to what they see as future career prospects.
Following his firing, Comey and friends leaked to the press notes which he had allegedly taken following most of his encounters
with the President.
With each encounter, Comey's leaked account says, he returned to discuss what was said and its implications with a close circle
of his FBI comrades.
He prepared for each encounter with the President based on "murder boards" conducted by his FBI colleagues.
In the course of their meetings, Comey says, the President asked for his loyalty, which Comey portrayed like the request of some
mafia don in a bad Hollywood movie.
If it happened, such a request, in the context of what appeared to be an open insurrection against the President by the intelligence
community, is hardly surprising.
The President denies that it happened.
On the day after the President fired Flynn, according to Comey, the President cleared the room and went one on one with him, expressing
the "hope" that Comey could let the matter of Michael Flynn go.
Comey whines that he took the President's "hope" as an "order," giving rise to concerns about possible obstruction of justice.
This line of reasoning was thoroughly eviscerated by Senator James Risch in the Senate Judicary Committee hearing on June 8, 2017.
Senator Risch forced Comey to admit that Trump never ordered him to let the Flynn matter go, but only expressed a "hope" that
he would do so, and no prosecution that Comey knew of ever went forward, based on someone expressing "hope" for something.
While the President denies he ever asked Comey to let the Flynn matter go, Harvard Law Professor Emeritus and famed trial lawyer
Alan Dershowitz writes that the President would be fully within his legal and constitutional prerogatives to order Comey to back
off Flynn.
He could have simply told Comey, I am going to pardon Flynn.
So, it is clear by James Comey's own account that he was trying to set the President up, to entrap him -- an escapade which was
"crudely" interrupted when the President fired him.
Again, confirming this, Comey told Senator Susan Collins in his testimony, that the reason why he did not stop the President from
improper interactions, if he thought they were such, the reason he concealed the alleged improper and possibly illegal conduct from
his superiors at the Justice Department, and the reason he did not resign, was because his encounters with the President were of
"investigative interest" to the FBI.
Otherwise, Comey's leaks reveal a man so leery of even shaking the President's hand (or being photographed doing it) that once
in January he tried to hide himself in the White House drapes in the hopes that Trump would not see him.
The problem for Robert Mueller's obstruction case, among others, is that both Comey and his Assistant Andrew McCabe have previously
testified, under oath, to Congress that there was no pressure to end the FBI's investigations from anyone in the Trump Administration.
And, Comey confirmed in his testimony that prior to his firing, Trump was not under investigation for collusion with Russia, obstruction,
or any other offense.
Further, Comey has proved that he is willing to violate professional norms and Justice Department regulations, if not laws, by
leaking government documents.
The question is, what else was leaked by Comey and his FBI circle? Finally, we now know that Comey lied to or misled Congress
about the "wiretaps" on Trump Tower -- the Manafort FISA warrants prove the case.
Senator Grassley has asked the FBI: Why, if you were wiretapping a close associate of the President, wouldn't you warn the President
about him as is customarily done? The true answer is that the President himself was and is the target of an unprecedented and illegal
coup-attempt conducted by those sworn to uphold the Constitution and the nation's laws.
Those familiar with the relationship between Comey and Robert Mueller describe them as "joined at the hip," "cut from the same
cloth" (can't help thinking of the Union Jack), close personal friends, and mentor (Mueller) to mentee (Comey).
The problem with this relationship is that Department of Justice conflict guidelines specifically bar prosecutors (Mueller) from
investigating issues where close friends (Comey) have a significant role, such as material witnesses.
Official Washington knows all of this and yet touts this investigation as somehow "independent," "apolitical," and "unconflicted."
Will You Help Us End This Coup?
So, now you know.
Since the election and before, we have been stuck in a very elaborate and dangerous British hoax, gambling the future of our nation
in a cold coup against an elected president.
Actual crimes have been committed -- not by the President -- but against the President and the Constitution.
What has happened is that political differences, ideas, have been criminalized, the very danger most provisions of our Constitution
and its Bill of Rights were explicitly designed to guard against.
We have shown you the prosecutorial robot named Robert Mueller, whom others have always pointed to shoot, and why he has been
deployed to take out the President of the United States.
We have told you the real reasons why the President has been attacked by a foreign power, the British and their allies in our
country.
We have shown you that many of the same people and methods were deployed on a smaller scale to deprive the world of the beautiful
ideas of Lyndon LaRouche.
Now, at a point where this President, freed of Mueller and adequately advised, could join with China's Belt and Road and usher
in a new renaissance for mankind, shouldn't we really, finally, win our future, this time?
Federal investigators from the D.C. U.S. Attorney's office recently interviewed former FBI
director James Comey as part of an ongoing probe into whether former FBI #2 Andrew McCabe broke
the law when he lied to federal agents, reports the
Washington Post .
Investigators from the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office recently interviewed former FBI
director James B. Comey as part of a probe into whether his deputy, Andrew McCabe, broke the
law by lying to federal agents -- an indication the office is seriously considering whether
McCabe should be charged with a crime, a person familiar with the matter said. -
Washington Po st
What makes the interview particularly interesting is that Comey and McCabe have given
conflicting reports over the events leading up to McCabe's firing, with
Comey calling his former deputy a liar in an April appearance on The View .
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz issued a criminal referral for McCabe
following a months-long probe which found that the former acting FBI Director leaked a
self-serving story to the press and then lied about it under oath. McCabe was fired on March 16
after Horowitz found that he " had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked
candor - including under oath - on multiple occasions. "
Specifically, McCabe was fired for lying about authorizing an F.B.I. spokesman and attorney
to tell Devlin Barrett of the Wall St.
Journal - just days before the 2016 election, that the FBI had not put the brakes on a
separate investigation into the Clinton Foundation, at a time in which McCabe was coming under
fire for his wife taking a $467,500 campaign contribution from Clinton proxy pal, Terry
McAuliffe.
New details show that senior law-enforcement officials repeatedly voiced skepticism of the
strength of the evidence in a bureau investigation of the Clinton Foundation, sought to
condense what was at times a sprawling cross-country effort, and, according to some people
familiar with the matter, told agents to limit their pursuit of the case . The probe of the
foundation began more than a year ago to determine whether financial crimes or influence
peddling occurred related to the charity.
...
Some investigators grew frustrated, viewing FBI leadership as uninterested in probing the
charity , these people said. Others involved disagreed sharply, defending FBI bosses and
saying Mr. McCabe in particular was caught between an increasingly acrimonious fight for
control between the Justice Department and FBI agents pursuing the Clinton Foundation case
.
So McCabe was found to have leaked information to the WSJ in order to combat rumors that
Clinton had indirectly bribed him to back off the Clinton Foundation investigation, and then
lied about it four times to the DOJ and FBI, including twice under oath.
McCabe vs. Comey
Investigators from the D.C. U.S. Attorney's office were likely to be keenly interested in
Comey's version of whether or not he knew about McCabe's disclosure.
Comey and McCabe offered varying accounts of who authorized the disclosure for the
article. They discussed the story the day after it was published, and Comey, according to the
inspector general's report, told investigators McCabe "definitely did not tell me that he
authorized" the disclosure . -WaPo
"I have a strong impression he conveyed to me 'it wasn't me boss.' And I don't think that
was by saying those words, I think it was most likely by saying 'I don't know how this s---
gets in the media or why would people talk about this kind of thing,' words that I would fairly
take as 'I, Andy, didn't do it,' " Comey said, according to the inspector general.
During an April appearance on ABC's The View to peddle his new book, A Higher Royalty
Loyalty, where he called McCabe a liar , and said he actually "ordered the [IG] report" which
found McCabe guilty of leaking to the press and then lying under oath about it, several
times.
Comey was asked by host Megan McCain how he thought the public was supposed to have
"confidence" in the FBI amid revelations that McCabe lied about the leak.
" It's not okay. The McCabe case illustrates what an organization committed to the truth
looks like ," Comey said. " I ordered that investigation. "
Comey then appeared to try and frame McCabe as a "good person" despite all the lying.
"Good people lie. I think I'm a good person, where I have lied," Comey said. " I still
believe Andrew McCabe is a good person but the inspector general found he lied, " noting that
there are "severe consequences" within the DOJ for doing so.
Following McCabe's firing, his attorney Michael R. Bromwich (flush with cash from the
disgraced Deputy Director's half-million dollar legal defense GoFundMe
campaign), fired back - claiming that Comey was well aware of the leaks .
" In his comments this week about the McCabe matter, former FBI Director James Comey has
relied on the Inspector Genera's (OIG) conclusions in their report on Mr. McCabe. In fact, the
report fails to adequately address the evidence (including sworn testimony) and documents that
prove that Mr. McCabe advised Director Comey repeatedly that he was working with the Wall
Street Journal on the stories in question..." reads the statement in part.
McCabe vs. the DOJ
McCabe may also find himself at odds with the Department of Justice, as notes he kept
allegedly detailing an interaction with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein raise questions
about a memo Rosenstein wrote justifying Comey's firing. While Rosenstein's memo took aim at
Comey for his mishandling of the Clinton email investigation, McCabe's notes suggest that Trump
told Rosenstein to point to the Russia investigation. Rosenstein's recommendation ultimately
did not mention Russia.
McCabe's interactions with Rosenstein could complicate any potential prosecution of McCabe
because Rosenstein would likely be involved in a final decision on filing charges. McCabe has
argued that the Justice Department's actions against him, including his firing, are
retaliatory for his work on the Russia investigation. -WaPo
As the Washington Post notes, lying to federal investigators can carry a five-year prison
sentence - however McCabe says he did not intentionally mislead anyone. The Post also notes
that while Comey's interview is significant, it does not indicated that prosecutors have
reached any conclusions.
Lying to Comey might not itself be a crime. But the inspector general alleged McCabe
misled investigators three other times.
He told agents from the FBI inspection division on May 9, 2017, that he had not authorized
the disclosure and did not know who had, the inspector general alleged. McCabe similarly told
inspector general investigators on July 28 that he was not aware of one of the FBI officials,
lawyer Lisa Page, having been authorized to speak to reporters, and because he was not in
Washington on the days she did so, he could not say what she was doing. McCabe later admitted
he authorized Page to talk to reporters.
The inspector general also alleged that McCabe lied in a final conversation in November,
claiming that he had told Comey he had authorized the disclosure and that he had not claimed
otherwise to inspection division agents in May.
Michael Bromwich replied in a statement: "A little more than a month ago, we confirmed that
we had been advised that a criminal referral to the U.S. Attorney's Office had been made
regarding Mr. McCabe. We said at that time that we were confident that, unless there is
inappropriate pressure from high levels of the Administration, the U.S. Attorney's Office would
conclude that it should decline to prosecute. Our view has not changed.
He added that " leaks concerning specific investigative steps the US Attorney's Office has
allegedly taken are extremely disturbing ."
Whatever Comey told federal investigators, we suspect it eventually boiled down to "McCabe
didn't tell me," squarely placing responsibility for the leaks - and the lies, on McCabe's
shoulders.
"... Reached by phone on Tuesday, Richman refused to say when his legal representation of Comey began or whether he was personally representing Comey when the former FBI director testified before Congress in June 2017 about his deliberate leaking of the FBI records. ..."
"... The specific timing of the attorney-client relationship is important, because it may shield conversations between Comey and Richman regarding the coordinated leak of FBI records to the media from law enforcement scrutiny. ..."
"... Richman's legal work on behalf of Comey was not known before today, as Comey testified before Congress in 2017 that Richman was merely a friend . "I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter," Comey testified last June in response to a question from Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). "Didn't do it myself, for a variety of reasons." "But I asked him to, because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel," Comey continued . "And so I asked a close friend of mine to do it." "Who was that?" Collins asked. "A good friend of mine who's a professor at Columbia Law School," Comey responded . ..."
Daniel Richman, the law professor who leaked classified FBI records to the media at Comey's request, refused to disclose
when exactly he became Comey's attorney.
Daniel Richman, a law professor at Columbia University
, told The Federalist via phone on Tuesday afternoon that he was now personally representing Comey.
According to The New York Times
, the line of questioning from the office of special counsel Robert Mueller focused on memos that Comey wrote and later
leaked after he was fired from his job by President Donald Trump.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who serves as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote
in a letter to the Department of Justice on January 3 that at least one of the memos Comey provided to his friend was classified.
"My staff has since reviewed these memoranda in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) at the FBI, and I reviewed
them in a SCIF at the Office of Senate Security," Grassley
wrote .
"The FBI insisted that these reviews take place in a SCIF because the majority of the memos are classified.
Of the seven memos, four are marked classified at the 'SECRET' or 'CONFIDENTIAL' levels." "If it's true that Professor Richman
had four of the seven memos, then in light of the fact that four of the seven memos the Committee reviewed are classified, it would
appear that at least one memo the former FBI director gave Professor Richman contained classified information," Grassley
noted in the letter.
Reached by phone on Tuesday, Richman refused to say when his legal representation of Comey began or whether he was personally
representing Comey when the former FBI director testified before Congress in June 2017 about his deliberate leaking of the FBI records.
The specific timing of the attorney-client relationship is important, because it may shield conversations between Comey and
Richman regarding the coordinated leak of FBI records to the media from law enforcement scrutiny.
Richman's legal work on behalf of Comey was not known before today, as Comey testified before Congress in 2017 that Richman
was merely a friend . "I asked a friend of mine to share
the content of the memo with a reporter," Comey
testified last June in
response to a question from Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). "Didn't do it myself, for a variety of reasons." "But I asked him to, because
I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel," Comey
continued . "And so I
asked a close friend of mine to do it." "Who was that?" Collins asked. "A good friend of mine who's a professor at Columbia Law School,"
Comey responded .
Despite being given multiple opportunities to do so, Comey never characterized Richman as his attorney, nor did he suggest that
his directions to Richman to leak the memos to the media were privileged attorney-client communications.
The news that Richman is now representing Comey raises questions about whether the special counsel may be investigating Comey
and Richman for their roles in leaking classified information to the news media in order to get revenge on Trump for firing Comey.
The tactic of using attorney-client privilege to shield potentially illegal communications from law enforcement scrutiny is not
a new one.
During the FBI investigation of then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton's potential mishandling of classified information, Cheryl
Mills, one of Clinton's top government aides at the State Department, also claimed that she could not testify about her communications
with Clinton on the matter because
she was also serving
as Clinton's personal attorney .
"I have nothing to say about any of this," Richman responded, when asked directly whether attorney-client privilege was being
asserted in order to shield his communications with Comey regarding the deliberate leaking of classified documents to the media.
Richman was first licensed to practice law in the state of New York in 1986, according to
public records , and his current law license in that state is valid through October 2018.
Who knew? Not me. The FBI does not discuss its operations with other agencies
of the US Government. Period. I made liaison with the FBI on many occasions when I was with DIA and they were always careful to make
it clear that whatever you might give them in the way of information they would give you exactly nothing in return. In retirement
from government I have often observed the FBI working in support of DoJ in court cases.
It has always been my understanding that when the FBI investigated you they searched through records, listened to your telephone,
read your E-mail and in the end interviewed you.
Now I learn that they also recruit "confidential sources" to speak to you about the subject of FBI interest WITHOUT bothering
to inform you that they are going to tell the FBI what you said about things. Some of these "confidential sources" are employed by
the FBI for long periods of time. The American professor now teaching at a UK university who was sent by the FBI to talk to several
Trump campaign people was one such. Other "confidential sources" are recruited for a particular case Sometimes they are recruited
from among the existing acquaintances or "friends" of the person targeted by the FBI. In other words if DoJ, the WH, or the Bureau
(FBI) want to know what I, or anyone else, really says about a given topic, they can recruit someone I know using pressure, persuasion
or money to "rat" me out.
Felix Dzerzhinsky would have been proud of their skills if they had been his men. pl
Of course the FBI uses confidential informants. So does the DEA, ICE and every state and local LEA. It's a staple of every TV
crime show and novel dealing with police. Every gangster, crook, drug dealer, pedophile, terrorist and spy is obsessed with the
idea that some snitch is going to rat him out. The rest of us are rightfully incensed that this could possibly happen to us. There
best be a solid paper trail behind every confidential informant used by all the various cops. And these paper trails need to be
examined by IGs or others outside these users of confidential informants.
To those of us in the intelligence field rather than the LE field, the use of US Persons to inform on other US Persons is anathema.
We are specifically prohibited from targeting US Persons without informing them of our USI affiliation except possibly under rare
and specific circumstances. In those circumstances we have to call in the FBI. The NSA once found the targeting of US Persons
to be beyond anathema. It was a mortal sin condemning one's soul to eternal damnation. That certainly changed after 9/11.
As far as the sharing of information with the FBI, CIA and even NSA goes, I had a very different experience than Colonel Lang
when I was in DIA. In digital operations, we shared information on a daily basis. Our operations were often intertwined and interdependent.
However, I doubt this extended beyond digital operations.
https://trevoraaronson.com/... the war on terror, for the FBI has been one giant entrapment free for all, fueled
entirely on informants of dubious trustworthiness at best.
Several FBI agents would like Congress to subpoena them so that they can step forward and
reveal dirt on former FBI Director James Comey and his Deputy Andrew McCabe, reports the
Daily Caller , citing three active field agents and former federal prosecutor Joe
DiGenova.
" There are agents all over this country who love the bureau and are sickened by [James]
Comey's behavior and [Andrew] McCabe and [Eric] Holder and [Loretta] Lynch and the thugs like
[John] Brennan –who despise the fact that the bureau was used as a tool of political
intelligence by the Obama administration thugs," former federal prosecutor Joe DiGenova told
The Daily Caller Tuesday.
" They are just waiting for a chance to come forward and testify ."
DiGenova - a veteran D.C. attorney who President Trump initially wanted to hire to represent
him in the Mueller probe - only to have to step aside
due to conflicts , has maintained contact with "rank and file" FBI agents as well as a
counterintelligence consultant who interviewed an active special agent in the FBI's Washington
Field Office (WFO) - producing a transcript reviewed by The Caller .
These agents prefer to be subpoenaed to becoming an official government whistleblower ,
since they fear political and professional backlash, the former Trump administration official
explained to TheDC.
The subpoena is preferred, said diGenova, " because when you are subpoenaed, Congress then
pays for your legal counsel and the subpoena protects [the agent] from any organizational
retaliation . they are on their own as whistleblowers, they get no legal protection and there
will be organizational retaliation against them."
DiGenova and his wife Victoria Toensing have long represented government whistleblowers.
Most recently, Toensing became council for William D. Campbell, the former CIA and FBI
operative that was
deeply embedded in the Russian uranium industry - only to be smeared by the Obama
administration when he gathered evidence of two related bribery schemes involving Russian
nuclear officials, an American trucking company, and efforts to route money to the Clinton
Global Initiative (CGI) through an American lobbying firm in order to overcome regulatory
hurdles, according to reports by The Hill and Circa .
diGenova told the Daily Caller that asking for a Congressional subpoena is "an intelligent
approach to the situation given the vindictive nature of the bureau under Comey and McCabe . I
have no idea how to read Chris Ray who is not a leader and who has disappeared from the public
eye during this entire crisis. You know he may be cleaning house but if he's doing so, he's
doing it very quietly."
"I don't blame them," added diGenova. " I don't blame the agents one bit. I think that the
FBI is in a freefall . James Comey has destroyed the institution he claims to love. And it is
beyond a doubt that it is going to take a decade to restore public confidence because of Comey
and Clapper and Brennan and Obama and Lynch."
Meanwhile, the agent from the Washington field office says that rank and file FBI agents are
"fed up" and desperately want the DOJ to take action, according to transcripts of the
interview.
"Every special agent I have spoken to in the Washington Field Office wants to see McCabe
prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. They feel the same way about Comey," said the
agent.
"The administrations are so politicized that any time a Special Agent comes forward as a
whistleblower, they can expect to be thrown under the bus by leadership . Go against the Muslim
Brotherhood, you're crushed. Go against the Clintons, you're crushed. The FBI has long been
politicized to the detriment of national security and law enforcement."
The special agent added, " Activity that Congress is investigating is being stonewalled by
leadership and rank-and-file FBI employees in the periphery are just doing their jobs . All
Congress needs to do is subpoena involved personnel and they will tell you what they know.
These are honest people. Leadership cannot stop anyone from responding to a subpoena. Those
subpoenaed also get legal counsel provided by the government to represent them."
Meanwhile, the former Trump administration official who spoke with The Caller explained that
the FBI's problems go way beyond Comey and McCabe.
" They know that it wasn't just Comey and McCabe in this case. That's too narrow a net to
cast over these guys. There's a much broader corruption that seeped into the seventh floor at
the bureau ."
" They ruined the credibility of the bureau and the technical ability of the bureau, so
systemically, over the past several years, they're worried about their organizational
reputation and their professional careers."
"... As one person who had talked to Clinton about the difference between Trump and Sanders crowds recounted, her feeling was that 'at least white supremacists shaved.'" ..."
"... Why does Trump get away with corruption? Because Bill and Hillary Clinton normalized it ..."
"Clinton to be honored at Harvard for 'transformative impact'" [
The Hill ]. Irony is not dead.
"From the Jaws of Victory" [ Jacobin ]. Some
highlights from Amy Chozick's Chasing Hillary , which really does sound like a fun
read:
"In the public's mind, Clinton's 'deplorables' quip is remembered as evidence of her
disdain for much of Trump's fan base. But there was one other group Clinton had a similar
dislike of: Bernie Sanders supporters.
As one person who had talked to Clinton about the difference between Trump and Sanders
crowds recounted, her feeling was that 'at least white supremacists shaved.'"
UPDATE "Why does Trump get away with corruption? Because Bill and Hillary Clinton normalized
it" [Josh Barro, Business
Insider ].
"... Back in Dec., NYT assured us it was the Papadopoulos-Downer convo that inspired FBI to launch official counterintelligence operation on July 31, 2016. Which was convenient, since it diminished the role of the dossier. However . . . ..."
"... Now NYT tells us FBI didn't debrief Downer until August 2nd. And Nunes says no "official intelligence" from allies was delivered to FBI about that convo prior to July 31. So how did FBI get Downer details? (Political actors?) And what really did inspire the CI investigation? ..."
"... House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes appeared on "Fox & Friends" Tuesday, where he provided a potentially explosive hint at what's driving his demand to see documents related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Trump-Russia probe. "If the campaign was somehow set up," he told the hosts, "I think that would be a problem." ..."
"... government "officials" acknowledged that the bureau had used "at least one" human "informant" to spy on both Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. ..."
"... Think of the 2016 Trump-Russia narrative as two parallel strands -- one politics, one law enforcement. The political side involves the actions of Fusion GPS, the Hillary Clinton campaign and Obama officials -- all of whom were focused on destroying Donald Trump. The law-enforcement strand involves the FBI -- and what methods and evidence it used in its Trump investigation. At some point these strands intersected -- and one crucial question is how early that happened. ..."
"... Which brings us to timing. It's long been known that Mr. Steele went to the FBI in early July to talk about the dossier, and that's the first known intersection of the strands. But given the oddity and timing of those U.K. interactions concerning Messrs. Page and Papadopoulos, and given the history of some of the people involved in arranging them, some wonder if the two strands were converging earlier than anyone has admitted. The Intelligence Committee subpoena is designed to sort all this out: Who was pulling the strings, and what was the goal? Information? Or entrapment? ..."
"... Whatever the answer-whether it is straightforward, or whether it involves political chicanery-Congress and the public have a right to know. And a Justice Department willing to leak details of its "top secret" source to friendly media can have no excuse for not sharing with the duly elected members of Congress. ..."
"... Thanks for stopping by, Bob. Before you ask me your questions I need you to answer a few of mine: ..."
"... You have had a full year to investigate the allegations that my campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in our election. Has anyone obstructed you from doing this job to the best of your ability? If so, who have you notified of this and what corrective action have you taken or requested be taken? ..."
"... Have you found any evidence that I personally committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to interfere with the election? ..."
"... Have you found any evidence that any member of my campaign committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to interfere with the election? ..."
Earlier in the week, with Trump now calling out the debacle as
"possible
bigger than Watergate," Strassel tweet-stormed some key points that everyone - leftist and right - should consider ... (that's
wishful thinking)...
1. So a few important points on that new NYT "Hurricane Crossfire" piece. A story that, BTW, all of us following this knew
had to be coming. This is DOJ/FBI leakers' attempt to get in front of the facts Nunes is forcing out, to make it not sound so
bad. Don't buy it. It's bad.
2. Biggest takeaway: Govt "sources" admit that, indeed, the Obama DOJ and FBI spied on the Trump campaign. Spied . (Tho NYT
kindly calls spy an "informant.") NYT slips in confirmation far down in story, and makes it out like it isn't a big deal. It is
a very big deal.
3. In self-serving desire to get a sympathetic story about its actions, DOJ/FBI leakers are willing to provide yet more details
about that "top secret" source (namely, that spying was aimed at Page/Papadopoulos) -- making all more likely/certain source will
be outed. That's on them
4. DOJ/FBI (and its leakers) have shredded what little credibility they have in claiming they cannot comply with subpoena .
They are willing to provide details to friendly media, but not Congress? Willing to risk very source they claim to need to protect?
5. Back in Dec., NYT assured us it was the Papadopoulos-Downer convo that inspired FBI to launch official counterintelligence
operation on July 31, 2016. Which was convenient, since it diminished the role of the dossier. However . . .
6. Now NYT tells us FBI didn't debrief Downer until August 2nd. And Nunes says no "official intelligence" from allies was
delivered to FBI about that convo prior to July 31. So how did FBI get Downer details? (Political actors?) And what really did
inspire the CI investigation?
7. As for whether to believe line that FBI operated soberly/carefully/judiciously in 2016, a main source for this judgment
is, um . . .uh . . . Sally Yates. Who was in middle of it all. A bit like asking Putin to reassure that Russia didn't meddle in
our election.
8. On that, if u r wondering who narrated this story, note paragraphs that assure everybody that hardly anybody in DOJ knew
about probe. Oh, and Comey also was given few details. Nobody knew nothin'! (Cuz when u require whole story saying u behaved,
it means u know you didn't.)
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes appeared on "Fox & Friends" Tuesday, where he provided a potentially explosive
hint at what's driving his demand to see documents related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Trump-Russia probe. "If the campaign
was somehow set up," he told the hosts, "I think that would be a problem."
Or an understatement. Mr. Nunes is still getting stiff-armed by the Justice Department over his subpoena, but this week his efforts
did force the stunning admission that the FBI had indeed spied on the Trump campaign. This came in the form of a Thursday New York
Times apologia in which government "officials" acknowledged that the bureau had used "at least one" human "informant" to spy
on both Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. The Times slipped this mind-bending fact into the middle of an otherwise glowing
profile of the noble bureau -- and dismissed it as no big deal.
But there's more to be revealed here, and Mr. Nunes's "set up" comment points in a certain direction. Getting to the conclusion
requires thinking more broadly about events beyond the FBI's actions.
Think of the 2016 Trump-Russia narrative as two parallel strands -- one politics, one law enforcement. The political side
involves the actions of Fusion GPS, the Hillary Clinton campaign and Obama officials -- all of whom were focused on destroying Donald
Trump. The law-enforcement strand involves the FBI -- and what methods and evidence it used in its Trump investigation. At some point
these strands intersected -- and one crucial question is how early that happened.
What may well have kicked off both, however, is a key if overlooked moment detailed in the House Intelligence Committee's recent
Russia report .
In "late spring" of 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey briefed White House "National Security Council Principals" that the FBI
had counterintelligence concerns about the Trump campaign. Carter Page was announced as a campaign adviser on March 21, and Paul
Manafort joined the campaign March 29. The briefing likely referenced both men, since both had previously been on the radar of law
enforcement. But here's what matters: With this briefing, Mr. Comey officially notified senior political operators on Team Obama
that the bureau had eyes on Donald Trump and Russia. Imagine what might be done in these partisan times with such explosive information.
And what do you know? Sometime in April, the law firm Perkins Coie (on behalf the Clinton campaign) hired Fusion GPS, and Fusion
turned its attention to Trump-Russia connections. The job of any good swamp operator is to gin up a fatal October surprise for the
opposition candidate. And what could be more devastating than to paint a picture of Trump-Russia collusion that would provoke a full-fledged
FBI investigation?
We already know of at least one way Fusion went about that project, with wild success. It hired former British spy Christopher
Steele to compile that infamous dossier. In July, Mr. Steele wrote a memo that leveled spectacular conspiracy theories against two
particular Trump campaign members -- Messrs. Manafort and Page. For an FBI that already had suspicions about the duo, those allegations
might prove huge -- right? That is, if the FBI were to ever see them. Though, lucky for Mrs. Clinton, July is when the Fusion team
decided it was a matter of urgent national security for Mr. Steele to play off his credentials and to take this political opposition
research to the FBI.
The question Mr. Nunes's committee seems to be investigating is what other moments -- if any -- were engineered in the spring,
summer or fall of 2016 to cast suspicion on Team Trump. The conservative press has produced some intriguing stories about a handful
of odd invitations and meetings that were arranged for Messrs. Page and Papadopoulos starting in the spring -- all emanating from
the United Kingdom. On one hand, that country is home to the well-connected Mr. Steele, which could mean the political actors with
whom he was working were involved. On the other hand, the Justice Department has admitted it was spying on both men, which could
mean government was involved. Or maybe . . . both.
Which brings us to timing. It's long been known that Mr. Steele went to the FBI in early July to talk about the dossier, and
that's the first known intersection of the strands. But given the oddity and timing of those U.K. interactions concerning Messrs.
Page and Papadopoulos, and given the history of some of the people involved in arranging them, some wonder if the two strands were
converging earlier than anyone has admitted. The Intelligence Committee subpoena is designed to sort all this out: Who was pulling
the strings, and what was the goal? Information? Or entrapment?
Whatever the answer-whether it is straightforward, or whether it involves political chicanery-Congress and the public have
a right to know. And a Justice Department willing to leak details of its "top secret" source to friendly media can have no excuse
for not sharing with the duly elected members of Congress.
Thanks for stopping by, Bob. Before you ask me your questions I need you to answer a few of mine:
You have had a full year to investigate the allegations that my campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle
in our election. Has anyone obstructed you from doing this job to the best of your ability? If so, who have you notified of this
and what corrective action have you taken or requested be taken?
Have you found any evidence that I personally committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to interfere with
the election?
Have you found any evidence that any member of my campaign committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to
interfere with the election?
Assuming the answers to all 3 are "No" (which they likely are or such evidence would have already leaked to CNN via Clapper)
or if he refuses to answer, inform Muller the meeting and his investigation are over. He is will be escorted to his office to
turn over all records gathered in the investigation to the appropriate DOJ officials, debrief them on his findings and then is
fired and all security clearances revoked.
Let the MSM and Dems bitch and cry all they want. You had a year to find evidence for your phony allegations with your top
investigator on the job, access to millions of documents and millions of taxpayer dollars. You failed because there was no crime
committed. Time to move on.
Of course this is assuming the Mueller investigation is actually what it is purported to be which I have serious doubts about.
I think it's more likely Mueller cut an immunity deal for himself when he met with Trump the day before being appointed as SC
and this whole thing was nothing but a charade to keep Trump's enemies believing Mueller is their guy. This way they put all their
attention and energy into this investigation only to have it blow up in their faces just before the midterms when Trump is fully
vindicated by the guy all his enemies said was above reproach. If that happens watch how fast they all turn on Mueller and every
MSM outlet starts running hit pieces on him the next morning.
Mollie Hemingway's piece on a similar vein in The Federalist. Cunts leak like a sieve to their collusional media scum, but
woe-betied Congress getting access. Fuckers should be hanging from lamposts.
"... House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes appeared on "Fox & Friends" Tuesday, where he provided a potentially explosive hint at what's driving his demand to see documents related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Trump-Russia probe. "If the campaign was somehow set up," he told the hosts, "I think that would be a problem." ..."
"... government "officials" acknowledged that the bureau had used "at least one" human "informant" to spy on both Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. ..."
"... Think of the 2016 Trump-Russia narrative as two parallel strands -- one politics, one law enforcement. The political side involves the actions of Fusion GPS, the Hillary Clinton campaign and Obama officials -- all of whom were focused on destroying Donald Trump. The law-enforcement strand involves the FBI -- and what methods and evidence it used in its Trump investigation. At some point these strands intersected -- and one crucial question is how early that happened. ..."
"... Which brings us to timing. It's long been known that Mr. Steele went to the FBI in early July to talk about the dossier, and that's the first known intersection of the strands. But given the oddity and timing of those U.K. interactions concerning Messrs. Page and Papadopoulos, and given the history of some of the people involved in arranging them, some wonder if the two strands were converging earlier than anyone has admitted. The Intelligence Committee subpoena is designed to sort all this out: Who was pulling the strings, and what was the goal? Information? Or entrapment? ..."
"... Whatever the answer-whether it is straightforward, or whether it involves political chicanery-Congress and the public have a right to know. And a Justice Department willing to leak details of its "top secret" source to friendly media can have no excuse for not sharing with the duly elected members of Congress. ..."
"... Thanks for stopping by, Bob. Before you ask me your questions I need you to answer a few of mine: ..."
"... You have had a full year to investigate the allegations that my campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in our election. Has anyone obstructed you from doing this job to the best of your ability? If so, who have you notified of this and what corrective action have you taken or requested be taken? ..."
"... Have you found any evidence that I personally committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to interfere with the election? ..."
"... Have you found any evidence that any member of my campaign committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to interfere with the election? ..."
Earlier in the week, with Trump now calling out the debacle as
"possible bigger than Watergate," Strassel tweet-stormed some key points that everyone -
leftist and right - should consider ... (that's wishful thinking)...
1. So a few important points on that new NYT "Hurricane Crossfire" piece. A story that,
BTW, all of us following this knew had to be coming. This is DOJ/FBI leakers' attempt to get
in front of the facts Nunes is forcing out, to make it not sound so bad. Don't buy it. It's
bad.
2. Biggest takeaway: Govt "sources" admit that, indeed, the Obama DOJ and FBI spied on the
Trump campaign. Spied . (Tho NYT kindly calls spy an "informant.") NYT slips in confirmation
far down in story, and makes it out like it isn't a big deal. It is a very big deal.
3. In self-serving desire to get a sympathetic story about its actions, DOJ/FBI leakers
are willing to provide yet more details about that "top secret" source (namely, that spying
was aimed at Page/Papadopoulos) -- making all more likely/certain source will be outed.
That's on them
4. DOJ/FBI (and its leakers) have shredded what little credibility they have in claiming
they cannot comply with subpoena . They are willing to provide details to friendly media, but
not Congress? Willing to risk very source they claim to need to protect?
5. Back in Dec., NYT assured us it was the Papadopoulos-Downer convo that inspired FBI to
launch official counterintelligence operation on July 31, 2016. Which was convenient, since
it diminished the role of the dossier. However . . .
6. Now NYT tells us FBI didn't debrief Downer until August 2nd. And Nunes says no
"official intelligence" from allies was delivered to FBI about that convo prior to July 31.
So how did FBI get Downer details? (Political actors?) And what really did inspire the CI
investigation?
7. As for whether to believe line that FBI operated soberly/carefully/judiciously in 2016,
a main source for this judgment is, um . . .uh . . . Sally Yates. Who was in middle of it
all. A bit like asking Putin to reassure that Russia didn't meddle in our election.
8. On that, if u r wondering who narrated this story, note paragraphs that assure
everybody that hardly anybody in DOJ knew about probe. Oh, and Comey also was given few
details. Nobody knew nothin'! (Cuz when u require whole story saying u behaved, it means u
know you didn't.)
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes appeared on "Fox & Friends" Tuesday,
where he provided a potentially explosive hint at what's driving his demand to see documents
related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Trump-Russia probe. "If the campaign was
somehow set up," he told the hosts, "I think that would be a problem."
Or an understatement.
Mr. Nunes is still getting stiff-armed by the Justice Department over his subpoena, but this
week his efforts did force the stunning admission that the FBI had indeed spied on the Trump
campaign. This came in the form of a Thursday New York Times apologia in which government
"officials" acknowledged that the bureau had used "at least one" human "informant" to spy on
both Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. The Times slipped this mind-bending fact into the
middle of an otherwise glowing profile of the noble bureau -- and dismissed it as no big deal.
But there's more to be revealed here, and Mr. Nunes's "set up" comment points in a certain
direction. Getting to the conclusion requires thinking more broadly about events beyond the
FBI's actions.
Think of the 2016 Trump-Russia narrative as two parallel strands -- one politics, one law
enforcement. The political side involves the actions of Fusion GPS, the Hillary Clinton
campaign and Obama officials -- all of whom were focused on destroying Donald Trump. The
law-enforcement strand involves the FBI -- and what methods and evidence it used in its Trump
investigation. At some point these strands intersected -- and one crucial question is how early
that happened.
What may well have kicked off both, however, is a key if overlooked moment detailed in the
House Intelligence Committee's recent Russia report .
In "late spring" of 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey briefed White House "National
Security Council Principals" that the FBI had counterintelligence concerns about the Trump
campaign. Carter Page was announced as a campaign adviser on March 21, and Paul Manafort joined
the campaign March 29. The briefing likely referenced both men, since both had previously been
on the radar of law enforcement. But here's what matters: With this briefing, Mr. Comey
officially notified senior political operators on Team Obama that the bureau had eyes on Donald
Trump and Russia. Imagine what might be done in these partisan times with such explosive
information.
And what do you know? Sometime in April, the law firm Perkins Coie (on behalf the Clinton
campaign) hired Fusion GPS, and Fusion turned its attention to Trump-Russia connections. The
job of any good swamp operator is to gin up a fatal October surprise for the opposition
candidate. And what could be more devastating than to paint a picture of Trump-Russia collusion
that would provoke a full-fledged FBI investigation?
We already know of at least one way Fusion went about that project, with wild success. It
hired former British spy Christopher Steele to compile that infamous dossier. In July, Mr.
Steele wrote a memo that leveled spectacular conspiracy theories against two particular Trump
campaign members -- Messrs. Manafort and Page. For an FBI that already had suspicions about the
duo, those allegations might prove huge -- right? That is, if the FBI were to ever see them.
Though, lucky for Mrs. Clinton, July is when the Fusion team decided it was a matter of urgent
national security for Mr. Steele to play off his credentials and to take this political
opposition research to the FBI.
The question Mr. Nunes's committee seems to be investigating is what other moments -- if any
-- were engineered in the spring, summer or fall of 2016 to cast suspicion on Team Trump. The
conservative press has produced some intriguing stories about a handful of odd invitations and
meetings that were arranged for Messrs. Page and Papadopoulos starting in the spring -- all
emanating from the United Kingdom. On one hand, that country is home to the well-connected Mr.
Steele, which could mean the political actors with whom he was working were involved. On the
other hand, the Justice Department has admitted it was spying on both men, which could mean
government was involved. Or maybe . . . both.
Which brings us to timing. It's long been known that Mr. Steele went to the FBI in early
July to talk about the dossier, and that's the first known intersection of the strands. But
given the oddity and timing of those U.K. interactions concerning Messrs. Page and
Papadopoulos, and given the history of some of the people involved in arranging them, some
wonder if the two strands were converging earlier than anyone has admitted. The Intelligence
Committee subpoena is designed to sort all this out: Who was pulling the strings, and what was
the goal? Information? Or entrapment?
Whatever the answer-whether it is straightforward, or whether it involves political chicanery-Congress and the public
have a right to know. And a Justice Department willing to leak details of its "top secret" source to friendly media can have no
excuse for not sharing with the duly elected members of Congress.
Thanks for stopping by, Bob. Before you ask me your questions I need
you to answer a few of mine:
You have had a full year to investigate the allegations that my
campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in our election.
Has anyone obstructed you from doing this job to the best of your
ability? If so, who have you notified of this and what corrective action
have you taken or requested be taken?
Have you found any evidence that I personally committed any crime
involving collusion with the Russians to interfere with the election?
Have you found any evidence that any member of my campaign
committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to interfere
with the election?
Assuming the answers to all 3 are "No" (which they likely are or such
evidence would have already leaked to CNN via Clapper) or if he refuses to
answer, inform Muller the meeting and his investigation are over. He is
will be escorted to his office to turn over all records gathered in the
investigation to the appropriate DOJ officials, debrief them on his
findings and then is fired and all security clearances revoked.
Let the MSM and Dems bitch and cry all they want. You had a year to
find evidence for your phony allegations with your top investigator on the
job, access to millions of documents and millions of taxpayer dollars.
You failed because there was no crime committed. Time to move on.
Of course this is assuming the Mueller investigation is actually what
it is purported to be which I have serious doubts about. I think it's
more likely Mueller cut an immunity deal for himself when he met with
Trump the day before being appointed as SC and this whole thing was
nothing but a charade to keep Trump's enemies believing Mueller is their
guy. This way they put all their attention and energy into this
investigation only to have it blow up in their faces just before the
midterms when Trump is fully vindicated by the guy all his enemies said
was above reproach. If that happens watch how fast they all turn on
Mueller and every MSM outlet starts running hit pieces on him the next
morning.
The First Rule
bowie28
Permalink
"... On July 27, 2017 the House Judiciary Committee called on the DOJ to appoint a Special Counsel, detailing their concerns in 14 questions pertaining to "actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton." ..."
"... On September 26, 2017 , The House Judiciary Committee repeated their call to the DOJ for a special counsel, pointing out that former FBI Director James Comey lied to Congress when he said that he decided not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton until after she was interviewed, when in fact Comey had drafted her exoneration before said interview. ..."
"... And now, the OIG report can tie all of this together - as it will solidify requests by Congressional committees, while also satisfying a legal requirement for the Department of Justice to impartially appoint a Special Counsel. ..."
"... Who cares how many task forces, special prosecutors, grand juries, commissions, or other crap they throw at this black hole of corruption? We all know the score. The best we can hope for is that the liberals and neo-cons are embarrassed enough to crawl under a rock for awhile, and it slows down implementation of their Orwellian agenda for a few years. ..."
As we reported on
Thursday , a long-awaited report by the Department of Justice's internal watchdog into the Hillary Clinton email investigation
has moved into its final phase, as the DOJ notified multiple subjects mentioned in the document that they can privately review it
by week's end, and will have a "few days" to craft any response to criticism contained within the report, according to the
Wall Street Journal .
Those invited to review the report were told they would have to sign nondisclosure agreements in order to read it , people
familiar with the matter said. They are expected to have a few days to craft a response to any criticism in the report, which
will then be incorporated in the final version to be released in coming weeks . -
WSJ
Now, journalist Paul Sperry reports that " IG Horowitz has found "reasonable grounds" for believing there has been a violation
of federal criminal law in the FBI/DOJ's handling of the Clinton investigation/s and has referred his findings of potential criminal
misconduct to Huber for possible criminal prosecution ."
Who is Huber?
As we
reported
in March , Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed John Huber - Utah's top federal prosecutor, to be paired with IG Horowitz
to investigate the multitude of accusations of FBI misconduct surrounding the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The announcement came
one day after Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed that he will also be investigating allegations of FBI FISA abuse .
While Huber's appointment fell short of the second special counsel demanded by Congressional investigators and concerned citizens
alike, his appointment and subsequent pairing with Horowitz is notable - as many have pointed out that the Inspector General is significantly
limited in his abilities to investigate. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) noted in March " the IG's office does not have authority to compel
witness interviews, including from past employees, so its investigation will be limited in scope in comparison to a Special Counsel
investigation ,"
Sessions' pairing of Horowitz with Huber keeps the investigation under the DOJ's roof and out of the hands of an independent investigator
.
***
Who is Horowitz?
In January, we profiled Michael Horowitz based on thorough research assembled by independent investigators. For those who think
the upcoming OIG report is just going to be "all part of the show" - take pause; there's a good chance this is an actual happening,
so you may want to read up on the man whose year-long investigation may lead to criminal charges against those involved.
Horowitz was appointed head of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in April, 2012 - after the Obama administration hobbled
the OIG's investigative powers in 2011 during the "Fast and Furious" scandal. The changes forced the various Inspectors General for
all government agencies to request information while conducting investigations, as opposed to the authority to demand it. This allowed
Holder (and other agency heads) to bog down OIG requests in bureaucratic red tape, and in some cases, deny them outright.
What did Horowitz do? As one twitter commentators puts it,
he went to war ...
In March of 2015, Horowitz's office
prepared
a report for Congress titled Open and Unimplemented IG Recommendations . It laid the Obama Admin bare before Congress - illustrating
among other things how the administration was wasting tens-of-billions of dollars by ignoring the recommendations made by the OIG.
After several attempts by congress to restore the OIG's investigative powers, Rep. Jason Chaffetz successfully introduced H.R.6450
- the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016 - signed by a defeated lame duck President Obama into law on
December 16th, 2016 , cementing an alliance between Horrowitz and both houses of Congress .
1) Due to the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016, the OIG has access to all of the information that the target agency
possesses. This not only includes their internal documentation and data, but also that which the agency externally collected and
documented.
See here for a complete overview of the
OIG's new and restored powers. And while the public won't get to see classified details of the OIG report, Mr. Horowitz is also big
on public disclosure:
Horowitz's efforts to roll back Eric Holder's restrictions on the OIG sealed the working relationship between Congress and the
Inspector General's ofice, and they most certainly appear to be on the same page. Moreover, FBI Director Christopher Wray seems to
be on the same page
Which brings us back to the OIG report
expected by Congress a week from Monday.
On January 12 of last year, Inspector Horowitz announced an OIG investigation based on " requests from numerous Chairmen and Ranking
Members of Congressional oversight committees, various organizations (such as Judicial Watch?), and members of the public ."
The initial focus ranged from the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation, to whether or not Deputy FBI Director Andrew
McCabe should have been recused from the investigation (ostensibly over
$700,000 his wife's campaign took from Clinton crony Terry McAuliffe around the time of the email investigation), to potential
collusion with the Clinton campaign and the timing of various FOIA releases. Which brings us back to the
OIG report expected by Congress a week from
Monday.
On July 27, 2017 the House Judiciary Committee called on the DOJ to appoint a Special Counsel, detailing their concerns in
14 questions pertaining to "actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey,
and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton."
The questions range from Loretta Lynch directing Mr. Comey to mislead the American people on the nature of the Clinton investigation,
Secretary Clinton's mishandling of classified information and the (mis)handling of her email investigation by the FBI, the DOJ's
failure to empanel a grand jury to investigate Clinton, and questions about the Clinton Foundation, Uranium One, and whether the
FBI relied on the "Trump-Russia" dossier created by Fusion GPS.
On September 26, 2017 , The House Judiciary Committee repeated their call to the DOJ for a special counsel, pointing out that
former FBI Director James Comey lied to Congress when he said that he decided not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton
until after she was interviewed, when in fact Comey had drafted her exoneration before said interview.
And now, the OIG report can tie all of this together - as it will solidify requests by Congressional committees, while also
satisfying a legal requirement for the Department of Justice to impartially appoint a Special Counsel.
As illustrated below by TrumpSoldier , the report will go from the Office of the Inspector General to both investigative committees
of Congress, along with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and is expected within weeks .
Once congress has reviewed the OIG report, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees will use it to supplement their investigations
, which will result in hearings with the end goal of requesting or demanding a Special Counsel investigation. The DOJ can appoint
a Special Counsel at any point, or wait for Congress to demand one. If a request for a Special Counsel is ignored, Congress can pass
legislation to force an the appointment.
And while the DOJ could act on the OIG report and investigate / prosecute themselves without a Special Counsel, it is highly unlikely
that Congress would stand for that given the subjects of the investigation.
After the report's completion, the DOJ will weigh in on it. Their comments are key. As TrumpSoldier points out in his analysis,
the DOJ can take various actions regarding " Policy, personnel, procedures, and re-opening of investigations. In short, just about
everything (Immunity agreements can also be rescinded). "
Meanwhile, recent events appear to correspond with bullet points in both the original OIG investigation letter and the 7/27/2017
letter forwarded to the Inspector General:
... ... ...
With the wheels set in motion last week seemingly align with Congressional requests and the OIG mandate, and the upcoming OIG
report likely to serve as a foundational opinion, the DOJ will finally be empowered to move forward with an impartially appointed
Special Counsel.
"To save his presidency, Trump must expose a host of criminally cunning Deep State political operatives as enemies to the Constitution,
including John Brennan, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, James Comey and Robert Mueller - as well as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton."
Killing the Deep State , Dr Jerome Corsi, PhD., p xi
I've been more than upfront about my philosophy. I have said on more than one occasion that progs will rue the day they drove
a New Yorker like Trump even further to the right.
Now you see it in his actions from the judiciary to bureaucracy destruction to (pick any) and...as I often cite... some old
dead white guy once said ..."First they came for the ___ and I did not speak out. Then they came for..."
Now I advocate for progs to swim in their own deadly juices, without a moment's hesitation on my part, without any furtive
look back, without remorse or any compassion whatsover.
Forward! ...I think is what they said, welcome to the Death Star ;-)
There have been (and are) plenty on "our side"...Boehner, Cantor, McCain, Romney and the thinly disguised "social democrat"
Bill Kristol just to name several off the top of my head but the thing is, they always have to hide what they really are from
us until rooted out.
That's what I try to point out to "our friends" on the left all the time, for example, there was never any doubt that Chris
Dodd, Bwaney Fwank and Chuck Schumer were (and are) in Wall Streets back pocket. But for any prog to openly admit that is to sign
some sort of personal death warrant, to be ostracized, blacklisted and harassed out of "the liberal community" so, they bite their
tongue & say nothing...knowing what the truth really is.
Hell, they even named a "financial reform bill" after Dodd & Frank...LMAO!!!
It's just the dripping hypocrisy that gets me.
For another example, they knew what was going on with Weinstein, Lauer, Spacey, Rose etal but as long as the cash flowed and
they towed-the-prog-BS-line outwardly, they gladly looked the other way and in the end...The Oprah...gives a speech in front of
them (as they bark & clap like trained seals) about...Jim Crow?
Jim Crow?!...lol...one has nothing to do with the other Oprah! The perps & enablers are sitting right there in front of you!
"After the report's completion, the DOJ will weigh in on it. Their comments are key. As TrumpSoldier points out in his analysis,
the DOJ can take various actions regarding " Policy, personnel, procedures, and re-opening of investigations. In short, just about
everything (Immunity agreements can also be rescinded). "
Rescind Immunity, absolutely damn right, put them ALL under oath and on the stand! This is huge! Indeed this goes all the way
to the top, would like to see Obama and the 'career criminal' testify under oath explaining how their tribe conspired to frame
Trump and the American people.
Hell, put them on trial in a military court for Treason, what's the punishment for Treason these days???
Also would like to see Kerry get fried under the 'Logan Act'!
As are half of their fellow travelers in the GOP. Neocon liars. Talk small constitutional govt then vote for war. Those two
are direct opposites, war and small govt. The liars must be exposed and removed. The Never Trumpers have outed themselves but
many are hiding in plain sight proclaiming they support the President. It appears they have manipulated Trump into an aggressive
stance against Russia with their anti Russia hysteria. Time will tell. The bank and armament industries must be removed from any
kind of influence within our govt. Most of these are run by big govt collectivists aka communists/globalists.
Who cares how many task forces, special prosecutors, grand juries, commissions, or other crap they throw at this black
hole of corruption? We all know the score. The best we can hope for is that the liberals and neo-cons are embarrassed enough to
crawl under a rock for awhile, and it slows down implementation of their Orwellian agenda for a few years.
FBI monitored phone calls of Trump's personal lawyer
Notable quotes:
"... US prosecutors, according to news reports, have also been covertly reading Cohen's emails. ..."
"... Spying on a lawyer's phone calls and Internet communications is considered highly unusual, given the principle of lawyer-client privilege. However, the Daily Beast ..."
"... Indeed, Trump's enemies within the ruling elite and the state apparatus know with whom they are dealing. The billionaire president is a representative of the criminal American financial oligarchy, a product of the New York real estate, casino gambling and reality TV milieu. His election expressed the degradation of American bourgeois politics and the entire political system. ..."
"... That being said, the methods being employed by Trump's factional opponents within the ruling elite are profoundly anti-democratic. The Mueller investigation itself is based on concocted and unsubstantiated allegations of Russian "meddling" in the elections and collusion by the Trump campaign in Moscow's supposed efforts to swing the election in his favor. ..."
"... This narrative, which has dominated US politics for nearly two years, has been used by the Democratic Party and most of the corporate media to attempt to whip up a war hysteria against Russia and force Trump to more rapidly escalate Washington's wars in the Middle East. It is also the pretext for the expanding campaign to censor the Internet and criminalize political dissent in the name of combating foreign-inspired "fake news." ..."
"... The context for the latest revelations is a sharpening of the conflict between the Trump White House and Mueller. Over the past several weeks, Trump has reshuffled the legal team handling his dealings with the special counsel to pursue a more aggressive legal response to the investigation. Last month, Trump named former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to head the team, following the resignation of John Dowd in March. ..."
"... This week, the White House announced the resignation of Ty Cobb, who had counseled Trump to adopt a cooperative posture toward Mueller, advising that such a course would lead to a more rapid conclusion to the investigation. Not only has that not occurred, but Mueller has increased pressure on Trump to agree to an interview with his investigators. ..."
"... Flood has been described in the press as a "wartime consigliere." His appointment is seen as increasing the possibility of a legal fight to block an interview with Mueller that could ultimately go to the US Supreme Court. ..."
"... In a Wednesday night television interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity, Giuliani excoriated former FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump fired last May after Comey announced that the FBI was investigating possible Trump campaign collusion with Russia. Giuliani called him "a disgraceful liar" and said he should be indicted for leaking "confidential FBI information." He called the Mueller probe "a completely tainted investigation" and denounced the FBI raid on Cohen as a "storm trooper" operation. ..."
Multiple media reports on Thursday revealed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation monitored and logged the phone calls of President
Donald Trump's personal lawyer and confidante, Michael Cohen, in the period leading up to the FBI raid on Cohen's office and residences
in April.
According to NBC News, at least one of the calls that were tracked was between Cohen and Trump.
The extraordinary fact that the federal government's chief police agency, an integral part of the country's intelligence network,
is monitoring telephone communications between the president and his self-described "fixer" points to the explosive level of conflict
within the American ruling class and its state.
The revelation comes a month after the FBI, based on a referral from Robert Mueller, the special counsel who is investigating
alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion by the Trump campaign, raided Cohen's office and residences
as part of a criminal probe into his business dealings. FBI agents seized Cohen's financial records, computer hard drive, cell phones
and taped recordings of conversations. Ostensibly, the main concern of federal prosecutors is Cohen's involvement in hush-money payoffs
to two women, a porn star and a former Playboy playmate, who claim to have had sexual relations with Trump.
US prosecutors, according to news reports, have also been covertly reading Cohen's emails.
Spying on a lawyer's phone calls and Internet communications is considered highly unusual, given the principle of lawyer-client
privilege. However, the Daily Beast quoted Ken White, a former federal prosecutor, as saying, "That sort of thing happens
all the time if you're dealing with mob wiretaps."
Indeed, Trump's enemies within the ruling elite and the state apparatus know with whom they are dealing. The billionaire president
is a representative of the criminal American financial oligarchy, a product of the New York real estate, casino gambling and reality
TV milieu. His election expressed the degradation of American bourgeois politics and the entire political system.
There is little doubt that the FBI and Mueller have seized more than enough evidence of wrong-doing in Trump's business dealings
to bring down an indictment, either to attempt a criminal prosecution -- never before carried out against a sitting president --
or force Trump to resign. Alternately, an indictment could become part of an impeachment effort should the Democrats win control
of the House of Representatives in the November midterm elections.
No one is more aware of the threat posed by these developments than Trump himself.
That being said, the methods being employed by Trump's factional opponents within the ruling elite are profoundly anti-democratic.
The Mueller investigation itself is based on concocted and unsubstantiated allegations of Russian "meddling" in the elections and
collusion by the Trump campaign in Moscow's supposed efforts to swing the election in his favor.
This narrative, which has dominated US politics for nearly two years, has been used by the Democratic Party and most of the corporate
media to attempt to whip up a war hysteria against Russia and force Trump to more rapidly escalate Washington's wars in the Middle
East. It is also the pretext for the expanding campaign to censor the Internet and criminalize political dissent in the name of combating
foreign-inspired "fake news."
These are the methods of palace coup, without the slightest democratic or progressive content. Should Trump be removed as a result
of such a campaign, the result would be to shift the political system even further to the right.
The context for the latest revelations is a sharpening of the conflict between the Trump White House and Mueller. Over the past
several weeks, Trump has reshuffled the legal team handling his dealings with the special counsel to pursue a more aggressive legal
response to the investigation. Last month, Trump named former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to head the team, following the resignation
of John Dowd in March.
This week, the White House announced the resignation of Ty Cobb, who had counseled Trump to adopt a cooperative posture toward
Mueller, advising that such a course would lead to a more rapid conclusion to the investigation. Not only has that not occurred,
but Mueller has increased pressure on Trump to agree to an interview with his investigators.
This week, it was reported that in discussions with Trump's lawyers in March, Mueller threatened to subpoena Trump to appear before
a grand jury if he did not voluntarily agree to an interview. On Wednesday, it was announced that Emmet Flood, a Republican who served
as one of Bill Clinton's lawyers during the House of Representatives impeachment process in 1998, would replace Cobb.
Flood has been described in the press as a "wartime consigliere." His appointment is seen as increasing the possibility of a legal
fight to block an interview with Mueller that could ultimately go to the US Supreme Court.
In a Wednesday night television interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity, Giuliani excoriated former FBI Director James Comey, whom
Trump fired last May after Comey announced that the FBI was investigating possible Trump campaign collusion with Russia. Giuliani
called him "a disgraceful liar" and said he should be indicted for leaking "confidential FBI information." He called the Mueller
probe "a completely tainted investigation" and denounced the FBI raid on Cohen as a "storm trooper" operation.
He cited a list of 49 questions for Trump prepared by Trump's lawyers on the basis of an oral presentation by Mueller's investigators
and called the wide-ranging queries concerning links to Russians and potential obstruction of justice, including the firing of Comey,
a "perjury trap." The questions were leaked and published earlier this week by the New York Times . The Times ,
along with the Washington Post , have been in the forefront of the media witch hunt against Russia.
On the question of Trump agreeing to be interviewed by Mueller, Giuliani said, "Right now, the odds are against it."
Most of the media commentary on the interview has focused on Giuliani's statement that Trump reimbursed Cohen for the $130,000
in hush money he paid to porn star Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election. Cohen has said he paid the money from his own
funds and without Trump's knowledge, and last month Trump told reporters that he had no knowledge of the payoff.
It is striking that despite the media obsession with Trump and Russia, and the single-minded focus of the Democratic Party on
this reactionary campaign, the public remains skeptical, if not hostile, to the entire matter. The Democrats have said virtually
nothing about Trump's war on immigrants, including the barbaric treatment of the Central American caravan of refugees forced to camp
out at the US border and the denial of their right to asylum. The Democratic Party has dropped its phony opposition to Trump's tax
cut for corporations and the rich and barely noted the mounting assault on social programs, from Medicaid to food stamps to housing
subsidies for the poor.
This is reflected in recent polls, which show Trump's approval rating actually increasing and the Democrats' edge in the coming
midterm elections cut in half since the beginning of the year.
There is mass opposition in the working class and among young people to Trump and his chauvinist, militarist and pro-corporate
policies. It is reflected in the upsurge of teachers' strikes and protests in defiance of the corporatist unions, which the unions
and the Democrats are doing everything they can to isolate and suppress.
This emerging movement of the working class in the US and internationally is intensifying the warfare within the American ruling
class and state. The crisis is being fueled not only by sharp differences over foreign policy -- including tactical differences over
Trump's threat to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal and his trade war measures -- but also by a general loss of confidence in Trump's
ability to manage either the global affairs of US imperialism or the tense internal social and political situation.
The independent social and political struggle of the working class is the only basis for a progressive solution to the crisis
of American capitalism. The opposition of workers to Trump can find no progressive outlet within the framework of the capitalist
two-party system. Both factions in the current political wars, notwithstanding their bitter differences, agree on a strategy of expanding
war abroad and austerity and repression at home.
"... Republicans have repeatedly accused Rosenstein of being unnecessarily slow in providing the documents they say are necessary for carrying out several parallel congressional investigations into FBI decision-making. Some of them have suggested the Justice Department is biased against Trump and now seeking to hide the evidence. ..."
"... The seventh and eighth articles of impeachment in the draft document charge Rosenstein of "knowingly and intentionally prevented the production of all documents and information" related to potential abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the federal government's initial investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. ..."
"... It was Rosenstein who authored the memo criticizing former FBI Director James Comey , which the White House ultimately used to justify his firing. Trump later indicated that he removed Comey in part because of the Russia investigation, which helped open him up to charges of obstruction of justice. ..."
"... After Comey's firing, it was Rosenstein who decided to appoint Mueller, a former FBI director who is widely respected for his prosecutorial skill and independence, as special counsel to handle the Russia probe. ..."
"... Since then, Rosenstein has given Mueller a broad mandat e to investigate any criminal activity uncovered by his work, angering the president and his allies. ..."
"... In addition, Rosenstein reportedly signed off on the FBI's raid of Michael Cohen, Trump's long-time personal attorney, fueling widespread speculation that the president might fire him. Rosenstein has privately told allies that he is prepared for the possibility of being dismissed, according to NBC News , but his appearance Tuesday made clear he has no intention of caving to outside pressure. ..."
"... He described a process in which a career federal law enforcement officer swears on an affidavit that the information they presented in a FISA application is both "true and correct" to the best of his or her knowledge and belief. While mistakes do happen and there are consequences for those who erred, he said, the agency employs "people who are accountable." ..."
"... "If the focus is Rod Rosenstein and whether he has done something or failed to do something that could remotely warrant impeachment, I think it's just groundless," said Jack Sharman, a former special counsel to Congress during the Whitewater investigations. ..."
Rosenstein defiant as impeachment talk rises By Olivia Beavers and Morgan Chalfant - 05/03/18 06:00 AM EDT
2,577 63 Ex-doctor says Trump dictated letter claiming he would be 'healthiest' president ever Trump- South Korean president
gives us all the credit Rosenstein knocks Republicans who want to impeach him: 'They can't even resist leaking their own drafts'
White House dodges on Mueller questions Sanders: White House tries to 'never be concerned' with Adam Schiff White House talking to
Waffle House hero about Trump meeting White House says Trump is 'very happy' with chief of staff White House: Jackson no longer serving
as Trump's lead physician Chaplain controversy shifts spotlight to rising GOP star Pruitt's head of security resigns Trump’s
ex-doctor says Trump associates 'raided' his office Romney praises Trump's first year in office: It's similar to things 'I'd have
done' WHCD host: Sarah Sanders lies Netanyahu: iran deal flawed, based on lies WHCD host: Trump is not rich Conservative House lawmakers
draft articles of impeachment against Rosenstein List reveals questions Mueller wants to ask Trump: report NBC: White House chief
of staff told aides women 'more emotional' than men McCain torches Trump in new book: He prioritizes appearance of toughness over
American values White House chief of staff denies report he called Trump an idiot Trump: Threats to pull out of Iran deal 'sends
the right message' Trump: We don't want to be the policemen of the world Trump campaign covered some of Cohen's legal costs: report
Democrats losing support of millennials: poll Cruz again questioning McConnell’s strategies Ex-Bush ethics official to run
for Franken's former Senate seat as Dem: report Parkland survivor calls out NRA for banning guns at convention Michelle Wolf pushes
back on criticism of Sarah Sanders jokes 7 targets Michelle Wolf took aim at during the White House correspondents’ dinner
Trump: If Dems win in 2018 midterms, they'll impeach me WHCD host calls Trump ‘cowardly’ for skipping event again Trump
threatens to 'close down the country' over funding for border wall GOP chairman 'doesn't have a problem' with Tester's handling of
Jackson allegations Election forecaster: Nunes seat no longer ‘safe’ Republican Washington’s heavy-drinking ways
in spotlight Stars of 'Veep,' 'West Wing' to lobby lawmakers ahead of White House correspondents' dinner Republican worries 'assassination
risk' prompting lawmaker resignations Gillibrand unveils bill to offer banking services at post offices Meehan resigns with promise
to pay back alleged sexual harassment claim Rosenstein knocks Republicans who want to impeach him: 'They can't even resist leaking
their own drafts'
On Tuesday, the deputy attorney general
rebuked the nascent conservative effort to impeach him, likely exacerbating tensions with conservatives in the House. House Republicans
are demanding access to classified documents related to special counsel
Robert Mueller's investigation, including a heavily redacted
memo that spells out the scope of the investigation.
"There is really nothing to comment on there, but just give me the documents. The bottom line is, he needs to be give me the documents,"
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said during an interview with
The Hill on Wednesday when asked about his response to Rosenstein.
"I have one goal in mind, and that is not somebody's job or the termination of somebody's job, it is getting the documents and
making sure we can do proper oversight," he said, adding that there are "no current plans to introduce an impeachment resolution."
Republican lawmakers led by Meadows, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus one of
President Trump's top allies in Congress, have
drafted eight articles of impeachment against Rosenstein. The articles make a series of charges against Rosenstein and question
his credibility, reputation and fitness to serve.
Conservatives have called the impeachment articles a last resort. Rosenstein dismissed the impeachment threat and went a step
further by suggesting the Justice Department's independence is being threatened. "There have been people who have been making threats
privately and publicly against me for quite some time, and I think they should understand by now the Department of Justice is not
going to be extorted," Rosenstein said during an appearance at the Newseum. "I just don't have anything to say about documents like
that that nobody has the courage to put their name on and they leak in that way," he continued, after quipping earlier that the lawmakers
"can't even resist leaking their own drafts."
Rosenstein, a career Justice Department official, is widely respected in legal circles. He has been praised for his work leading
the U.S. attorney's office in Maryland, a position to which he was appointed by President George W. Bush and served in for 12 years,
spanning Republican and Democratic administrations. Rosenstein's years of service at the department came through in his public remarks,
lawyers say.
"With a guy like Rosenstein, you can't underestimate the deep connection that many career -- not all -- but many career Justice
Department officials have to the department," said Steven Cash, a lawyer at Day Pitney. "It defines their self image as participating
in ensuring the rule of law in a way you often don't see in other departments -- they are very, very proud of their association with
the department, its traditions, history and independence."
But Rosenstein has plenty of critics on Capitol Hill, where some Republicans accuse him of hindering legitimate oversight.
Republicans have repeatedly accused Rosenstein of being unnecessarily slow in providing the documents they say are necessary
for carrying out several parallel congressional investigations into FBI decision-making. Some of them have suggested the Justice
Department is biased against Trump and now seeking to hide the evidence.
The seventh and eighth articles of impeachment
in the draft document charge Rosenstein of "knowingly and intentionally prevented the production of all documents and information"
related to potential abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the federal government's initial investigation
into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.
The charges appear to have caught the attention of the president, who threatened to get involved on Wednesday morning.
"A Rigged System -- They don't want to turn over Documents to Congress. What are they afraid of? Why so much redacting? Why such
unequal 'justice?' At some point I will have no choice but to use the powers granted to the Presidency and get involved," Trump tweeted.
Since Trump appointed Rosenstein to serve as deputy attorney general, he has become a key player in the drama surrounding the
Mueller investigation.
It was Rosenstein who authored the memo criticizing former FBI Director
James Comey, which the White House ultimately used to justify
his firing. Trump later indicated that he removed Comey in part because of the Russia investigation, which helped open him up to
charges of obstruction of justice.
Rosenstein has defended the memo on Comey, pointing to criticism from both parties about Comey's handling of the investigation
into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 's use of
a private email server before the 2016 presidential election.
After Comey's firing, it was Rosenstein
who decided to appoint Mueller, a former FBI director who is widely respected for his prosecutorial skill and independence, as
special counsel to handle the Russia probe.
Since then, Rosenstein has given Mueller a
broad mandat e to investigate any criminal activity uncovered by his work, angering the president and his allies.
In addition, Rosenstein
reportedly signed off on the FBI's raid of Michael Cohen, Trump's long-time personal attorney, fueling widespread speculation
that the president might fire him. Rosenstein has privately told allies that he is prepared for the possibility of being dismissed,
according to NBC News , but his appearance Tuesday made clear he has no intention of caving to outside pressure.
Rosenstein took issue with allegations detailed in the impeachment draft, including the charge that he failed to properly supervise
surveillance applications.
He described a process in which a career federal law enforcement officer swears on an affidavit that the information they
presented in a FISA application is both "true and correct" to the best of his or her knowledge and belief. While mistakes do happen
and there are consequences for those who erred, he said, the agency employs "people who are accountable."
It's unclear yet whether an impeachment push will gain traction among rank-and-file Republicans; GOP leaders have remained silent
on the matter. AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for Speaker Paul Ryan
(R-Wis.), indicated Wednesday that he sees no reason to fire Rosenstein, as he said earlier this year. Some GOP lawmakers in
recent weeks have also said they've seen improvement from the Justice Department in responding to documents requests.
"If the focus is Rod Rosenstein and whether he has done something or failed to do something that could remotely warrant impeachment,
I think it's just groundless," said Jack Sharman, a former special counsel to Congress during the Whitewater investigations.
Still, Rosenstein's remarks are sure to ramp up tensions between two sides. Ford O'Connell, a Republican strategist, said Rosenstein
came off as "cagey" in his defense and raised questions about what he may be trying to hide. "Everyone knows that this is heating
up and both sides are gearing up for a fight," O'Connell told The Hill.
The dramatic rise fo the number of CIA-democrats as candidates from Democratic Party is not assedental. As regular clintonites
are discredited those guys can still appeal to patriotism to get elected.
Notable quotes:
"... Bernie continuously forcing Hillary to appear apologetic about her campaign funding from big financial interests. She tries hard to persuade the public that she will not serve specific interests. Her anxiety can be identified in many cases and it was very clear at the moment when she accused Bernie of attacking her, concerning this funding. Hillary was forced to respond with a deeply irrational argument: anyone who takes money from big interests doesn't mean that he/she will vote for policies in favor of these interests! ..."
"... Bernie drives the discussion towards fundamental ideological issues. He forced Hillary to defend her "progressiveness". She was forced to speak even about economic interests by names. A few years ago, this would be nearly a taboo in any debate between any primaries. ..."
"... After the disastrous defeat by Trump in 2016 election, the corporate Democrats realized that the progressive movement, supported mostly by the American youth, would not retreat and vanish. On the contrary, Bernie Sanders' popularity still goes up and there is a wave of progressive candidates who appear to be a real threat to the DNC establishment and the Clintonian empire. ..."
"... It seems that the empire has upgraded its dirty tactics beyond Hillary's false relocation to the Left. Seeing the big threat from the real progressives, the empire seeks to "plant" its own agents, masked as progressives, inside the electoral process, to disorientate voters and steal the popular vote. ..."
"... This is a Master's class in blatant historical revisionism and outright dishonesty. Beals was not a soldier unwillingly drafted into service, but an intelligence officer who voluntarily accepted an influential and critically important post for the Bush Administration in its ever-expanding crime against humanity in Iraq. ..."
During the 2016 Democratic party primaries we wrote that
what Bernie achieved, is to bring back the real political discussion in America, at least concerning the Democratic camp. Bernie
smartly "drags" his primary rival, Hillary Clinton, into the heart of the politics. Up until a few years ago, you could not observe
too much difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, who were just following the pro-establishment "politics as usual",
probably with a few, occasional exceptions. The "politics as usual" so far, was "you can't touch the Wall Street", for example.
Bernie continuously forcing Hillary to appear apologetic about her campaign funding from big financial interests. She tries hard
to persuade the public that she will not serve specific interests. Her anxiety can be identified in many cases and it was very clear
at the moment when she accused Bernie of attacking her, concerning this funding. Hillary was forced to respond with a deeply irrational
argument: anyone who takes money from big interests doesn't mean that he/she will vote for policies in favor of these interests!
Bernie drives the discussion towards fundamental ideological issues. He forced Hillary to defend her "progressiveness". She was
forced to speak even about economic interests by names. A few years ago, this would be nearly a taboo in any debate between any primaries.
After the disastrous defeat by Trump in 2016 election, the corporate Democrats realized that the progressive movement, supported
mostly by the American youth, would not retreat and vanish. On the contrary, Bernie Sanders' popularity still goes up and there is
a wave of progressive candidates who appear to be a real threat to the DNC establishment and the Clintonian empire.
It seems that the empire has upgraded its dirty tactics beyond Hillary's false relocation to the Left. Seeing the big threat from
the real progressives, the empire seeks to "plant" its own agents, masked as progressives, inside the electoral process, to disorientate
voters and steal the popular vote.
Eric Draitser gives us valuable information for such a type of candidate. Key points:
One candidate currently generating some buzz in the race is Jeff Beals, a self-identified "Bernie democrat" whose campaign website
homepage describes him as a " local teacher and former U.S. diplomat endorsed by the national organization of former Bernie Sanders
staffers, the Justice Democrats. " And indeed, Beals centers his progressive bona fides to brand himself as one of the inheritors
of the progressive torch lit by Sanders in 2016. A smart political move, to be sure. But is it true?
Beals describes himself as a "former U.S. diplomat," touting his expertise on international issues born of his experience overseas.
In an email interview with CounterPunch, Beals describes his campaign as a " movement for diplomacy and peace in foreign affairs
and an end to militarism my experience as a U.S. diplomat is what drives it and gives this movement such force. " OK, sounds
good, a very progressive sounding answer. But what did Beals actually do during his time overseas?
By his own admission, Beals' overseas career began as an intelligence officer with the CIA. His fluency in Arabic and knowledge
of the region made him an obvious choice to be an intelligence spook during the latter stages of the Clinton Administration.
Beals shrewdly attempts to portray himself as an opponent of neocon imperialism in Iraq. In his interview with CounterPunch, Beals
argued that " The State Department was sidelined as the Bush administration and a neoconservative cabal plunged America into the
tragic Iraq War. As a U.S. diplomat fluent in Arabic and posted in Jerusalem at the time, I was called over a year into the war to
help our country find a way out. "
This is a Master's class in blatant historical revisionism and outright dishonesty. Beals was not a soldier unwillingly drafted
into service, but an intelligence officer who voluntarily accepted an influential and critically important post for the Bush Administration
in its ever-expanding crime against humanity in Iraq.
Moreover, no one who knows anything about the Iraq War could possibly swallow the tripe that CIA/State Department officials in
Iraq were " looking to help our country find a way out " a year into the war. A year into the war, the bloodletting was only
just beginning, and Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, and the other corporate vultures had yet to fully exploit the country and make billions
off it. So, unfortunately for Beals, the historical memory of the anti-war Left is not that short.
It is self-evident that Beals has a laundry list of things in his past that he must answer for. For those of us, especially Millennials,
who cut our activist teeth demonstrating and organizing against the Iraq War, Beals' distortions about his role in Iraq go down like
hemlock tea. But it is the associations Beals maintains today that really should give any progressive serious pause.
When asked by CounterPunch whether he has any connections to either Bernie Sanders and his surrogates or Hillary Clinton and hers,
Beals responded by stating: " I am endorsed by Justice Democrats, a group of former Bernie Sanders staffers who are pledged to
electing progressives nationwide. I am also endorsed for the Greene County chapter of the New York Progressive Action Network, formerly
the Bernie Sanders network. My first hire was a former Sanders field coordinator who worked here in NY-19. "
However, conveniently missing from that response is the fact that Beals' campaign has been, and continues to be, directly managed
in nearly every respect by Bennett Ratcliff, a longtime friend and ally of Hillary Clinton. Ratcliff is not mentioned in any publicly
available documents as a campaign manager, though the most recent FEC filings show that as of April 1, 2018, Ratcliff was still on
the payroll of the Beals campaign. And in the video of Beals' campaign kickoff rally, Ratcliff introduces Beals, while only being
described as a member of the Onteora School Board in Ulster County . This is sort of like referring to Donald Trump as an avid
golfer.
Beals has studiously, and rather intelligently, avoided mentioning Ratcliff, or the presence of Clinton's inner circle on his
campaign. However, according to internal campaign documents and emails obtained by CounterPunch, Ratcliff manages nearly every aspect
of the campaign, acting as a sort of éminence grise behind the artifice of a progressive campaign fronted by a highly educated and
photogenic political novice.
By his own admission, Ratcliff's role on the campaign is strategy, message, and management. Sounds like a rather textbook description
of a campaign manager. Indeed, Ratcliff has been intimately involved in "guiding" Beals on nearly every important campaign decision,
especially those involving fundraising .
And it is in the realm of fundraising that Ratcliff really shines, but not in the way one would traditionally think. Rather than
focusing on large donations and powerful interests, Ratcliff is using the Beals campaign as a laboratory for his strategy of winning
elections without raising millions of dollars.
In fact, leaked campaign documents show that Ratcliff has explicitly instructed Beals and his staffers not to spend money on
food, decorations, and other standard campaign expenses in hopes of presenting the illusion of a grassroots, people-powered campaign
with no connections to big time donors or financial elites .
It seems that Ratcliff is the wizard behind the curtain, leveraging his decades of contact building and close ties to the Democratic
Party establishment while at the same time manufacturing an astroturfed progressive campaign using a front man in Beals .
One of Ratcliff's most infamous, and indefensible, acts of fealty to the Clinton machine came in 2009 when he and longtime Clinton
attorney and lobbyist, Lanny Davis, stumped around Washington to garner support for the illegal right-wing coup in Honduras, which
ousted the democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya in favor of the right-wing oligarchs who control the country today. Although
the UN, and even U.S. diplomats on the ground in Honduras, openly stated that the coup was illegal, Clinton was adamant to actively
keep Zelaya out.
Essentially then, Ratcliff is a chief architect of the right-wing government in Honduras – the same government assassinating feminist
and indigenous activists like Berta Cáceres, Margarita Murillo, and others, and forcibly displacing and ethnically cleansing Afro-indigenous
communities to make way for Carribbean resorts and golf courses.
And this Washington insider lobbyist and apologist for war criminals and crimes against humanity is the guy who's on a crusade
to reform campaign finance and fix Washington? This is the guy masquerading as a progressive? This is the guy working to elect an
"anti-war progressive"?
In a twisted way it makes sense. Ratcliff has the blood of tens of thousands of Hondurans (among others) on his hands, while Beals
is a creature of Langley, a CIA boy whose exceptional work in the service of Bush and Clinton administration war criminals is touted
as some kind of merit badge on his resume.
What also becomes clear after establishing the Ratcliff-Beals connection is the fact that Ratcliff's purported concern with
campaign financing and "taking back the Republic" is really just a pretext for attempting to provide a "proof of concept," as it
were, that neoliberal Democrats shouldn't fear and subvert the progressive wing of the party, but rather that they should co-opt
it with a phony grassroots facade all while maintaining links to U.S. intelligence, Wall Street, and the power brokers of the Democratic
Party .
Comey, who was FBI chief from 2013 to 2017, was quoting a line reputedly uttered by
Martin Luther in 1521, when he told Holy Roman Emperor Charles V that he would not recan t his sweeping criticisms of the Catholic
Church. Comey's quotation of himself quoting the father of the Reformation is par for the self-reverence of his new memoir, A Higher
Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership .
MSNBC host Chris Matthews recently declared,
"James Comey made his bones by standing up against torture. He was a made man before Trump came along."
Washington Post columnist Fareed Zakaria , in a column declaring that Americans should be "deeply grateful" to lawyers like Comey,
declared, "The Bush administration wanted to claim that its 'enhanced interrogation techniques' were lawful. Comey believed they
were not... So Comey pushed back as much as he could."
Martin Luther risked death to fight against what he considered the heresies of his time. Comey, a top Bush administration policymaker,
found a safer way to oppose the worldwide secret U.S. torture regime widely considered a heresy against American values. Comey
approved brutal practices and then wrote some memos and emails fretting about the optics.
Rather than ending the abuses, Comey repudiated the memo. Speaking to the media in a not-for-attribution session on June 22, 2004,
Comey declared that
the 2002 memo was "overbroad," "abstract academic theory," and "legally unnecessary ." Comey helped oversee crafting a new memo
with different legal footing to justify the same interrogation methods.
In 2014, the Senate Intelligence Committee finally released a massive report, Americans learned grisly details of the CIA torture
regime that Comey helped legally sanctify - including
death via hypothermia, rape-like rectal feeding of detainees, compelling detainees to stand long periods on broken legs, and dozens
of cases of innocent people pointlessly brutalized. Psychologists aided the torture regime, offering hints on how to destroy
the will and resistance of prisoners. The only CIA official to go to prison for the torture scandal was courageous whistleblower
John Kiriakou.
If Comey had resigned in 2004 or 2005 to protest the torture techniques he now claims to abhor, he would deserve some of the praise
he is now receiving. Instead, he remained in the Bush administration but wrote an email summarizing his objections, declaring that
"it was my job to protect the department
and the A.G. [Attorney General] and that I could not agree to this because it was wrong." A 2009 New York Times analysis noted
that Comey and two colleagues "have largely escaped criticism [for approving torture] because
they raised questions about interrogation
and the law." In Washington, writing emails is "close enough for government work" to convey sainthood.
Fl*ck Comey. OMG. I've been wanting to puke into a wastebasket over all of Comey's crap lately. Actually, wanting to puke is
one of my best bullshit barometers. He's a lying sack of shit, strutting his sanctimonious arrogance all over the tee-vee. Meanwhile
back home his family of women wear pink hats to protest Trump. Wonder if James the Great told his family members he approved torture?
Key figures on anti-trump color revolution including Mueller, Rosenstein and Comey are closely connected with Clinton foundation
Notable quotes:
"... Guess who took over this investigation in 2002? Bet you can't guess. No other than James Comey. ..."
"... Guess who ran the Tax Division inside the Department of Injustice from 2001 to 2005? No other than the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Rod Rosenstein. ..."
"... Guess who was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation during this time frame??? I know, it's a miracle, just a coincidence, just an anomaly in statistics and chances: Robert Mueller. ..."
"... Then of all surprises, in April 2016, James Comey drafts an exoneration letter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, meanwhile the DOJ is handing out immunity deals like candy on Halloween. ..."
"... The DOJ didn't even convene a Grand Jury. Like a lightning bolt of statistical impossibility, like a miracle from God himself, like the true "Gangsta" Homey is, James steps out into the cameras of an awaiting press conference on July the 8th of 2016 and exonerates the Hillary from any wrongdoing. ..."
"... It goes on and on, Rosenstein becomes Asst. Attorney General, Comey gets fired based upon a letter by Rosenstein, Comey leaks government information to the press, Mueller is assigned to the Russian Investigation witch hunt by Rosenstein to provide cover for decades of malfeasance within the FBI and DOJ and the story continues. ..."
I'm on the other side of the planet but a friend in the Mid-West sent me this and I thought I'd ask if anyone else had seen
it?
Is there corruption in DC?
From 2001 to 2005 there was an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation. A Grand Jury had been empaneled. The investigation
was triggered by the pardon of Marc Rich ..
Governments from around the world had donated to the "Charity". Yet, from 2001 to 2003 none of those "Donations" to the Clinton
Foundation were declared.
Guess who took over this investigation in 2002? Bet you can't guess. No other than James Comey.
Guess who was transferred in to the Internal Revenue Service to run the Tax Exemption Branch of the IRS? Your friend and mine,
Lois "Be on The Look Out" (BOLO) Lerner.
It gets better, well not really, but this is all just a series of strange coincidences, right?
Guess who ran the Tax Division inside the Department of Injustice from 2001 to 2005? No other than the Assistant Attorney
General of the United States, Rod Rosenstein.
Guess who was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation during this time frame??? I know, it's a miracle, just
a coincidence, just an anomaly in statistics and chances: Robert Mueller.
What do all four casting characters have in common? They all were briefed and were front line investigators into the Clinton
Foundation Investigation.
Now that's just a coincidence, right? Ok, lets chalk the last one up to mere chance.
Let's fast forward to 2009. James Comey leaves the Justice Department to go and cash-in at Lockheed Martin.
Hillary Clinton is running the State Department, on her own personal email server.
The Uranium One "issue" comes to the attention of the Hillary. Like all good public servants do, you know looking out for America's
best interest, she decides to support the decision and approve the sale of 20% of US Uranium to no other than, the Russians.
Now you would think that this is a fairly straight up deal, except it wasn't, I question what did the People get out of it??
Oddly enough, prior to the sales approval, Bill Clinton goes to Moscow, gets paid 500K for a one-hour speech then meets with Vladimir
Putin at his home for a few hours.
Ok, no big deal right? Well, not so fast, the FBI had a mole inside this scheme.
Guess who was the FBI Director during this time frame? Yep, Robert Mueller. He requested the State Department allow himself
to deliver a Uranium Sample to Moscow in 2009, under the guise of a "sting" operation -- (see leaked secret cable 09STATE38943)..
while it is never clear if Mueller did deliver the sample, the "implication" is there ..
Guess who was handling that case within the Justice Department out of the US Attorney's Office in Maryland ?? No other than,
Rod Rosenstein.
Remember the "informant" inside the FBI -- - Guess what happened to the informant? Department of Justice placed a GAG order
on him and threatened to lock him up if he spoke about the Uranium Deal. Personally, I have to question how does 20% of the most
strategic asset of the United States of America end up in Russian hands??? The FBI had an informant, a mole providing inside information
to the FBI on the criminal enterprise and NOTHING happens, except to the informant -- Strange !!
Guess what happened soon after the sale was approved? 145 million dollars in "donations" made their way into the Clinton Foundation
from entities directly connected to the Uranium One deal.
Guess who was still at the Internal Revenue Service working the Charitable Division?
No other than, Lois Lerner. Ok, that's all just another series of coincidences, nothing to see here, right? Let's fast forward
to 2015.
Due to a series of tragic events in Benghazi and after the nine "investigations" the House, Senate and at State Department,
Trey Gowdy who was running the 10th investigation as Chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, discovers that the Hillary
ran the State Department on an unclassified, unauthorized, outlaw personal email server.
He also discovered that none of those emails had been turned over when she departed her "Public Service" as Secretary of State
which was required by law.
He also discovered that there was Top Secret information contained within her personally archived email. Sparing you the State
Departments cover up, the nostrums they floated, the delay tactics that were employed and the outright lies that were spewed forth
from the necks of the Kerry State Department, they did everything humanly possible to cover for Hillary.
Guess who became FBI Director in 2013? Guess who secured 17 no bid contracts for his employer (Lockheed Martin) with the State
Department and was rewarded with a six million dollar thank you present when he departed his employer. No other than James Comey.
Folks if I did this when I worked for the government, I would have been locked up -- The State Department didn't even comply with
the EEO and small business requirements the government places on all Request For Proposals (RFP) on contracts -- It amazes me
how all those no-bids just went right through at State -- simply amazing and no Inspector General investigation !!
Next after leaving the private sector Comey is the FBI Director in charge of the "Clinton Email Investigation" after of course
his FBI Investigates the Lois Lerner "Matter" at the Internal Revenue Service and exonerates her. Nope couldn't find any crimes
there. Nothing here to report --
Then of all surprises, in April 2016, James Comey drafts an exoneration letter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, meanwhile the
DOJ is handing out immunity deals like candy on Halloween.
The DOJ didn't even convene a Grand Jury. Like a lightning bolt of statistical impossibility, like a miracle from God himself,
like the true "Gangsta" Homey is, James steps out into the cameras of an awaiting press conference on July the 8th of 2016 and
exonerates the Hillary from any wrongdoing. As I've said many times, July 8, 2016 is the date that will live in infamy of
the American Justice System ..
Can you see the pattern?
It goes on and on, Rosenstein becomes Asst. Attorney General, Comey gets fired based upon a letter by Rosenstein, Comey
leaks government information to the press, Mueller is assigned to the Russian Investigation witch hunt by Rosenstein to provide
cover for decades of malfeasance within the FBI and DOJ and the story continues.
FISA Abuse, political espionage .. pick a crime, any crime, chances are this group and a few others did it. All the same players.
All compromised and conflicted. All working fervently to NOT go to jail themselves. All connected in one way or another to the
Clinton's. They are like battery acid, they corrode and corrupt everything they touch. How many lives have the Clinton's destroyed?
As of this writing, the Clinton Foundation, in its 20+ years of operation of being the largest International Charity Fraud
in the history of mankind, has never been audited by the Internal Revenue Service.
Let us not forget that Comey's brother works for DLA Piper, the law firm that does the Clinton Foundation's taxes.
Contextualizing the deputy attorney general's memorandum on the former FBI director
In a surprising move on Tuesday, President Trump abruptly fired James Comey, the director of the FBI and the official leading
the investigation into whether Trump aides colluded with Russia to sway the U.S. presidential election. In
his letter dismissing Comey , Trump told him: "While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that
I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively
lead the bureau."
The White House said that Trump
acted on the recommendations of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The longest letter
released was a memorandum to Sessions from Rosenstein laying out the case for Comey's dismissal. In the memo, Rosenstein criticizes
Comey for his handling of the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email server, and offers examples
of bipartisan condemnation of Comey's actions.
For context, we've annotated Rosenstein's letter below.
May 9, 2017
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
FROM: ROD J. ROSENSTEIN
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUBJECT: RESTORING PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE FBI
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has long been regarded as our nation's premier federal investigative agency. Over the past
year, however, the FBI's reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department
of Justice. That is deeply troubling to many Department employees and veterans, legislators and citizens.
The current FBI Director is an articulate and persuasive speaker about leadership and the immutable principles of the Department
of Justice. He deserves our appreciation for his public service. As you and I have discussed, however, I cannot defend the Director's
handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton's emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the
nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken.
Almost everyone
agrees that the Director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives. Discussions
of James Comey's decisions leading up to the 2016 presidential election have been playing out since July. The Atlantic's
David A. Graham
and
Adam
Serwer both weighed in on that debate.
The director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016, and
announce his
conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution. A
New York Times
report from July summarized the announcement: "Mr. Comey's 15-minute announcement, delivered with no advance warning only
three days after his investigators interviewed Mrs. Clinton in the case, riveted official Washington and is likely to reverberate
for the rest of the campaign. In offices across the capital, all eyes turned to television screens to hear the outcome of a yearlong
investigation that could have thrown the 2016 presidential election into disarray and changed history."
It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed
its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he
believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors
and assume command of the Justice Department. There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict
requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation's
most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.
Compounding
the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information
about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. The above
New York Times
story continues: "Mr. Comey's announcement was believed to be the first time that the F.B.I. had ever publicly disclosed
its recommendations to the Justice Department about whether to charge someone in any high-profile case, let alone a presidential
candidate. His decision to announce the results of the investigation was made before the uproar over Ms. [Loretta] Lynch's meeting
with Mr. Clinton, according to a law enforcement official. He decided to make his findings public, the official said, because
he wanted to make the F.B.I.'s position clear before referring the case to the Justice Department." Derogatory information sometimes
is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid
out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example
of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.
Comey trying to blackmail President using Steele dossier. Comey was also key figure in appointment of the Special Prosecutor.
Mueller investigation is an impeachment investigation with Comey and Rosenstein as key players.
Notable quotes:
"... We know that the authors of the fix were John Podesta, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Hillary Clinton herself, the targets of the leak. ..."
"... We know that the DNC and the Democrats were careless with usernames and passwords. We know that any halfwit IT or DATABASE worker understands how to access the Outlook folder, and copy the *.pst files to a flash drive. MSNBC sticks to their flat earth conspiracy theories and Russian Collusion narrative like a flat-earth creationist. In the words of Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ..."
MSNBC' Chuck Todd keeps insinuating that Russia hacked the DNC emails without evidence to
back up. He has no idea who leaked the emails to Wikileaks. There were also many in the DNC
who were pissed off that citizens were sending hard earned campaign donations for Bernie
Sanders, and knew that the Clinton financed DNC was rigging the primaries.
We know that the
authors of the fix were John Podesta, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Hillary Clinton herself,
the targets of the leak.
We know that the DNC and the Democrats were careless with usernames
and passwords. We know that any halfwit IT or DATABASE worker understands how to access the
Outlook folder, and copy the *.pst files to a flash drive. MSNBC sticks to their flat earth
conspiracy theories and Russian Collusion narrative like a flat-earth creationist. In the
words of Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Jan Wallace
Don't forget the Tarmac meeting...Lynch the AG, and Clinton mixing it up that is obviously not really about golf or
kids...She tells Comey to call it a "Matter" that is collusion.
George Stone
I just read that Dem's filed suit alleging that Russia, Trump & Wikileaks interfered with the 2016 campaign. I guess Dem's
haven't got the memo, There IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS. Adam Schiff hasn't presented any evidence, James Comey
hasn't provided any supporting evidence, neither has the FBI or DOJ.
Why is anyone surprised Comey is a consummate phoney? You didn't think he gained his
position by being the best at what he does do you? Work at any large firm long enough and
you'll see his type. Working behind the scenes, lying, playing political games for advantage.
Eventually that person is promoted and proceeds to wreck the company that promoted him.
Comey's only talent IS being a weasel.
The Democrats are obstructing Democracy. There are also members of congress who have
leaked sensitive, if not classified information to the media to aid in this obstruction and
the DOJ needs to investigate these members to see if crimes have been committed. If the
Democrats believe that the President is not above the law then they too should be subject to
this same standards and scrutiny. A special council should be appointed to investigate them
and look into all their financial dealings both domestic and off shore.
I've been saying from the beginning Comey displays a very unhealthy level of infantile
behaviour. How someone like that ever managed to manoeuvre himself so far up, let alone in a
law enforcement agency, completely baffles the mind. He gives much credit to his wife. I'd
bet a lot she coached him through much of the process. He's not leadership material. On the
other side, more importantly even, if I were law enforcement in the USA I'd be taking a very
good look at this man's life when the lights go off.
It is amazing to hear Comey talk of himself and others rules of integrity. He should have
actually done some of those things he would have done a better job.
It is amazing to hear Comey talk of himself and others rules of integrity. He should have
actually done some of those things he would have done a better job.
Comey career was damaged by his treatment of Hillary email scandal and derailing Sanders;
clearly the political role the FBI assumed. So this is a memoir of a politician who happened to
work in law enforcement, and should be treated as such.
An investigation of real Comey role in derailing Sanders and electing Trump still is a matter of the future.
"... Comey is more than willing on several occasions to make misguided decisions because of his uncompromising loyalty to the FBI. Loyalty to the FBI is ever bit as dangerous as loyalty to the president. ..."
"... I am not a fan of James Comey and to this day I have never seen an answer to why it would be ok for the FBI director to hold a press conference for what seemed to be injecting his own political thoughts and opinions far too close to an election to not have known it would have an effect. ..."
"... Comey goes on to say that "in mid June the Russian Government began dumping emails stolen from the institutions associated with the Democratic Party." Here he is implying that Wikileaks is the Russian Government without any evidence to back it up. ..."
"... Is Comey saying Russia in order to protect Clinton?, its possible. Comey has said in his Book he has been investigating the Clintons since the Clinton administration. Each of those investigations he has let the Clintons walk free and has stop the investigations unexpectedly even when evidence appears to pile up, he does admit that Hillary Clinton destroyed evidence even after receiving a subpoena .Comey investigated a suicide in the clintons white house. Comey was behind an investigation of Bill clinton in January 2002. ..."
"... Comey tries to imply if you did not go along with Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election and not supported her or made no positive comments about her as "associating or working with the Russians". I believe this mindset is very dangerous to suggest if you did not support Hillary Clinton for president as if working with the Russians. ..."
"... He says that "Candidate Clinton herself was talking about the Russian effort to elect her opponent.", well we do know that she was who paid for the slanderous "dossier" which is why she knew about what was in the dossier before the "Dossier" was publish by Buzzfeed and CNN. ..."
"... Before the election Comey said he did his job as if Hillary was already President and as if working for Her even though the election was weeks to come. He says " I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next President" ..."
"... Comey expected Trump to curse Russia based on what the suppose "evidence" or the DNC funded "dossier". We do know that the Clinton campaign was running the DNC before Hillary was nominated based on Donna Brazile latest book where she implies that Hillary Clinton cheated Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... Yet Comey fails to mention that he signed a FISA warrant based on the "Dossier" paid by Hillary Clinton and the DNC. He said the Dossier was "salacious and unverified". The Dossier was politically crafted much of it has been proven to be false yet Comey use it to get a FISA warrant. ..."
"... Finishing, Comey goes on to slander president Trump of undermining public confidence in law enforcement institutions when this enforcement institutions have been caught lying, protecting politicians like Hillary Clinton having a double standard when it comes to investigating certain politicians and letting them walk free before finishing an investigation. ..."
"... Comey had his issues with the Justice Department, especially Loretta Lynch although he never says that she had sinister intent. ..."
James Comey is articulate and makes his case in an interesting and effective manner. He
seems competent and well intentioned. Problem is he, like many, considers lying about a crime
a greater crime than the crime. It is not the case. If someone commits murder, is lying about
it worse than the murder?
He rightfully seems horrified that Trump demands loyalty, but Comey is more than willing on
several occasions to make misguided decisions because of his uncompromising loyalty to the
FBI. Loyalty to the FBI is ever bit as dangerous as loyalty to the president.
A justification of the Clinton email server investigation and a nonpartisan critique of
Trump's erosion of norms
A skillfully written and affecting memoir. Comey shares formative experiences: suffering a
random attack by a serial home invader as a teenager, being bullied and then bullying, losing
an infant son. There's a lot of detail about his decision to announce the reopening of the
investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server right before the election. Given
that situation as he described it, had I been in his shoes, I can't say for sure what I would
have done. He means to reveal the ethical complexity and he does it well.
He speaks positively of working for President George W. Bush and then for President Obama,
but he has no such appreciation for President Trump. Contradicting longstanding norms of U.S.
government, Trump demanded loyalty from Comey in his nonpartisan, ten-year term as the FBI
Director, and when Comey did not give it unconditionally and did not halt the investigation
into Russian interference in the 2016 election, Trump fired him. "We had that thing, you
know," Trump said to Comey, referring to the previous conversation in which he had asked for
loyalty. Comey's knowledge of La Cosa Nostra ("that thing of ours," the Mafia's name for
itself) adds a layer of meaning. Comey knows what Mafia guys are like, and he does not live
like them; he is not swayed by appeals to loyalty. That's how he became FBI Director and
that's also how he lost his job under Trump.
"I say this as someone who has worked in law enforcement for most of my life, and served
presidents of both parties. What is happening now," he warns from his new position as a
private citizen, "is not normal. It is not fake news. It is not okay." For those who support
Trump's policy agenda because they believe it will benefit them personally somehow, Comey
delivers a reminder that "the core of our nation is our commitment to a set of shared values
that began with George Washington -- to restraint and integrity and balance and transparency
and truth. If that slides away from us, only a fool would be consoled by a tax cut or a
different immigration policy."
I am not a fan of James Comey and to this day I have never seen an answer to why it would
be ok for the FBI director to hold a press conference for what seemed to be injecting his own
political thoughts and opinions far too close to an election to not have known it would have
an effect.
If you watch the news at all or read the 1 star reviews by people who appear not
to have read the book you will be led to believe this is a book about Trump, and bashing him,
or outing him as unfit in some way.
Especially if you know that the RNC has gone out of their
way to create a website just ahead of the book release for the sole purpose of Comey bashing.
So let me bust that myth. This is not a book about Trump. There are no big jaw dropping Trump
secrets here.
This is a book about James Comey, from his early childhood until the here and
now. Comey touches on childhood memories, being bullied, later on participating or at least
turning a blind eye to bullyng himself. He speaks on his experience being home alone with his
brother when the "Ramsey Rapist" broke into his house. He tells you how and why he decided to
pursue law as a career instead of becoming a doctor. There are humorous anecdotes about his
first job in the grocery store and yes some about his final days as FBI director. You do not
have to be a fan of Comey or any of his decisions to enjoy this book. You may or may not be
satisfied with his explanation of why he decided to make such public announcements on
Hilary's emails, but that is a small part of this book. Personally I was not satisfied and he
does admit that others may have handled it differently. If you are only looking for
bombshells this book is not for you. By the time it gets to the visit to alert Trump to the
salacious allegations the book is 70% over, because as I said this is not a book about
Trump.
Even if I do not agree with Comey's decisions to publicly give his opinion on one candidate
while withholding the fact that there is an investigation surrounding the other even with the
"classified info" that he says we still do not know about I was still able to enjoy this
book. I agree with his assessment in the last televised interview he gave, that if Comey is
an idiot he is at least an honest idiot.
Just finished reading 100% of the book. James Comey
Just finished reading 100% of the book. James Comey starts with sharing an experience of a
time his house was broken in by a robber while his parents were away and he was alone with
Pete. James Comey recounts his investigations of the Mafia. James Comey talks about having
Malaria and thanks his wife Patrice for taking him on the back of her motorcycle to the
Hospital. He mentions his family life and his new born son Collin who passed away in the
hospital after Doctors failed to give Collin treatment while Collin was already showing
abnormal behavior.
Comey goes on to talk about his role as FBI director during the Obama Administration.
He talks about Micheal Brown and how fake news caused a big up roar and hatred on police
by their distortion on what happened in Ferguson and thus caused great divisions.
Comey tries to justify the outcome of not prosecuting what clinton did with her private
email server which had classified government data by saying that even if her actions were bad
though a statute was broken and had lied to FBI officials about having classified information
but she did so carelessly.
He says that the Clinton campaign was calling the criminal investigation surrounding
Hillary Clinton a "matter" and he says that Attorney General Loretta Lynch was strangely
telling him to do the same when confronting the media.
When Attorney General Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton privately on a tarmac he saw it not
as a big deal, though it was after this private meeting that the decision of not prosecuting
Secretary Hillary Clinton was decided . So this shows that the Clinton campaign had influence
on the outcome of the investigation concerning Clinton.
Comey goes on to say that "in mid June the Russian Government began dumping emails stolen
from the institutions associated with the Democratic Party." Here he is implying that
Wikileaks is the Russian Government without any evidence to back it up. Though Wikileaks has
already said that it was not Russia but someone living in the United States who sent the
emails to Wikileaks.
Is Comey saying Russia in order to protect Clinton?, its possible. Comey
has said in his Book he has been investigating the Clintons since the Clinton administration.
Each of those investigations he has let the Clintons walk free and has stop the
investigations unexpectedly even when evidence appears to pile up, he does admit that Hillary
Clinton destroyed evidence even after receiving a subpoena .Comey investigated a suicide in
the clintons white house. Comey was behind an investigation of Bill clinton in January
2002.
Comey mentions the piss dossier as evidence "strongly suggesting that the Russian
government was trying to interfere in the election in 3 ways." He later admits the suppose
"evidence" as "unverifiable", this is the same "dossier" that was used to grant a FISA
warrant to spy on Clinton opponent Donald Trump which was paid by Hillary Clinton and her
campaign.
Comey tries to imply if you did not go along with Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election
and not supported her or made no positive comments about her as "associating or working with
the Russians". I believe this mindset is very dangerous to suggest if you did not support
Hillary Clinton for president as if working with the Russians. Again this is all based on the
"unverifiable dossier" , even though the suggested "evidence" is unverifiable a tyrant
Government can use this to justify in going after ANYONE who speaks against the corruption
going within former director James Comey FBI.
He says that "Candidate Clinton herself was talking about the Russian effort to elect her
opponent.", well we do know that she was who paid for the slanderous "dossier" which is why
she knew about what was in the dossier before the "Dossier" was publish by Buzzfeed and
CNN.
He says that his family were Hillary supporters and that they attended the "Woman's March"
which was more of a rally in protest to President Trump presidency. Before the election Comey
said he did his job as if Hillary was already President and as if working for Her even though
the election was weeks to come. He says " I was making decisions in an environment where
Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next President"
Comey goes on to talk about Donald Trump inauguration and as FBI director fails to talk
about the riots and protestors blocking the entrance to the inauguration where they set a
limousine on fire, stores were broken in including a Starbucks. He compares Trump inauguration
to Obama but Obama had no rioters.
Comey expected Trump to curse Russia based on what the suppose "evidence" or the DNC
funded "dossier". We do know that the Clinton campaign was running the DNC before Hillary was
nominated based on Donna Brazile latest book where she implies that Hillary Clinton cheated
Bernie Sanders.
Yet Comey fails to mention that he signed a FISA warrant based on the
"Dossier" paid by Hillary Clinton and the DNC. He said the Dossier was "salacious and
unverified". The Dossier was politically crafted much of it has been proven to be false yet
Comey use it to get a FISA warrant.
Finishing, Comey goes on to slander president Trump of undermining public confidence in law
enforcement institutions when this enforcement institutions have been caught lying,
protecting politicians like Hillary Clinton having a double standard when it comes to
investigating certain politicians and letting them walk free before finishing an
investigation.
A better title would have been " An American's Highest Loyalty"
This memoir is an important piece in the analysis of turn of the century politics in the
United States. It is unfortunate that the media hype for this book has been about the more
recent turmoil in James Comey's service to his country. True, the Trump administration is
different and in many ways dysfunctional. But it is only in the part of the book, that he
deals with it's dysfunction.
If one reads carefully, President Trump is only a more obvious
and verbal and transparent figure in his disdain for the judiciary and the justice
department. Dick Cheney and others in the Bush 43 administration are portrayed as far more
sinister in their actions to sublimate justice after 9/11.
His admiration for President Obama
is evident and little discussed in the media.
Comey had his issues with the Justice
Department, especially Loretta Lynch although he never says that she had sinister intent. His
dealings with the Clinton email controversy is well outlined. His dilemma with his
communication regarding his investigation and its reopening was inadequately described in the
book and his naivety that its reopening would not influence the election is remarkable. He
supposes that the average American voter understands how the investigative system and justice
system works.
His demeaning comments about President Trump's physical flaws add nothing to the book. I
can understand why he wrote them in as these kinds of notations sell books. They added
nothing to the story he had to tell. He should have left them out.
I appreciate that he does not give loyalty to a person. What makes America great is that
we are loyal to an idea. Even if we disagree on the interpretation of the Constitution, we
can all be American. His loyalty seems to be to honesty and integrity which is admirable.
However the highest loyalty should be to one's reading of the Constitution. I just wished he
had said it.
"... Because Comey revealed that he is either a world class liar or a total moron. Actually, he may be both. I also think that he earned the title of "sanctimonious twit." ..."
"... This exchange should leave you slack jawed by the audacity of Comey's lies. We are asked to believe that Jim Comey is a boy scout. Honest to a fault. Just a humble man trying to do the right thing. Oh yeah, he also is supposed to be really smart. He is a lawyer don't cha know. ..."
"... Put yourself in Jim Comey's large shoes. Would you get such a letter and then file it away at the bottom of your burn bag? Or, would you demand immediate action from your senior staff, including a briefing from the CIA liaison officer posted to FBI Headquarters? Call me crazy, but I am betting that someone as smart and honorable and conscientious (you get the drift) as Jimmy Comey would go for the latter. He would want a briefing and want to know what was told to Senator Reid and other key members of Congress. ..."
"... Comey also wants us to assume that he is a total idiot. Who else catches a briefing laying out sordid and salacious details about Donald Trump and members of his crew romping around Moscow and other formerly commie nooks and crannies and does not have even a wee bit of curiosity to ask, "Who is the source?" or "How did the source come to have this info?" ..."
"... 'Litvinenko used to say: They are total retards in the UK, they believe everything we are telling them about Russia.' It is important here that the 'we' clearly refers to the circle around Berezovsky. Of this, a very large part – Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, Yuri Felshtinsky, for example – were based on your side of the Atlantic. ..."
"... 'Litvinenko said interesting things about the British judiciary system. He was thrilled, he loved it, that in Britain you could prove anything, really. He used to say: "You can't imagine, you can simply raise your hand, tell the judge whatever, and they will believe you! They will believe you!" And in this respect, a Russia to totally different things, so for a Russian person it is all available and beneficial.' ..."
"... 'I want to stress this thought, the one I mentioned in my statement. I quote – Litvinenko used to say: You can't imagine what idiots they are and they believe everything we are telling them. I stress that.' ..."
"... this seems to me clearly to reflect Lugovoi's considered judgment as to the intellectual quality of British intelligence and law enforcement people, and it is also clear to me that Owen's conduct of his Inquiry is only one item among a mass of material vindicating his contempt. ..."
"... No competent intelligence agency would employ a man like Steele, let alone appoint him as head of its Russia Desk. ..."
"... A more plausible scenario, it increasingly appears, is that crucial strings were pulled by Berezovsky when alive, and are still being pulled by his ghost, after his death. As with Ahmed Chalabi, a somewhat similar figure, both in my country and ours we are going to have to live with the consequences of our credulity in the face of conmen, for a very long time. ..."
"... Another way of looking at it is that they're not really stupid, just completely uninterested in the truth. All they're interested in is gathering the 'evidence' that fits the party line--that's how careers are advanced in the Decadent West now. ..."
"... I tend to agree with RaisingMac below. Or perhaps as Publius says, it's a case of both stupidity and mendacity. I may have mentioned before that most Presidents are perfectly happy to go on national TV and state complete and utter lies that they would have to be more than retarded to actually believe. People used to talk about George Bush as if his speech impediments were related to his intelligence. I always thought it was just a case of he just didn't give a damn what he said because he KNEW he would never pay any consequence for anything he said. And that was true about Obama and it's true about Trump. ..."
"... Yes. I cringed every time Obama repeated the reason we were fighting in Afghanistan. "We are denying them space in which to plan their attacks." At least he used good grammar. ..."
"... Just what were Daniel Richman's duties as a "special government employee"? Who worked, according to Richman, "for no pay". Serve as the official leaker of FBI documents? What other documents has Richman seen and by whose authority? ..."
"... No collusion here, nothing to see here, just normal business amongst FBI leaders. Happens all the time, like Attorney General tarmac meetings with spouses of people being investigated by the FBI. ..."
"... Comey was part of the cabal to bring Trump down....pure and simple.. ..."
"... Just another so-called "smartest guy in the room." Does swimming in the swamp destroy brain cells or does the swamp just naturally attract the dimwitted among us? ..."
"... Plenty smart enough to cope with a TV interview, to the average observer with little grasp of the background. Observing from that position myself I can report that Mr Comey's performance would have been more than adequately convincing for most. After I'd watched the interview I had to re-read PT's article carefully to see where Mr Comey had been skating on thin ice. So yes, smart enough. ..."
"... Smart enough to cope with the considerably sharper and more persistent questioning of a hostile lawyer in a Court? Judging by that uneasy manner of shifting in his jacket from time to time even under such undemanding questioning as this, I'd imagine Mr Comey would do better to devote his ingenuity to avoiding such a test. ..."
Lordy, Lordy, Lordy (to quote James Comey liberally). He was interviewed tonight (Thursday, 26 April 2018) by Bret Baier on the Fox
6pm news show and it was shocking. Why? Because Comey revealed that he is either a world class liar or a total moron. Actually, he
may be both. I also think that he earned the title of "sanctimonious twit."
I want to direct you to look at the exchange that starts at 8:30 into the interview. It concerns the so-called Steele Dossier.
This exchange should leave you slack jawed by the audacity of Comey's lies. We are asked to believe that Jim Comey is a boy scout.
Honest to a fault. Just a humble man trying to do the right thing. Oh yeah, he also is supposed to be really smart. He is a lawyer
don't cha know.
So here is the scenario. He claims he is briefed sometime in September or October on parts of the Steele documents. He is not
sure. This really smart guy just cannot remember.
Well, let's see if this helps jog the faltering brain cells of choir boy. There was a letter from Senator Harry Reid, whose panties
were in a bunch after being briefed by someone from the Intelligence Community (probably CIA Director John Brennan)
that there was:
. . . evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign continues to mount
and has led Michael Morrell, the former Acting Central Intelligence Director, to call Trump an "unwitting agent" of Russia and
the Kremlin. The prospect of a hostile government actively seeking to undermine our free and fair elections represents one of
the gravest threats to our democracy since the Cold War and it is critical for the Federal Bureau of lnvestigation to use every
resource available to investigate this matter thoroughly and in a timely fashion. The American people deserve to have a full understanding
of the facts from a completed investigation before they vote this November.
Put yourself in Jim Comey's large shoes. Would you get such a letter and then file it away at the bottom of your burn bag?
Or, would you demand immediate action from your senior staff, including a briefing from the CIA liaison officer posted to FBI Headquarters?
Call me crazy, but I am betting that someone as smart and honorable and conscientious (you get the drift) as Jimmy Comey would go
for the latter. He would want a briefing and want to know what was told to Senator Reid and other key members of Congress.
But Comey now wants us to believe that he does not remember anything about the specifics of this Dossier and the information contained
in it. Are we to suppose that Comey was getting so many letters and reports about Trump and the Rooskies collaborating on stealing
the election that it was just something routine? I doubt that.
Comey also wants us to assume that he is a total idiot. Who else catches a briefing laying out sordid and salacious details
about Donald Trump and members of his crew romping around Moscow and other formerly commie nooks and crannies and does not have even
a wee bit of curiosity to ask, "Who is the source?" or "How did the source come to have this info?"
Nope. Not Jimmy Comey. Asking such basic, factual questions apparently eluded his razor sharp mind. He concedes that it came from
a foreign intelligence officer (Steele) and, rather than wonder about any possible counter intelligence concerns, says that he took
that fact as validation of the reliability of these fantastical reports.
There was a time when I respected James Comey. No longer. Trump called him a liar today. I think President Trump has it right.
Comey is a liar. What is shocking to me is that someone who is supposedly so smart can be so downright stupid. His interview above
seals that fact for me.
"He concedes that it came from a foreign intelligence officer (Steele) and, rather than wonder about any possible counter intelligence
concerns, says that he took that fact as validation of the reliability of these fantastical reports."
As I have noted in earlier exchanges on these matters, in the press conference where he responded to the British request for
his extradition, the man Steele et al framed over the death of Alexander Litvinenko, Andrei Lugovoi, made the following claim
about what his supposed victim really thought of people like the man Comey appears so happy to believe:
'Litvinenko used to say: They are total retards in the UK, they believe everything we are telling them about Russia.' It
is important here that the 'we' clearly refers to the circle around Berezovsky. Of this, a very large part – Alex Goldfarb, Yuri
Shvets, Yuri Felshtinsky, for example – were based on your side of the Atlantic.
In the appearance on Russian primetime television where Litvinenko's father embraced Lugovoi, in addition to making the quite
implausible claim that Goldfarb had assassinated his son, he made the to my mind not implausible suggestion that the figure who
he was, in his turn, framing, was working for the CIA.
In the Q&A at the press conference, Lugovoi's supposed partner-in-crime, Dmitri Kovtun, made a claim parallel to Lugovoi's,
about British law enforcement, clearly referring to the supposed plot to assassinate Berezovsky with a 'poison pen', which back
in 2003 MI6 had used to frustrate Russian attempts to have the oligarch extradited.
(In this, I think it likely that the Russian Prosecutor-General's Office are quite correct to claim that Goldfarb and Litvinenko
played crucial roles.)
According to Kovtun:
'Litvinenko said interesting things about the British judiciary system. He was thrilled, he loved it, that in Britain
you could prove anything, really. He used to say: "You can't imagine, you can simply raise your hand, tell the judge whatever,
and they will believe you! They will believe you!" And in this respect, a Russia to totally different things, so for a Russian
person it is all available and beneficial.'
Also in the Q&A, Lugovoi returned to his earlier claim about Litvinenko's contempt for people like Steele:
'I want to stress this thought, the one I mentioned in my statement. I quote – Litvinenko used to say: You can't imagine
what idiots they are and they believe everything we are telling them. I stress that.'
(For the press conference, follow the link INQ001886 on the 'Evidence page' on the archived website of the inquiry presided
over by Sir Robert Owen, which is at
http://webarchive.nationala... .)
Whether or not Litvinenko made the remarks attributed to him – and I think it most likely that he did – this seems to me
clearly to reflect Lugovoi's considered judgment as to the intellectual quality of British intelligence and law enforcement people,
and it is also clear to me that Owen's conduct of his Inquiry is only one item among a mass of material vindicating his contempt.
As it happens, the type to which Steele, and also our embarrassment of a Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, patently belongs
– the worst kind of superannuated Oxbridge student politician – is one with which I have quite extensive knowledge, which even
if I had not followed the antics of Steele and Owen, would strongly incline me to think that Lugovoi's judgments were accurate.
No competent intelligence agency would employ a man like Steele, let alone appoint him as head of its Russia Desk.
If people take a 'retard' seriously, then the natural inference is that they are themselves 'retards.'
I have largely lost count of the number of the people in the United States who appear to have taken Steele seriously. But it
seems clear that your intelligence, foreign affairs and law enforcement bureaucracies are as infested by 'retards' as are ours.
The notion of Putin as the sinister puppet master, pulling the 'strings' which caused people to vote for 'Leave' in the Brexit
campaign, or to support Trump, has always been BS.
A more plausible scenario, it increasingly appears, is that crucial strings were pulled by Berezovsky when alive, and are
still being pulled by his ghost, after his death. As with Ahmed Chalabi, a somewhat similar figure, both in my country and ours
we are going to have to live with the consequences of our credulity in the face of conmen, for a very long time.
Another way of looking at it is that they're not really stupid, just completely uninterested in the truth. All they're interested
in is gathering the 'evidence' that fits the party line--that's how careers are advanced in the Decadent West now.
I tend to agree with RaisingMac below. Or perhaps as Publius says, it's a case of both stupidity and mendacity. I may have
mentioned before that most Presidents are perfectly happy to go on national TV and state complete and utter lies that they would
have to be more than retarded to actually believe. People used to talk about George Bush as if his speech impediments were related
to his intelligence. I always thought it was just a case of he just didn't give a damn what he said because he KNEW he would never
pay any consequence for anything he said. And that was true about Obama and it's true about Trump.
This is the nature of
people in power - they don't care what you think about what they said, so they say anything they want as long as it isn't something
so absurd as to make them look like fools directly - in the minds of the rest of the fools listening to them as if what they said
really mattered.
Parsing what these people say is a complete waste of time. What matters is what did they DO and what were the consequences
to the rest of us.
Yes. I cringed every time Obama repeated the reason we were fighting in Afghanistan. "We are denying them space in which to
plan their attacks." At least he used good grammar.
Yes! But i think you really should have said highly convenient credulity. That is why an intelligence agency employs a man like
Steele. That is the key competancy they saw when recruiting. That "flexibility" with the truth is such an asset in the civil service.
I dont believe all players were idiots. I believe they were "fooled" like John Scarlett was fooled about WMD.
The criminal laws in the United States are broad and far-reaching enough that an aggressive prosecutor will always have a pretext
to bring charges against anyone. This is entirely intentional. Those whom the establishment want punished are punished.
At the same time, because everybody and anybody can be made into a criminal whenever convenient, the converse is that violating
the law is considered blameless, praiseworthy even, when doing so aligns with consensus establishment goals.
This does not mean that a shadowy cabal have secret meeting and take a ballot on whom we will persecute today. Rather, it refers
to people of influence and authority, and prosecutors, being, depending on how you look at it, glorified or perhaps degraded politicians,
are exquisitely sensitive to such things.
I deal with attorneys on a weekly basis. The percentage of them which are simply unqualified to wake up in the morning and charge
people for advice is mind boggling.
I am giggling still after reading your comments about our little Jimmy C. I watched the interview yesterday and came away feeling
that somehow I must be losing my marbles, so to speak, because I just could not make myself believe that this person had reached
the level of authority in our government that he had reached before deservedly being fired at last.
When the whole Clinton email situation was at its peak in the news cycle, I finally decided that Jimmy was a prime example
of the Peter Principle. He had reached his level of incompetence. But after watching the interview yesterday, I decided that he
had reached that level of incompetence long before becoming the Director of the FBI. Perhaps all the really intelligent, competent
people just didn't want to go into some sort of bureaucratic swampy environment that taking a management position would mean.
Maybe they all just kept pushing him up the ladder to keep him from going out into the field to do the real work of the FBI. Who
knows? One person--I forget who it was--did call him a malignant narcissist. And that he is. So, I hope he ends up in a federal
prison with his fellow malignant narcissists, though they tend more to violence than he does. I pity his daughters. They have
no hope of growing up to live rational lives.
I then thought the round table discussion afterward was a bit surreal. It's not that I thought the people weren't stating good
points. It was just that I thought they would all be laughing so hard and holding their sides and rolling on the floor laughing
at him.
God save our country if there are many more like Jimmy in high positions. I will have to pray extra hard at church this Sunday.
Just what were Daniel Richman's duties as a "special government employee"? Who worked, according to Richman, "for no pay".
Serve as the official leaker of FBI documents? What other documents has Richman seen and by whose authority?
Does anyone else find it convenient that Comey is now paying him as his attorney, thus giving him "attorney client
privilege". That being the thing Mueller's raid on Cohen's home and office voided for Trump.
No collusion here, nothing to see here, just normal business amongst FBI leaders. Happens all the time, like Attorney General
tarmac meetings with spouses of people being investigated by the FBI.
Just what were Daniel Richman's duties as a "special government employee". Who worked, according to Richman, "for no pay"? Serve
as the official leaker of FBI documents? Does anyone else find it convenient that Comey is now paying him as his attorney, thus
giving him "attorney client privilege". That would be the thing Mueller's raid on Cohen's home and office voided for Trump.
It seems that there is more than meets the eye here. It is becoming more evident that the allegations of the Trump campaign colluding
with the Russian government was actually a cover for the far more insidious collusion of top officials in the Obama administration
including possibly Obama himself to use the resources and capabilities of the federal government to destroy a major party presidential
candidate from the opposing party.
Clapper once again being accused of lying to Congress and being a leaker of classified information. Brennan sure looks very
concerned. Let's see if the rule of law applies to high officials in government. I'm not holding my breath.
Those terms are not mutually exclusive. He looks like both a liar and fool to many of us.
Not surprisingly, there are many great political cartoons to be found on Comey over the past couple of years. It was hard to
limit myself to sharing 3 of them, but I didn't want to end up in the spam bin.
are any Americans in cahoots with the foreign intelligence of an adversary nation
Since when does the Director of the FBI get to decide American foreign policy and does he really understand the principles
of democracy? Donald Trump was clear throughout his campaign that he wanted better relations with Russia so the people who elected
him however flawed the process had an expectation that there would be better relations with Russia. People in the executive might
disagree with this as a policy but in a democracy they should not actively frustrate the will of the people; Trump should call
on anybody who has done so to resign as a matter of principle.
Just another so-called "smartest guy in the room." Does swimming in the swamp destroy brain cells or does the swamp just naturally
attract the dimwitted among us?
Plenty smart enough to cope with a TV interview, to the average observer with little grasp of the background. Observing from
that position myself I can report that Mr Comey's performance would have been more than adequately convincing for most. After
I'd watched the interview I had to re-read PT's article carefully to see where Mr Comey had been skating on thin ice. So yes,
smart enough.
It reminded me of similar awkward interviews here, from Mr Blair in the distant past to Boris Johnson's recent DW interview:
enough ingenuity to convince the most of us and too few of the unconvinced to matter. After all for such people, or I'd guess
in the environment Mr Comey has so far prospered in, there's no call for cast iron explanations. The plausible, as long as it
has some colour of reason, will carry the day.
Smart enough to cope with the considerably sharper and more persistent questioning of a hostile lawyer in a Court? Judging
by that uneasy manner of shifting in his jacket from time to time even under such undemanding questioning as this, I'd imagine
Mr Comey would do better to devote his ingenuity to avoiding such a test.
PT, I vaguely, very, very vaguely (not much) followed up on Fred's book alert on Comey and his book. I stumbled across a young
man's review (as old lady), whose name I had never heard before. Touched old chords somehow. Not sure if I may link here to--of
all possible places--Rolling Stone? And Garrett M. Graff, that is: James Comey's 'A Higher Loyalty' Is a Study in Contradictions,
Inside and Out. The former FBI director's memoir is about life, leadership and undoing all of the above
"... Clapper and Brennan are perjurers, so it seems is Comey. Lynch tanked the prosecution by not reminding FBI that its up to the DOJ, not FBI, to decide to prosecute or not ((how has that gotten lost in all this))... its crooks all the way down to the dark corners of the Shadow State, where drug sales, murder, and terror are the red blood cells of the beast. ..."
"... Strzok and Page are sacrificial pigs who have apparently only convicted themselves of gross stupidity. There is no evidence of crimes being committed in emails. That is why both are still employed. No evidence either one was having an affair, either. Going to lunch is not a crime. ..."
Jim Comey DOES get to arbitrarily judge
what is and what is not classified! As
the head of the FBI, he clearly has the
role of 'Originating Authority' on
determining classification of ANY
document. What it says is, that if
there's ANY doubt, whether it is
classified or not, it shall be
SAFEGUARDED at the higher level of
classification. And the ultimate
authority, is the President of the
United States, if the Originator is
Comey. So Comey took it upon himself
to declassify, classified documents
without the permission of the President
of the United States, who happens to be
his boss.
(c)
If there is
reasonable doubt about the need to
classify information, it shall be
safeguarded as if it were classified
pending a determination by an original
classification authority, who shall
make this determination within thirty
(30) days. If there is
reasonable doubt about the appropriate
level of classification, it shall be
safeguarded at the higher level of
classification pending a determination
by an original classification authority
,
who shall make this determination
within thirty (30) days.
Executive Order
12356--National security information
Source:
The
provisions of Executive Order 12356
of Apr. 2, 1982, appear at 47 FR
14874 and 15557, 3 CFR, 1982 Comp.,
p. 166, unless otherwise noted.
10) other categories of
information that are related to the
national security and that require
protection against unauthorized
disclosure as determined by the
President or by agency heads or
other officials who have been
delegated original classification
authority
by the President
.
Any
determination made under
this subsection shall be reported
promptly to the Director of the
Information Security Oversight
Office
.
(b) Information that is
determined to concern one or more
of the categories in Section
1.3(a
) shall be
classified when an original
classification authority also
determines that its unauthorized
disclosure, either by itself or
in the context of other
information, reasonably could be
expected to cause damage to the
national security.
(c) Unauthorized disclosure
of foreign government
information, the identity of a
confidential foreign source, or
intelligence sources or methods
is presumed to cause damage to
the national security.
(d)
Information classified
in accordance with Section 1.3
shall not be declassified
automatically as a result of any
unofficial publication or
inadvertent or unauthorized
disclosure in the United States
or abroad of identical or similar
information.
[!!!!!!]
Comey is no different than any of those low lifes
you used to see get busted on Cops. He's a
confidence man. A crack head, high on his own
power. He's worse in fact because he betrayed his
fellow Americans en masse.
What nails him is over
confidence. Obama has it, Clinton has it. They all
think that they they're winners at the table and
that it's gonna go on forever. They are the worse
type because they think they deserve it. There is
not a gram of humility in the lot. Prisons are full
of these guys.
Interestingly enough, all these these players
use the same excuses those addicts with smack in
the center console use as they were getting cuffed.
"What? We were just talkin"
"I had no idea that was there"
"I don't remember"
"Some guy told me it was okay"
"I don't know"
"The other guy started it"
"That's my personal stuff. You got no right"
"Those aren't mine"
"Wasn't me"
"I'm not me I'm my younger brother" (nod to Ike
Turner for that one)
It's the sheer weight of these tired old answers
that makes it so obvious that Comey is scum. He has
an answer for everything. Put them all together and
you get a figure eight. He's a punk in the first
order and a henchman of a crime family. I'm hoping
he ends up somebody's punk when this is over.
Hey Cornholius, When you say "these pigs are as dirty as
they get" are you talking about Jeff "Reefer Madness"
Sessions? Because, if you are, I will agree with you.
I'm talking about all the fucknuts who steal the
fruits of your labor and claim to be "serving the
public". Sessions is definitely one of those pigs.
Taxpayers enable and support his behaviour.
This is a constitutional republic. They like
"democracy" because they can claim their crimes
legitimate as "mandates". Their actions are
unconstitutional. That is the law. Be nice if the
next time the military conducts exercises in a
domestic population center the local militia takes
them all prisoner. Train for this.
Maybe ideologically it is a constitutional
republic, but since March 9, 1933 when FDR
signed the Emergency Banking Act the United
States has been a private institution managed by
foreign investors.
"Since March 9, 1933 The
United States has been in a state of Declared
National Emergency ... Under the powers
delegated by these statutes the President may:
seize property, organize and control the means
of production, seize commodities, order military
forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and
control all transportation and communication,
regulate the operation of private enterprise,
restrict travel, and in a plethora of ways
control the lives of American citizens. ... A
majority of the people in the United States have
lived all of their lives under emergency rule.
For forty years, freedoms and governmental
procedure guaranteed by the Constitution have in
varying degrees been abridged by laws brought
into force by national emergency." In Reg. US
Senate report No. 93-549 dated 11/19/73
Why Trump allows this, I can't figure out...either it's
part of a bigger plan, he's a dumb-ass, or he's being
forced to allow this shit-show to go into it's second
season.
Clapper and Brennan are perjurers, so it seems is Comey. Lynch tanked the
prosecution by not reminding FBI that its up to the DOJ, not FBI, to decide to
prosecute or not ((how has that gotten lost in all this))... its crooks all
the way down to the dark corners of the Shadow State, where drug sales,
murder, and terror are the red blood cells of the beast.
And of course Hillary... decades of lies, murders, theft, and the
deliberate arming of terrorists in Syria, per her emails, to 'help Israel.'
These people aren't merely criminals, but domestic terrorists and traitors.
Trump and Sessions' failure to indict these people merits your attention
regardless of what you think of Trump these days.
The lack of prosecutions means a DOJ afraid of what dark secrets may be
revealed in the harsh light of investigation and prosecution.
We would likely, even as cynics, absolutely marvel at the thoroughness of
Washington's corruption if we saw it.
Maybe we'd think about treating DC as a zio/globalist occupied territory
that presents a clear and present danger to the several States.
Strzok
and Page are sacrificial
pigs who have apparently
only convicted
themselves of gross
stupidity. There is no
evidence of crimes being
committed in emails.
That is why both are
still employed. No
evidence either one was
having an affair,
either. Going to lunch
is not a crime.
The real action is
who and what else is
being concealed from the
world.......
FBI are all a bunch
of depraved FUCKS.
If FBI secrets were
to come out for everyone
to see, every criminal
prosecution in which FBI
Fucks were involved
could be dismissed,
overturned, reversed, or
withdrawn from Fed
Court. Gov does not have
enough $$$$$$ to pay the
damages.
So we all get fucked
and FBI cunts stay
employed.
Sso corrupt it is
UNIMAGINABLE !!!!
Close down the FBI
!!!! End the fucking
contest. Do it NOW !!!
Did his crack legal team tell him to shut the fuck up? He's basically cross
examining himself in a public forum.
The Clinton email thing is still
amazing. It's de jure illegal to handle the information the way they did
regardless of intent. No interview was necessary. No immunity to an
unnecessary interview needed to happen either. This is a miscarriage at its
most benign.
Only a boob would believe this "aw schucks" nonesense.
It is amazing he ran the FBI. He is completely delusional. Has no sense of the
rule of law or how to apply it. Has no sense of how the law applies to him. He
cannot see the consequences of his actions on people or how they would
interpret it. Complete narcissist that lacks any empathy. Truly a psychopath.
The level of absurdity of the former head of the nation's purportedly premiere
law enforcement agency giving unlimited interviews to promote a tell-all book
on still active investigations in which he was involved is so high that it
would it wouldn't even be fodder for satire. Sanctimonious "Cardinal" Comey
has become a caricature of himself. He is either bringing shame and disgrace
to the FBI that he purportedly loves, or conclusively demonstrating that it is
more politically corrupt than under Hoover; but without the competency it
displayed under Hooveresque directors. People like Comey, McCabe, Strzok and
Page sent scores of people to prison, ruining untold lives. How many of these
people would have been found guilty if even a fraction of this information had
been available to defense attorneys as exculpatory evidence? Manafort's
lawyers are going to have a field day with all of this (at least in the DC
case where Judge Berman Jackson - a former defense lawyer and ostensibly fair
jurist - is presiding; I pity Manafort's lawyers in front of Judge Ellis in
Alexandria). Every time that Comey opens his mouth, he is making multiple
inconsistent statements of varying degrees. His narcissism and greed are so
monumental that he doesn't even see the damage that he did, is and will
continue to do to his credibility. I do, however, have to end by commending
him for appearing on Fox, though I think that it was more his inability to
turn down a forum for self-promotion than out of any particular
bravery.
Comey said, "it was unlikely to end in a case that the prosecutors at DOJ
would bring."
That doesn't mean the hundred-plus FBI agents who actually
worked the case didn't believe Clinton should be prosecuted. Comey betrayed
FBI agents by not supporting them. Instead, he sided with politicize
prosecutors, including Attorney General Lynch, who weren't going to indict
Clinton no matter what the evidence showed. Comey is a limpid coward and a
disgrace to law enforcement officers throughout the land.
Does Bezos have Comey's book "Riding My High Horse" at number one on
Amazon, like he did with Clinton's book "What The Fuck Happened?" even
though it had only sold 62 copies?
Classified is classified, unless you work for a Clinton.
SO if you put classified information in your book, it is no longer
classified??????
Shit, a whole lot of ex CIA guys need to write books. How about, "Well
we knew that the most murderous and despicable Nazi was in Argentina all
along and lived there for 30 years after WWII but we never went and got
him, because he really didn't do most of the things we claimed he did."
forget the dossier. forget that she destroyed evidence. forget that she
fleeced world leaders for her little foundation. forget the outrageous
speaking fees of her disgraced ex president husband. forget the meeting on
the tarmac with the AG. forget that her campaign was laundering
contributions.
SHE SET UP A FUCKING ILLEGAL EMAIL SERVER IN HER HOME AND
REDIRECTED GOVERNMENT TOP SECRET EMAIL TO THAT SERVER IN AN ATTEMPT TO HIDE
ALL HER CRIMES.
God these people are dirtier than a small time local politician. Jail
em all.
I have learned that there is a gaping deep and wide crevasse between a
'fact' and a 'truth'.
A 'truth' is, e.g., That tall oak out there is a
tree.
A 'fact' is, that depending on where you are standing, you can attest to
seeing less than a half of a tree, (unless you have developed the ability
to see around bends).
So when someone like the weasel Comey is says something is a fact, you
have every reason to doubt that he is telling you a truth.
I have a larcenous heart. I regret that I did not get into government,
seeing how much money can be made and how risk free the jobs are. Few----
compared to the many millions who have literally gotten away with murder,
gathered immense fortunes, and awesome behind the scenes power that is
invisible----have ever been arrested let alone accused, prosecuted and sent
to jail. You can count them on your fingers and toes.
So I have no objections to people buying his pack of lies and him making
some serious money on the advances, the book, and the eventual movie,
starring George Clooney as the hero, Comey.
The Department of "Justice", lost its way long ago. To persist in
calling it the DOJ when it is nothing of the sort, just another
disreputable, bureaucratic fuckup of a government agency, is a total lie.
Comey lies in the interview exposed plus the new Peter Strzok and Lisa
Page emails. Even what must be a very tiny percentage of their emails
during the covered time span have some very revealing contents which the
censors missed:
Interestingly, Comey said Republicans financed the Steele dossier before
Democrats. What if he's telling the truth? Trump is an Independent with an
"R" next to his name-Trump isn't their "Boy". Many Lifer Republicans in
fact are leaving office including House Speaker Ryan. If a Republican is
responsible for financing the dossier, my guess for one is Senator John
McCain.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-mccain-associate-subpoena
I could not watch more than 25% of the first video without projectile
vomiting. This fucker should be shot for treason, as all the rest of the
swamp leaders. The one sailor went to jail for accidentally releasing a
pic in an engine room, and Petras went to prison for so much less.
It's time to water the tree of Liberty with the blood of traitors to the
Republic...
"... As Orwell taught us in, Animal Farm , "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." So no charges against Comey, Hillary, McCabe etc. They simply can't allow a jury to decide if they broke the law. ..."
"... And as Bastiat writes in, The Law , today in the USA, the law has been perverted to the point where its only purpose is to legalize plunder. ..."
"... This guy wants to be a politician SOOO bad. He just doesn't have the chops for it. This is EXACTLY the kind of guy the Clintons would throw under the bus to (once again) save their own asses. ..."
"... look at the exchange that starts at 8:30 into the interview. It concerns the so-called Steele Dossier. This exchange should leave you slack jawed by the audacity of Comey's lies. We are asked to believe that Jim Comey is a boy scout. Honest to a fault. Just a humble man trying to do the right thing. Oh yeah, he also is supposed to be really smart. He is a lawyer don't cha know. ..."
"... So here is the scenario. He claims he is briefed sometime in September or October on parts of the Steele documents. He is not sure. This really smart guy just cannot remember. ..."
"... Comey also wants us to assume that he is a total idiot. Who else catches a briefing laying out sordid and salacious details about Donald Trump and members of his crew romping around Moscow and other formerly commie nooks and crannies and does not have even a wee bit of curiosity to ask, "Who is the source?" or "How did the source come to have this info?" ..."
Fox News host Bret Baier and James Comey sat down for a one-on-one interview Thursday night, in perhaps the most serious and direct
conversations with the former FBI Director to date.
Baier held Comey's feet to the fire on a wide variety of controversial topics - including the FBI's decision to exonerate Hillary
Clinton before interviewing her, what Comey knew about the "Steele Dossier" used to obtain a surveillance warrant on a Trump campaign
aide, and the memos Comey leaked to his friend which he hoped would lead to a special counsel investigation.
Clinton Exoneration
After starting the interview off with a joke about how Comey must find it "a little tougher to get around town without a motorcade,"
Baier pulled no punches - launching straight into asking the former FBI Director if it was true that his team decided to exonerate
Hillary Clinton before interviewing her .
In response, Comey said that because of all the prior investigative work the FBI had done on the Clinton email case, investigators
said "it looks like it's not going to get to a place where the prosecutors will bring it," and that it's "fairly typical" for white
collar investigations to save interviews for last.
Comey: I started to see that their view was, it was unlikely to end in a case that the prosecutors at DOJ would bring .
Baier: Before the interview?
Sure, yeah, because they had spent ten months digging around, reading all of the emails, putting everything together, interviewing
everybody who set up her system. They weren't certain of that result, but they said "Look boss, on the current course and speed,
looks like it's not going to get to a place where the prosecutor will bring it ."
On the topic of Peter Strzok - the anti-Trump counterintelligence agent deeply involved in both the Clinton and Trump investigations
along with his FBI attorney mistress, Lisa Page, Comey said he never witnessed evidence of bias working with the pair, but that he
was " deeply disappointed" when he saw some of the text messages exchanged between them.
"I can tell you this: When I saw the texts, I was deeply disappointed in them," Comey told Baier. " But I never saw any bias,
any reflection of any kind of animus towards anybody, including me . I'm sure I'm badmouthed in those texts, I'm just not going to
read them all. Never saw it."
Comey said that if he had been aware of the level of hatred Strzok and Page had for Trump, he "would have removed both of them
from any contact with significant investigations."
The "leaked" memos
When it comes to the leaked memos that kickstarted the Mueller probe, Comey maintains that the memos he created to document his
interactions with President Trump, seven in all and four of which have been deemed classified; two marked "confidential" and two
marked "secret."
Comey also admitted that he leaked the memos to two other people who he said were members of his "legal team," including David
Kelly and former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.
"I gave the memos to my legal team after I gave them to Dan Richman -- after I asked him to get it out to the media," said Comey,
who likened the memos to his "diaries."
" I didn't consider it part of an FBI file... It was my personal aide-memoire ," Comey said, adding "I always thought of it as
mine, like a diary"
Trump "just wrong"
Responding to a Fox & Friends interview in which President Trump said "Comey is a leaker and he's a liar. He's been leaking for
years," the former FBI Director responded " He's just wrong. Facts really do matter." Comey then claimed that because the FBI approved
the inclusion of the memos in his book, A Higher Loyalty , they are therefore not classified.
Byron York of the Washington Examiner provides an excellent breakdown of Comey's semantic absurdity
here .
The "Steele Dossier" and who paid for it
Baier asked Comey why the FBI used the Steele Dossier compiled by former UK spy Christopher Steele to obtain a FISA warrant on
a Trump campaign aide if it was "salacious," to which Comey replied that the dossier was part of a " broader mosaic of facts " used
to support the application.
And when it comes to who funded the dossier used in the FISA application, Comey claims he still has no idea whether Hillary Clinton
and the DNC funded it.
" When did you learn that the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign had funded Christopher Steele's work? " Baier asked.
" Yeah I still don't know that for a fact ," Comey responded.
"What do you mean?" Baier replied.
" I've only seen it in the media, I never knew exactly which Democrats had funded ," Comey explained, "I knew it was funded
first by Republicans."
Baier quickly corrected Comey, noting that while conservative website Free Beacon had Fusion GPS on "a kind of retainer," they
"did not fund the Christopher Steele memo or the dossier," adding " That was initiated by Democrats ."
"Is everybody believing what is going on. James Comey can't define what a leak is. He illegally leaked CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
but doesn't understand what he did or how serious it is. He lied all over the place to cover it up. He's either very sick or very
dumb. Remember sailor!"
...two marked "confidential" and two marked "secret."
Comey also admitted that he leaked the memos...
As Orwell taught us in,
Animal Farm
, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." So no charges against Comey, Hillary, McCabe etc. They
simply can't allow a jury to decide if they broke the law.
And as Bastiat writes in,
The Law , today
in the USA, the law has been perverted to the point where its only purpose is to legalize plunder.
This guy wants to be a politician SOOO bad. He just doesn't have the chops for it. This is EXACTLY the kind of guy the
Clintons would throw under the bus to (once again) save their own asses.
The recipe for a Nothing Burger, as created by the DoJ. Peddling bullshit like this on a daily basis must be soul destroying
for any of these weasel cunts that had a soul in the first place.
The really juicy ones are redacted to hell and gone, or text corrupted in all the right places.
" I didn't consider it part of an FBI file... It was my personal aide-memoire ," Comey said, adding "I always thought of it
as mine, like a diary"
IDIOT. Those memos are a work product created while he worked for the FBI. HE does NOT get to arbitrarily judge what is and
is not classified. What HE considers personal is irrelevant.
Arrogant self-righteous douchebag. He should get at LEAST a deserved stay at a Club Fed for this.
"Comey revealed that he is either a world class liar or a total moron. Actually, he may be both. I also think that he earned
the title of "sanctimonious twit."
...
look at the exchange that starts at 8:30 into the interview. It concerns the so-called Steele Dossier. This exchange should
leave you slack jawed by the audacity of Comey's lies. We are asked to believe that Jim Comey is a boy scout. Honest to a fault.
Just a humble man trying to do the right thing. Oh yeah, he also is supposed to be really smart. He is a lawyer don't cha know.
So here is the scenario. He claims he is briefed sometime in September or October on parts of the Steele documents. He
is not sure. This really smart guy just cannot remember.
Well, let's see if this helps jog the faltering brain cells of choir boy. There was a letter from Senator Harry Reid, whose
panties were in a bunch after being briefed by someone from the Intelligence Community (probably CIA Director John Brennan)
that there
was :
. . . evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign continues to
mount and has led Michael Morrell, the former Acting Central Intelligence Director, to call Trump an "unwitting agent" of Russia
and the Kremlin. The prospect of a hostile government actively seeking to undermine our free and fair elections represents one
of the gravest threats to our democracy since the Cold War and it is critical for the Federal Bureau of lnvestigation to use every
resource available to investigate this matter thoroughly and in a timely fashion. The American people deserve to have a full understanding
of the facts from a completed investigation before they vote this November.
Put yourself in Jim Comey's large shoes. Would you get such a letter and then file it away at the bottom of your burn bag?
Or, would you demand immediate action from your senior staff, including a briefing from the CIA liaison officer posted to FBI
Headquarters? Call me crazy, but I am betting that someone as smart and honorable and conscientious (you get the drift) as Jimmy
Comey would go for the latter. He would want a briefing and want to know what was told to Senator Reid and other key members of
Congress.
But Comey now wants us to believe that he does not remember anything about the specifics of this Dossier and the information
contained in it. Are we to suppose that Comey was getting so many letters and reports about Trump and the Rooskies collaborating
on stealing the election that it was just something routine? I doubt that.
Comey also wants us to assume that he is a total idiot. Who else catches a briefing laying out sordid and salacious details
about Donald Trump and members of his crew romping around Moscow and other formerly commie nooks and crannies and does not have
even a wee bit of curiosity to ask, "Who is the source?" or "How did the source come to have this info?"
Nope. Not Jimmy Comey. Asking such basic, factual questions apparently eluded his razor sharp mind. He concedes that it came
from a foreign intelligence officer (Steele) and, rather than wonder about any possible counter intelligence concerns, says that
he took that fact as validation of the reliability of these fantastical reports.
Jim Comey DOES get to arbitrarily judge what is and what is not classified! As the head of the FBI, he clearly has the role
of 'Originating Authority' on determining classification of ANY document. What it says is, that if there's ANY doubt, whether
it is classified or not, it shall be SAFEGUARDED at the higher level of classification. And the ultimate authority, is the President
of the United States, if the Originator is Comey. So Comey took it upon himself to declassify, classified documents without the
permission of the President of the United States, who happens to be his boss.
(c) If there is reasonable doubt about the need to classify information, it shall be safeguarded as if it were classified pending
a determination by an original classification authority, who shall make this determination within thirty (30) days. If there is
reasonable doubt about the appropriate level of classification, it shall be safeguarded at the higher level of classification
pending a determination by an original classification authority , who shall make this determination within thirty (30) days.
As the FBI's investigation into the Clinton Foundation pressed on during the 2016 election,
a senior official with the Obama justice department, identified as Matthew Axelrod, called
former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe - who thought the DOJ was pressuring him to shut down
the investigation, according to the recently released inspector general's (OIG) report.
The official was "very pissed off" at the FBI , the report says, and demanded to know why
the FBI was still pursuing the Clinton Foundation when the Justice Department considered the
case dormant. -
Washington Times
The OIG issued a criminal referral for McCabe based on findings that the former Deputy
Director "made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor - including under
oath - on multiple occasions."
McCabe authorized a self-serving leak to the New York Times claiming that the FBI had not
put the brakes on the Clinton Foundation investigation, during a period in which he was coming
under fire over a $467,500 campaign donation his wife Jill took from Clinton pal Terry
McAuliffe.
" It is bizarre -- and that word can't be used enough -- to have the Justice Department call
the FBI's deputy director and try to influence the outcome of an active corruption
investigation ," said James Wedick - a former FBI official who conducted corruption
investigations at the bureau. " They can have some input, but they shouldn't be operationally
in control like it appears they were from this call ."
Wedick said he's never fielded a call from the Justice Department about any of his cases
during his 35 years there - which suggests an attempt at interference by the Obama
administration .
As the
Washington Times Jeff Mordock points out, Although the inspector general's report did not
identify the caller, former FBI and Justice Department officials said it was Matthew Axelrod ,
who was the principal associate deputy attorney general -- the title the IG report did use.
Mr. McCabe thought the call was out of bounds.
He told the inspector general that during the Aug. 12, 2016, call the principal associate
deputy attorney general expressed concerns about FBI agents taking overt steps in the Clinton
Foundation investigation during the presidential campaign. -
Washington Times
"According to McCabe, he pushed back, asking ' are you telling me that I need to shut down a
validly predicated investigation? '" the report reads. " McCabe told us that the conversation
was 'very dramatic' and he never had a similar confrontation like the PADAG call with a
high-level department official in his entire FBI career ."
The Inspector General said in a footnote that the Justice official (identified separately as
Matthew Alexrod) agreed to the description of the call, but objected to seeing that "the Bureau
was trying to spin this conversation as some evidence of political interference, which was
totally unfair."
Axelrod quit the Justice Department on January 30, 2017, the same day his boss, Deputy AG
Sally Q. Yates was fired by President Trump for failing to defend his travel ban executive
order. He is now an attorney in the D.C. office of British law firm Linklaters LLP.
Axelrod told the New York Times he left the department earlier than planned.
" It was always anticipated that we would stay on for only a short period ," said Alexrod of
himself and Yates. "For the first week we managed, but the ban was a surprise. As soon as the
travel ban was announced there were people being detained and the department was asked to
defend the ban."
The Washington Times notes that those familiar with DOJ procedures say it is unlikely
Axelrod would have made the call to McCabe without Yates' direct approval.
"In my experience these calls are rarely made in a vacuum," said Bradley Schlozman, who
worked as counsel to the PADAG during the Bush administration. " The notion that the principle
deputy would have made such a decision and issued a directive without the knowledge and consent
of the deputy attorney general is highly unlikely ."
Given that Andrew McCabe may now be in a legal battle with the Trump DOJ, the Obama DOJ and
former FBI Director James Comey - who says McCabe never told him about the leaks which resulted
in the former Deputy Director's firing, it looks like he's really going to need that new legal
defense fund
The lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), naming WikiLeaks and its
founder Julian Assange as co-conspirators with Russia and the Trump campaign in a criminal
effort to steal the 2016 US presidential election, is a frontal assault on democratic rights.
It tramples on the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which establishes freedom of the
press and freedom of speech as fundamental rights.
Neither the Democratic Party lawsuit nor the media commentaries on it acknowledge that
WikiLeaks is engaged in journalism, not espionage; that its work consists of publishing
material supplied to it by whistleblowers seeking to expose the crimes of governments, giant
corporations and other powerful organizations; and that this courageous campaign of exposure
has made both the website and its founder and publisher the targets of state repression all
over the world.
Assange himself has been effectively imprisoned in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for
the past six years, since he fled there to escape efforts by the British, Swedish and
American governments to engineer his extradition to the United States, where a secret grand
jury has reportedly indicted him on espionage and treason charges that could bring the death
penalty. Since the end of March, the Ecuadorian government, responding to increasing pressure
from US and British imperialism, has cut off all outside communication with him.
The reason for the indictment and persecution of Assange is that WikiLeaks published
secret military documents, supplied by whistleblower Chelsea Manning, revealing US war crimes
in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as diplomatic cables embarrassing to the US State Department
because they detailed US attempts to manipulate and subvert governments around the world.
The Democratic National Committee on Friday filed a 66-page complaint that reeks of
McCarthyism, with overtones of the Wisconsin senator's demagogy about "a conspiracy so vast"
when he was spearheading the anticommunist witch hunts more than 70 years ago. After
detailing a long list of supposed conspirators, ranging from the Russian government and its
military intelligence agency GRU to the Trump campaign and Julian Assange, the complaint
declares: "The conspiracy constituted an act of previously unimaginable treachery: the
campaign of the presidential nominee of a major party in league with a hostile foreign power
to bolster its own chance to win the Presidency."
Such language has had no place in official American public life since the right-wing
political gangster McCarthy left the scene in the late 1950s. Ultra-right groups like the
John Birch Society kept alive such smear tactics in ensuing decades, but they were relegated
to the fringes of the political system. Now the Democratic Party has sought to revive these
methods as the central focus of its bid for power in the 2018 elections.
In the targeting of WikiLeaks, the antidemocratic content of this campaign finds its
foulest expression. The DNC suit asserts, without the slightest evidence, that "WikiLeaks and
Assange directed, induced, urged, and/or encouraged Russia and the GRU to engage in this
conduct and/or to provide WikiLeaks and Assange with DNC's trade secrets, with the
expectation that WikiLeaks and Assange would disseminate those secrets and increase the Trump
Campaign's chance of winning the election."
According to Assange and WikiLeaks, however, the material from the DNC and from Clinton
campaign Chairman John Podesta that it made public in 2016 was provided by an anonymous
whistleblower whose identity WikiLeaks does not know because it observed its normal security
practices to preserve secrecy and protect its sources. Not a shred of evidence has been
presented to prove otherwise.
The DNC legal complaint cites the negative consequences of the WikiLeaks revelations in
passages worth quoting:
135. The illegal conspiracy inflicted profound damage upon the DNC. The timing and
selective release of the stolen materials prevented the DNC from communicating with the
electorate on its own terms. These selective releases of stolen material reached a peak
immediately before the Democratic National Convention and continued through the general
election.
136. The timing and selective release of stolen materials was designed to and had the
effect of driving a wedge between the DNC and Democratic voters. The release of stolen
materials also impaired the DNC's ability to support Democratic candidates in the general
election.
But the DNC lawsuit does not explain why the WikiLeaks material was so damaging.
On the contrary, it says nothing about the actual content of what was leaked, other than
claiming that it included "trade secrets" and other proprietary information of the Democratic
Party leadership.
The material published by WikiLeaks about the Democrats fell into two main categories.
First were internal emails and documents of the DNC showing that DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman
Schultz and her top aides were engaged in a systematic effort to block Clinton's challenger
Bernie Sanders and make sure Clinton received the Democratic nomination. In other words,
while complaining that Russia was engaged in rigging the 2016 campaign, the DNC was seeking
to rig the outcome of the Democratic primary contest.
The second batch of documents came from Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta and
included the transcripts of speeches delivered by Hillary Clinton to financial industry
groups for fees as high as $300,000 per appearance. In these remarks, she reassured the
bankers that they need not be alarmed by any campaign rhetoric about punishing them for the
financial skullduggery that triggered the 2008 Wall Street crash and destroyed the jobs and
living standards of millions of working people. She made clear that a Clinton government
would continue the pro-Wall Street policies of the Obama administration.
The DNC suit is a deepening of the effort by the Democratic Party to become the premier
party of the CIA and the military-intelligence apparatus as a whole. In targeting WikiLeaks
and Assange, the Democrats are embracing the smear by CIA Director Mike Pompeo -- now Trump's
choice for secretary of state -- that WikiLeaks is a "non-state hostile intelligence
service," allegedly allied with Moscow.
If, moreover, Assange is a traitor because he exposes the lies and crimes of the US
government, then by implication all those publications, websites and individuals who defend
him and challenge the government propaganda disseminated by the corporate media are
themselves complicit in treason and should be dealt with accordingly.
As the World Socialist Web Site has previously explained, the anti-Russia
campaign mounted by the Democrats is a reactionary concoction, backed by no factual evidence,
aimed at pushing the Trump administration to sharply escalate the war in Syria and adopt a
more aggressive policy against Russia. At the same time, it has been used as the
justification for a massive and coordinated campaign to censor the Internet. The manipulation
of search and news feed algorithms by Google and Facebook will be followed by more direct
efforts at the suppression of left-wing, anti-war and socialist publications.
The campaign has also served to position the Democrats as the party that stands up for the
"intelligence community" in its conflict with the Trump White House. This is now being
supplemented, in advance of the November midterm elections, by an influx of candidates for
Democratic congressional nominations in competitive districts drawn heavily from the ranks of
the CIA, the military, the National Security Council and the State Department (see: "
The CIA
Democrats ").
The conduct of the DNC demonstrates the reactionary and bankrupt character of the claims
by liberal and pseudo-left groups -- all of whom have maintained a complete silence on the
isolation and persecution of Assange -- that the election of a Democratic-controlled Congress
is the way to fight back against Trump and the Republicans. The truth is that the working
class confronts in these parties two implacable political enemies committed to war, austerity
and repression.
"... "Some are asking, though, 'Why wouldn't smashing of cellphones and destruction of thousands of emails during an investigation clearly be obstruction of justice ..."
"... Although mainstream media outlets, liberal pundits, and lawmakers have been obsessing over possible obstruction of justice charges and anticipating impeachment for Trump as a result, these same individuals showed a marked lack of interest in whether or not Clinton and her team obstructed justice. ..."
"... "But if you smash your cellphone knowing that investigators want it and that they've got a subpoena for it, for example, that is a different thing and can be obstruction of justice." ..."
"... Jones followed up, asking, "The law requires intent?" ..."
Comey Claims Nobody Asked About Clinton Obstruction Before Today on Sun, 04/22/2018 - 9:27pm
From the
' you can't make this shit up ' files. Hillary had been involved in government long enough to know and understand the rules
of what she needed to do with her emails after her tenure was over. As well as the rules for handling classified information with
an email account. But I guess she thought that rules only applied to everyone else but her. And why wouldn't she think that she could
do whatever she wanted to? Because she and Bill had been getting away with doing whatever they wanted their entire political careers
with no repercussions.
Using a private email server that would be a way around the freedom of information act would have also allowed her to put her
foundation's business on it so that Chelsea and others could have access to it even though it was tied into her state department
business and the people who did didn't have the proper security clearances to read the emails. (Sydney Bluementhal) Tut, tut ..
When WTOP's Joan Jones asked former FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday if the "smashing of cellphones and destruction of
thousands of emails" during the investigation into Hillary Clinton was "obstruction of justice," Comey said that he had never
been asked that question before.
"You have raised the specter of obstruction of justice charges with the president of the United States," Jones said to Comey
concerning his new book, "A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership." The book was released earlier this week.
"Some are asking, though, 'Why wouldn't smashing of cellphones and destruction of thousands of emails during an investigation
clearly be obstruction of justice ?'" Jones asked Comey.
Comey replied, "Now that's a great question. That's the first time I've been asked that."
Although mainstream media outlets, liberal pundits, and lawmakers have been obsessing over possible obstruction of justice
charges and anticipating impeachment for Trump as a result, these same individuals showed a marked lack of interest in whether or
not Clinton and her team obstructed justice.
There's that word intent again.
"And the answer is, it would depend upon what the intent of the people doing it was," Comey said. "It's the reason I can't
say when people ask me, 'Did Donald Trump committee obstruction of justice?' My answer is, 'I don't know. It could be. It would
depend upon, is there evidence to establish that he took actions with corrupt intent ?'"
"So if you smash a cellphone, lots of people smash their cellphones so they're not resold on the secondary market and your
personal stuff ends up in somebody else's hands," Comey continued. "But if you smash your cellphone knowing that investigators
want it and that they've got a subpoena for it, for example, that is a different thing and can be obstruction of justice."
What about deleting ones emails after being told to turn them over to congress after they found out that you didn't do it when
your job was done. Is this considered obstruction of justice, James? I think that answer is yes. How about backing up your emails
on someone else's computer when some of them were found to be classified?
Jones followed up, asking, "The law requires intent?"
"Yes. It requires not just intent , but the prosecutors demonstrate corrupt intent , which is a special kind of intent
that you were taking actions with the intention of defeating and obstructing an investigation you knew was going on," Comey replied.
Did he just change the rules there? Now it's not just intent, but corrupt intent. This is exactly what Hillary
did, James! She deliberately destroyed her emails after she was told to turn them over to congress, so if you didn't have the chance
to see them l, then how do you know that the ones that she destroyed weren't classified? I would say that qualifies as intent.
But we know that you had a job to protect her from being prosecuted. This is why when the wording was changed from " grossly negligent
" to "extremely careless". you went with the new ones!
BTW, James. Why wasn't Hillary under oath when she was questioned by the other FBI agents? Why didn't you question her
or look at her other computers and cell phones she had at her home? I'd think that they might have shown you something that she didn't
want you to see? One more question, James. Did you ask the NSA to find the deleted emails that she destroyed because she said that
they were just personal ones about Chelsea's wedding? Do you really think that it took 30,000 emails to plan a wedding? Okay, one
more. Did you even think that those emails might have had something to do with her foundation that might have had some incriminating
evidence of either classified information on them or even possible proof of her "pay to play" shenanigans that she was told not to
do during her tenure as SOS? This thought never crossed your mind?
Last question I promise. Did you really do due diligence on investigating her use of her private email server or were you still
covering for her like you have been since she started getting investigated?
This amazing comment came from a person on Common Dreams. It shows the history of
One source told the news outlet that electronic records reveal that Strzok changed the language from " grossly negligent
" to " extremely careless ," scrubbing a key word that could have had legal ramifications for Clinton. An individual
who mishandled classified material could be prosecuted under federal law for "gross negligence."
What would have happened if Comey had found Hillary guilty of mishandling classified information on her private email server?
She couldn't have become president of course because her security clearances would have been revoked. This makes it kinda hard to
be one if she couldn't have access to top secret information, now wouldn't it?
Have you seen this statement by people who don't think that what Hillary did when she used her private email server was wrong
and that's why some people didn't vote for her and Trump became president because of it?
Devin Nunes said today that after reviewing the electronic communication that launched the
counter intelligence investigation of Trump there was no evidence that warranted this
investigation. It is also interesting that Comey memorialized his discussions with Trump but
did not do that with others. His memos note that he only informed Trump on the salacious part
of the FusionGPS dossier and not the other parts. It looks like the conspiracy around the
smearing of Trump by the Obama administration is slowly coming out.
"An article in the Guardian last week provides more confirmation that John Brennan was the
American progenitor of political espionage aimed at defeating Donald Trump. One side did
collude with foreign powers to tip the election -- Hillary's."
"... Putting aside his partisan motivations, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA) was unusually blunt two months ago in warning of legal consequences for officials who misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to enable surveillance on Trump and his associates. Nunes's words are likely to have sent chills down the spine of those with lots to hide: "If they need to be put on trial, we will put them on trial," he said ."The reason Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we created." ..."
"... The media will be key to whether this Constitutional issue is resolved. Largely because of Trump's own well earned reputation for lying, most Americans are susceptible to slanted headlines like this recent one -- "Trump escalates attacks on FBI " -- from an article in The Washington Post , commiserating with the treatment accorded fired-before-retired prevaricator McCabe and the FBI he ( dis)served . ..."
"... What motivated the characters now criminally "referred" is clear enough from a wide variety of sources, including the text messages exchange between Strzok and Page. Many, however, have been unable to understand how these law enforcement officials thought they could get away with taking such major liberties with the law. ..."
"... None of the leaking, unmasking, surveillance, "opposition research," or other activities directed against the Trump campaign can be properly understood, if one does not bear in mind that it was considered a sure thing that Secretary Clinton would become President, at which point illegal and extralegal activities undertaken to help her win would garner praise, not prison. The activities were hardly considered high-risk, because candidate Clinton was sure to win. ..."
"... Comey admits, "It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making her an illegitimate president by concealing the re-started investigation bore greater weight than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in the polls." ..."
"... The key point is not Comey's tortured reasoning, but rather that Clinton was "sure to be the next president." This would, of course, confer automatic immunity on those now criminally referred to the Department of Justice. Ah, the best laid plans of mice and men -- even very tall men. One wag claimed that the "Higher" in "A Higher Loyalty" refers simply to the very tall body that houses an outsized ego. ..."
"... "Hope springs eternal" would be the cynical folk wisdom. FYI we haven't had a functioning constitution since the National Security Act of 1947 brought this nation under color of law, but the IC types wouldn't have you know that. Too tough to square the idea you'd never have had your CIA career in a world where the FISA court couldn't exist either. ..."
"... there is concrete evidence that the Democratic party/Clinton manipulated the primaries to destroy Clinton's challanger. That the DOJ, FBI & other alphabet agencies conspired with Clinton to equally, destroy Trump's campaign. ..."
"... We saw the same nonsense with Obama, the "peace president". Obama a man who never saw a Muslim he did not want to bomb or a Jew he did not want to bail out ..."
"... The best thing about this referral is that it also demands deputy AG Rod Rosenstein the weasel to recluse himself from this case. Rosenstein is the pinnacle of corruption by the deep state. ..."
"... Former CIA Director John Brennan is the prime mover behind the ongoing coup attempt against Trump. He gathered his deep state allies at DOJ and the FBI to join him in this endeavor. Brennan's allies -- McCabe, Lynch, Strzok, Yates, ect., may or may not be aware of Brennan's true motive behind creating all the noise and distraction since the 2016 election. It could be they're just partisan hacks; or they're on board with Brennan to keep secret what was revealed in the hack of the Podesta emails. ..."
"... I noticed Comey tried to pull a J Edgar-style subtle blackmail on Trump by the way he brought up the so-called "dossier" ..."
"... Bill Clinton got recruited into CIA by Cord Meyer, who bragged of it himself in his cups. ..."
"... Hillary cut her teeth on CIA's Watergate purge of Nixon. (If it's news to anyone that the Watergate cast of characters was straight out of CIA central casting, Russ Baker has conclusively tied the elaborate ratfeck to the intelligence community.) ..."
"... Obama was son of spooks, grandson of spooks, greased in to Harvard by Alwaleed bin-Talal's bagman. ..."
Wednesday's criminal referral by 11 House Republicans of former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton as well as several former and serving top FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) officials
is a giant step toward a Constitutional crisis.
Named in the referral to the DOJ for possible violations of federal law are: Clinton, former
FBI Director James Comey; former Attorney General Loretta Lynch; former Acting FBI Director
Andrew McCabe; FBI Agent Peter Strzok; FBI Counsel Lisa Page; and those DOJ and FBI personnel
"connected to" work on the "Steele Dossier," including former Acting Attorney General Sally
Yates and former Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente.
With no attention from corporate media, the referral was sent to Attorney General Jeff
Sessions, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and U.S. Attorney for the District of Utah John Huber.
Sessions appointed Huber months ago to assist DOJ Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz. By
most accounts, Horowitz is doing a thoroughly professional job. As IG, however, Horowitz lacks
the authority to prosecute; he needs a U.S. Attorney for that. And this has to be disturbing to
the alleged perps.
This is no law-school case-study exercise, no arcane disputation over the fine points of
this or that law. Rather, as we say in the inner-city, "It has now hit the fan." Criminal
referrals can lead to serious jail time. Granted, the upper-crust luminaries criminally
"referred" enjoy very powerful support. And that will come especially from the mainstream
media, which will find it hard to retool and switch from Russia-gate to the much more delicate
and much less welcome "FBI-gate."
As of this writing, a full day has gone by since the letter/referral was reported, with
total silence so far from T he New York Times and The Washington Post and other
big media as they grapple with how to spin this major development. News of the criminal
referral also slipped by Amy Goodman's non-mainstream DemocracyNow!, as well as many
alternative websites.
The 11 House members chose to include the following egalitarian observation in the first
paragraph of the
letter conveying the criminal referral: "Because we believe that those in positions of high
authority should be treated the same as every other American, we want to be sure that the
potential violations of law outlined below are vetted appropriately." If this uncommon attitude
is allowed to prevail at DOJ, it would, in effect, revoke the de facto "David Petraeus
exemption" for the be-riboned, be-medaled, and well-heeled.
Stonewalling
Meanwhile, the patience of the chairmen of House committees investigating abuses at DOJ and
the FBI is wearing thin at the slow-rolling they are encountering in response to requests for
key documents from the FBI. This in-your-face intransigence is all the more odd, since several
committee members have already had access to the documents in question, and are hardly likely
to forget the content of those they know about. (Moreover, there seems to be a good chance that
a patriotic whistleblower or two will tip them off to key documents being withheld.)
The DOJ IG, whose purview includes the FBI, has been cooperative in responding to committee
requests for information, but those requests can hardly include documents of which the
committees are unaware.
Putting aside his partisan motivations, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes
(R-CA) was unusually blunt two months ago in warning of legal consequences for officials who
misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to enable surveillance on Trump and
his associates. Nunes's words are likely to have sent chills down the spine of those with lots
to hide: "If they need to be put on trial, we will put them on trial," he said
."The reason Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we created."
Whether the House will succeed in overcoming the resistance of those criminally referred and
their many accomplices and will prove able to exercise its Constitutional prerogative of
oversight is, of course, another matter -- a matter that matters.
And Nothing Matters More Than the Media
The media will be key to whether this Constitutional issue is resolved. Largely because of
Trump's own well earned reputation for lying, most Americans are susceptible to slanted
headlines like this recent one -- "Trump escalates attacks on FBI " -- from an
article in The Washington Post , commiserating with the treatment accorded
fired-before-retired prevaricator McCabe and the FBI he ( dis)served
.
Nor is the Post above issuing transparently clever warnings -- like this one in a
lead
article on March 17: "Some Trump allies say they worry he is playing with fire by taunting
the FBI. 'This is open, all-out war. And guess what? The FBI's going to win,' said one ally,
who spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid. 'You can't fight the FBI. They're going
to torch him.'" [sic]
Mind-Boggling Criminal Activity
What motivated the characters now criminally "referred" is clear enough from a wide variety
of sources, including the text messages exchange between Strzok and Page. Many, however, have
been unable to understand how these law enforcement officials thought they could get away with
taking such major liberties with the law.
None of the leaking, unmasking, surveillance, "opposition research," or other activities
directed against the Trump campaign can be properly understood, if one does not bear in mind
that it was considered a sure thing that Secretary Clinton would become President, at which
point illegal and extralegal activities undertaken to help her win would garner praise, not
prison. The activities were hardly considered high-risk, because candidate Clinton was sure to
win.
But she lost.
Comey himself gives this away in the embarrassingly puerile book he has been hawking, "A
Higher Loyalty" -- which
amounts to a pre-emptive move motivated mostly by loyalty-to-self, in order to obtain a
Stay-Out-of-Jail card. Hat tip to Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone for a key observation, in his
recent article
, "James Comey, the Would-Be J. Edgar Hoover," about what Taibbi deems the book's most damning
passage, where Comey discusses his decision to make public the re-opening of the Hillary
Clinton email investigation.
Comey admits, "It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an
environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making
her an illegitimate president by concealing the re-started investigation bore greater weight
than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in the
polls."
The key point is not Comey's tortured reasoning, but rather that Clinton was "sure to be the
next president." This would, of course, confer automatic immunity on those now criminally
referred to the Department of Justice. Ah, the best laid plans of mice and men -- even very
tall men. One wag claimed that the "Higher" in "A Higher Loyalty" refers simply to the very
tall body that houses an outsized ego.
I think it can be said that readers of Consortiumnews.com may be unusually well equipped to
understand the anatomy of FBI-gate as well as Russia-gate. Listed below chronologically are
several links that might be viewed as a kind of "whiteboard" to refresh memories. You may wish
to refer them to any friends who may still be confused.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of
the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He served as an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and
then a CIA analyst for a total of 30 years. In retirement, he co-created Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
A weird country, the USA.
Reading the article I'm reminded of the 1946 Senate investigation into Pearl Harbour, where,
in my opinion, the truth was unearthed.
At the same time, this truth hardly ever reached the wider public, no articles, the book, ed.
Harry Elmer Barnes, never reviewed.
Will McCabe wind up in jail? Will Comey? Will Hillary face justice? Fingers crossed!
The short answer is NO. McCabe might, but not Comey and the Killer Queen, they've both served Satan, uh I mean the
Deep State too long and too well.Satan and the banksters–who really run the show–take care of their own and
apex predators like Hillary won't go to jail. But it does keep the rubes entertained while the banksters continue to loot, pillage and
plunder and Israel keeps getting Congress to fight their wars.
"Hope springs eternal" would be the cynical folk wisdom. FYI we haven't had a functioning
constitution since the National Security Act of 1947 brought this nation under color of law,
but the IC types wouldn't have you know that. Too tough to square the idea you'd never have
had your CIA career in a world where the FISA court couldn't exist either.
Consortium News many sops tossed to 'realpolitik' where false narrative is attacked with
alternative false narrative, example given, drunk Ukrainian soldiers supposedly downing MH 17
with a BUK as opposed to Kiev's Interior Ministry behind the Ukrainian combat jet that
actually brought down MH 17, poisons everything (trust issues) spewed from that news
service.
The realpolitik 'face saving' exit/offer implied in the Consortium News narrative where
Russia doesn't have to confront the West with Ukraine's (and by implication the western
intelligence agencies) premeditated murder of 300 innocents does truth no favors.
Time to grow up and face reality. Realpolitik is dead; the caliber of 'statesman' required
for these finessed geopolitical lies to function no longer exist on the Western side, and the
Russians (I believe) are beginning to understand there is no agreement can be made behind
closed doors that will hold up; as opposed to experiencing a backstabbing (like NATO not
moving east.)
Back on topic; the National Security Act of 1947 and the USA's constitution are mutually
exclusive concepts, where you have a Chief Justice appoints members of our FISA Court, er,
nix that, let's call a spade a spade, it's a Star Chamber. There is no constitution to
uphold, no matter well intended self deceits. There will be no constitutional crisis, only a
workaround to pretend a constitution still exists:
To comprehend the internal machinations s of US politics one needs a mind capable of high
level yoga or of squaring a circle.
On the one hand there is a multimillion, full throttle investigation into – at best
– nebulus, inconsequential links between trump/ his campaign & Russia.
On the other there is concrete evidence that the Democratic party/Clinton manipulated the
primaries to destroy Clinton's challanger. That the DOJ, FBI & other alphabet agencies
conspired with Clinton to equally, destroy Trump's campaign.
Naturally, its this 2nd conspiracy which is retarded.
Imagine, a mere agency of a dept, the FBI, is widely considered untouchable by The President
! Indeed, they will "torch" him. AND the "the third estate" ie: the msm will support them the
whole way!
As a script the "The Twilight Zone" would have rejected all this as too ludicrous, too
psychotic for even its broad minded viewers.
And that will come especially from the mainstream media
I quit reading right there. Use of that term indicates mental laziness at best. What's mainstream about it? Please
refer to corporate media in proper terms, such as PCR's "presstitute" media. Speaking of PCR, it's too bad he doesn't allow comments.
The MSM is controlled by Zionists as is the U.S. gov and the banks, so it is no surprise that
the MSM protects the ones destroying America, this is what they do. Nothing of consequence will be done to any of the ones involved, it will all be covered
up, as usual.
What utter nonsense. These people are ALL actors, no one will go to jail, because everything
they do is contrived, no consequence for doing as your Zionist owners command.
There is no there there. This is nothing but another distraction, something o feed the
dual narratives, that Clinton and her ilk are out to get Trump, and the "liberal media" will
cover it up. This narrative feeds very nicely into the primary goal of driving
Republicans/conservatives to support Trump, even as Trump does everything they elected him
NOT TO DO!
We saw the same nonsense with Obama, the "peace president". Obama a man who never saw a
Muslim he did not want to bomb or a Jew he did not want to bail out
Yet even while Obama did the work of the Zionist money machine, the media played up the
fake battle between those who thought he was not born in America, "birthers" and his blind
supporters.
Nothing came of any of it, just like Monica Lewinsky, nothing but theater, fill the air
waves, divide the people, while America is driven insane.
The best thing about this referral is that it also demands deputy AG Rod Rosenstein the
weasel to recluse himself from this case. Rosenstein is the pinnacle of corruption by the deep
state. It's seriously way pass time for Jeff Sessions to grow a pair, put on his big boy
pants, unrecuse himself from the Russian collusion bullshit case, fire Rosenstein and Mueller
and end the case once and for all. These two traitors are in danger of completely derailing
the Trump agenda and toppling the Republican majority in November, yet Jeff Sessions is still
busy arresting people for marijuana, talk about missing the forest for the trees.
As far as where this referral will go from here, my guess is, nowhere. Not as long as Jeff
Sessions the pussy is the AG. It's good to hear that Giuliani has now been recruited by Trump
to be on his legal team. What Trump really needs to do is replace Jeff Sessions with
Giuliani, or even Chris Christie, and let them do what a real AG should be doing, which is
clean house in the DOJ, and prosecute the Clintons for their pay-to-play scheme with their
foundation. Not only is the Clinton corruption case the biggest corruption case in US
history, but this might be the only way to save the GOP from losing their majority in
November.
But it does keep the rubes entertained while the banksters continue to loot, pillage and
plunder and Israel keeps getting Congress to fight their wars.
Sadly I think you're right. Things might be different if we had a real AG, but Jeff
Sessions is not the man I thought he was. He's been swallowed by the deep state just like
Trump. At least Trump is putting up a fight, Sessions just threw in the towel and recused
himself from Day 1. Truly pathetic. Some patriot he is.
" He's ferreted out more than a few and probably has a lot better idea who his friends are
he certainly knows the enemies by now."
He failed to ferret out Haley, Pompeo, or Sessions and he just recently appointed John
Bolton, so I don't agree with your assessment. If his friends include those three, that says
enough about Trump to make any of his earlier supporters drop him.
Anyway, not having a ready made team, or at least a solid short list of key appointees
shows that he was just too clueless to have even been a serious candidate. It looks more as
though Trump is doing now what he intended to do all along. That means he was bullshitting
everybody during his campaign.
So, maybe the neocons really have been his friends all along.
" America is a very crooked country, nothing suprises me".
Every country on this insane planet is "crooked" to a greater or lesser degree, when to a
lesser degree, this is simply because they, the PTB, have not yet figured out how to
accelerate, how to increase their corruption and thereby how to increase their unearned
monetary holdings.
Money is the most potent singular factor which causes humans to lose their minds, and all
of their ethics and decency.
And within the confines of a "socialist" system, "money" is replaced by rubber-stamps, which
then wield, exactly in the manner of "wealth", the power of life or death, over the unwashed
masses.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro jazz
musician.
BTW Jeff Sessions is a fraternal brother of Pence (a member of the same club, same
[recently deceased] guru) and is no friend of Trump.
That would explain why Sessions reclused himself from the start, and refused to appoint a
special council to investigate the Clintons. He's in on this with Pence.
Just as it looks like the Comey memos will further exonerate Trump, we now have this farce
extended by the DNC with this latest lawsuit on the "Trump campaign". The Democrats are now
the most pathetic sore losers in history, they are hell bent on dragging the whole country
down the pit of hell just because they can't handle a loss.
Wishful thinking that anything will come of this, just like when the Nunes memo was released.
Nothing will happen as long as Jeff Sessions is AG. Trump needs to fire either Sessions or
Rosenstein ASAP, before he gets dragged down by this whole Russian collusion bullshit case.
Former CIA Director John Brennan is the prime mover behind the ongoing coup attempt against
Trump. He gathered his deep state allies at DOJ and the FBI to join him in this endeavor.
Brennan's allies -- McCabe, Lynch, Strzok, Yates, ect., may or may not be aware of Brennan's
true motive behind creating all the noise and distraction since the 2016 election. It could
be they're just partisan hacks; or they're on board with Brennan to keep secret what was
revealed in the hack of the Podesta emails.
John Podesta, in addition to being a top Democrat/DC lobbyist and a criminal deviant, is
also a long-time CIA asset running a blackmail/influence operation that utilized his
deviancy: the sexual exploitation of children.
What kind of "physical proof" could Assange have? A thumb drive that was provably
American, or something? Rohrabacher only got Red Pilled on Russia because he had one very
determined (and well heeled) constituent. But he did cosponsor one of Tulsi Gabbard's "Stop
Funding Terrorists" bills, which he figured out on his own. Nevertheless, a bit of a loose
cannon and an eff'd up hawk on Iran He's probably an 'ISIS now, Assad later' on Syria.
I noticed Comey tried to pull a J Edgar-style subtle blackmail on Trump by the way he brought
up the so-called "dossier". Anyone could see it was absurd but he played his hand with it,
pretending it was being looked at. I would say Trump could see through this sleazy game Comey
was trying to play and sized him up. Comey is about as slimy as they get even as he parades
around trying to look noble. What a corrupt bunch.
"The culprit has swayed with the immediate need for a villain "
[What follows is excerpted from an article headlined Robert Mueller's Questionable Past
that appeared yesterday on the American Free Press website:]
During his tenure with the Justice Department under President George H W Bush, Mueller
supervised the prosecutions of Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega, the Lockerbie bombing (Pan
Am Flight 103) case, and Gambino crime boss John Gotti. In the Noriega case, Mueller ignored
the ties to the Bush family that Victor Thorn illustrated in Hillary (and Bill): The Drugs
Volume: Part Two of the Clinton Trilogy. Noriega had long been associated with CIA operations
that involved drug smuggling, money laundering, and arms running. Thorn significantly links
Noriega to Bush family involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal.
Regarding Pan Am Flight 103, the culprit has swayed with the immediate need for a villain.
Pro-Palestinian activists, Libyans, and Iranians have all officially been blamed when US
intelligence and the mainstream mass media needed to paint each as the antagonist to American
freedom. Mueller toed the line, publicly ignoring rumors that agents onboard were said to
have learned that a CIA drug-smuggling operation was afoot in conjunction with Pan Am
flights. According to the theory, the agents were going to take their questions to Congress
upon landing. The flight blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland.
There has been some former high flyers going to jail recently. Sarkozy is facing a hard
time at the moment. If it can happen to a former president of France it can happen to
Hillary.
Am I a Christian? Well, no. I had some exposure to Christianity but it never took hold. On
the other hand, I do believe there was a historical Jesus that was a remarkable man, but
there is a world (or universe) of difference between the man and the mythology. Here's some
of my thoughts on the matter:
Nothing uncanny about it. There's a frenetic Democratic cottage industry inferring magical
emotional charisma powers that explain the outsized influence of those three. The fact is
very simple. All three are CIA nomenklatura.
(1.) Bill Clinton got recruited into CIA by Cord Meyer, who bragged of it himself in his
cups.
(2.) Hillary cut her teeth on CIA's Watergate purge of Nixon. (If it's news to anyone that
the Watergate cast of characters was straight out of CIA central casting, Russ Baker has
conclusively tied the elaborate ratfeck to the intelligence community.)
(3.) Obama was son of spooks, grandson of spooks, greased in to Harvard by Alwaleed
bin-Talal's bagman. While he was vocationally wet behind the ears he not only got into
Pakistan, no mean feat at the time, but he went to a falconry outing with the future acting
president of Pakistan. And is there anyone alive who wasn't flabbergasted at the instant
universal acclaim for some empty suit who made a speech at the convention? Like Bill Clinton,
successor to DCI Bush, Obama was blatantly, derisively installed in the president slot of the
CIA org chart.
Excellent post and quite accurate information, however my point being that the irrational
fear harbored by the individuals who could actually begin to rope these scumbags in, is just
that : Irrational, as they seem to think or have been lead/brainwashed to believe that these
dissolute turds are somehow endowed with supernatural, otherworldy powers and options, and
that they are capable of unholy , merciless vengeance : VF, SR, etc.
And the truth is as soon as they finally start to go after them they, they will fall apart at
the seams, such as with all cowards, and this is the bottom line : They, the BC/HC/BO clique,
they are nothing more than consumate cowards, who can only operate in such perfidious manners
when left unchallenged.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro Jazz
artist.
A massive battle is brewing between former FBI Director James Comey, and his deputy Andy
McCabe - as first noted a few weeks
ago by the Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross - over exactly who is lying about Comey knowing that
McCabe had been leaking self-serving information to the Wall Street Journal .
Comey stopped
by ABC's The View to peddle his new book, A Higher Royalty Loyalty, where he called his
former Deputy Andrew McCabe a liar , and admitted that he "ordered the report" which found
McCabe guilty of leaking to the press and then lying under oath about it, several times.
Comey was asked by host Megan McCain how he thought the public was supposed to have
"confidence" in the FBI amid revelations that McCabe lied about the leak.
" It's not okay. The McCabe case illustrates what an organization committed to the truth
looks like ," Comey said. " I ordered that investigation. "
Comey then appeared to try and frame McCabe as a "good person" despite all the lying.
"Good people lie. I think I'm a good person, where I have lied," Comey said. " I still
believe Andrew McCabe is a good person but the inspector general found he lied, " noting that
there are "severe consequences" within the DOJ for doing so. As a reminder, the Justice
Department's internal watchdog, Inspector General Michael Horowitz, released a report last week
detailing his conclusions from the months-long probe of McCabe, which found that the former
acting FBI Director leaked a self-serving story to the press and then lied about it under oath
.
In response, McCabe's attorney, Michael R. Bromwich (flush with cash from the disgraced
Deputy Director's half-million dollar legal defense GoFundMe
campaign), fired back - claiming that Comey was well aware of the leaks .
" In his comments this week about the McCabe matter, former FBI Director James Comey has
relied on the Inspector Genera's (OIG) conclusions in their report on Mr. McCabe. In fact, the
report fails to adequately address the evidence (including sworn testimony) and documents that
prove that Mr. McCabe advised Director Comey repeatedly that he was working with the Wall
Street Journal on the stories in question..." reads the statement in part.
So to review , McCabe was fired when it was uncovered that he authorized an F.B.I.
spokesman and attorney to tell Devlin Barrett of the Wall St. Journal , just days before the 2016 election, that the
FBI had not put the brakes on a separate investigation into the Clinton Foundation - at a time
in which McCabe was coming under fire for his wife taking a $467,500 campaign contribution from
Clinton proxy pal, Terry McAuliffe.
New details show that senior law-enforcement officials repeatedly voiced skepticism of the
strength of the evidence in a bureau investigation of the Clinton Foundation, sought to
condense what was at times a sprawling cross-country effort, and, according to some people
familiar with the matter, told agents to limit their pursuit of the case . The probe of the
foundation began more than a year ago to determine whether financial crimes or influence
peddling occurred related to the charity.
...
Some investigators grew frustrated, viewing FBI leadership as uninterested in probing the
charity , these people said. Others involved disagreed sharply, defending FBI bosses and
saying Mr. McCabe in particular was caught between an increasingly acrimonious fight for
control between the Justice Department and FBI agents pursuing the Clinton Foundation case
.
So McCabe leaked information to the WSJ in order to combat rumors that Clinton had
indirectly bribed him to back off the Clinton Foundation investigation, and then lied about it
four times to the DOJ and FBI, including twice under oath.
"Here was material that I knew someday, when it's declassified, and I thought that
would be decades in the future, would cause historians to wonder, "Hmm, was there some
strange business going on there? Was Loretta Lynch somehow ... carrying water for the
campaign and controlling what the FBI did?"' Comey said.
I read his narrative as presented by the Daily Mail differently. He seems to try to
explain his much criticized going public on the Clinton mail issue -- pretty unique for the
FBI to do so, no? -- was the decision based on other matters going on at the same time.
....
As I read it, he seems to claim he didn't want the FBI to be connected to the Obama-Bill
Clinton & Lynch on the tarmac conspiracy theme in the public eye. ....
It was a bizarre moment in US history anyway, from Benghazi to the Clinton mails right
into the middle of an election campaign. With one of the candidates still under
investigation.
Comey said Obama's meddling surprised him. 'He's a very smart man and a lawyer ... He
shouldn't have done it. It was inappropriate,' Comey said.
I agree.
'What I can say is the material is legitimate,' he said. 'It is real. The content is
real. Now, whether the content is true is a different question. And again, to my mind, I
believed it was not true. '
What he vaguely refers to can be related to one three categories. Matters that Juridical
Watch's FOIA efforts around the Bill Clinton - Lynch tarmac meeting hasn't brought to the
surface yet:
that said, how comes I doubt my ability in English grammar while reading the Daily Mail
article vs the linked Washington Post one. Have to take a closer look at one passage were the
use of tense puzzled me.
Let me help you with this. Democratic party advisor and former communications director for
the white house under President Clinton interviewed a man complicit in stifling the Clinton -
Hilary- email scandal by spending an hour deflecting attention from Comey' s conduct.
That truth about George's past neither lied about, they just refused to mention the
blatant conflict of interest the interviewer had hoping nobody in America would remember.
Of course it is Trump's fault for coining the phrase "fake news" and sticking that truth
on Stephanopoulos and the rest. Now they are just proving how right Trump is regarding the
American press core.
"... Prior to becoming the DNC's most wanted, Comey and his team notoriously let Hillary Clinton off the hook for her private server and mishandling of classified information - having begun drafting Clinton's exoneration before even interviewing her, something which appears to have been "forgotten" in his book. ..."
"... You left out the fact that he was instrumental in the formation of the Clinton Foundation. ..."
Current and former FBI agents are furious after former Director James Comey gave his first interview
since President Trump fired him last year to ABC's George Stephanopoulos on Sunday night, reports the
Daily Beast
- which was privy to a play-by-play flurry of text messages and other
communications detailing their reactions.
Seven current or former FBI agents and officials spoke throughout and immediately after the
broadcast.
There was a lot of anger, frustration, and even more emojis -- featuring the
thumbs-down, frowny face, middle finger, and a whole lot of green vomit faces
.
One former FBI official sent a bourbon emoji as it began; another sent the beers cheers-ing
emoji.
The responses became increasingly angry and despondent as the hourlong interview
played out.
-
Daily
Beast
"
Hoover is spinning in his grave
," said a former FBI official. "
Making
money from total failure
," in reference to Comey plugging his book,
A Higher Loyalty
.
Jana Winter of
The Beast
adds that when a promo aired between segments advertising Comey's
upcoming appearance with
The View
, the official "grew angrier." "
Good lord, what a self-serving self-centered jackass
," the official said. "
True
to form he thinks he's the smartest guy around
."
... ... ...
Comey was fired by President Trump on May 9, 2017, after which he
leaked memos he claims
document conversations with Trump
to the
New York Times,
kicking off the special
counsel investigation headed by Robert Mueller - whose team started out looking at Russian influence
in the 2016 election, and is now investigating the President's alleged decade-old extramarital affairs
with at least two women. Truly looking out for national security there Bob...
... ... ...
Prior to becoming the DNC's most wanted, Comey and his team notoriously let Hillary Clinton off the
hook for her private server and mishandling of classified information - having begun
drafting Clinton's exoneration
before even interviewing her, something which appears to have been
"forgotten" in his book.
I would rather have RP if he had the
charisma/gusto and also tactical genius of
DT. However, I worry that Ron, as a guy that
delivered babies and educated people on
nonagression, as opposed to running a
something-billion dollar cutthroat RE empire,
might be more at risk of A) being unable to
overcome political roadblocks and
destabilization, and B) something bad
happening to him.
Comey was always the most enigmatic figure to me in this
sad, troubling series of events involving the FBI.
THE
GOOD NEWS: Everyone hates him now. The Rs hate him, the Ds
hate him. Who's Christmas party did he get invited to last
year? I'm guessing the invitations were few. His own ego
has turned him into plutonium. And he deserves even worse
than that.
Every agency has a Jim Comey in it... you know the guy.
Their CV just has an implied "team skills and natural
ability to get a deep brown nose" at the very top of it.
Comey was the FBI Director when warrants
were issued to spy on Trump and his associates. Warrants
gained in part or in whole by, false evidence (the Steele
dossier) presented to a FISA court judge(s), gathered by,
a foreign national former spy (Steele) who was in contact
with his old Kremlin pals, who (Steele) was then paid by
the DNC, Fusion GPS via Perkins Coie to give Hillary
Rodham Clinton (affectionately known here as The Bitch of
Benghazi) some distance from the fake "evidence".
Now besides Comey knowing the source of "the dossier"
one of his deputies (McCabe) was at the same time
"colluding" with a couple FBI agents (Strzok & Page) in a
"counter-intel operation" (on the taxpayers dime) to
gather dirt on candidate Trump. McCabe's wife (we might
recall) got a sizable "donation" from Terry McAuliffe
(another Klinton sleezebag) for her political run in
Virginia.
And we haven't even touched on Comey's theft of
government documents or his turning over those documents
to his friend so the friend could turn them over to the
Alinsky NYT's for the purposes of...getting his mentor
Grand Inquisitor Mueller a gig as "special prosecutor"
(as he admitted to under oath).
Mueller's investigation is tainted with fruit of the
poisonous tree and the entirety of seized evidence
will be unceremoniously thrown out by a 5-4 US Supreme
Court.
There is only one thing keeping Comey out of Prison:
Jeff Sessions.
If we someday get a real AG, who is willing to man
up and appoint a second special prosecutor, Comey is
finished. But for the moment, Mr. Magoo is saving his ass.
Don't hold your breath. The clock on the statute of
limitations is ticking away. I wish someone could
provide me with an honest rational as to why Trump
hasn't fired Jeff Sessions.
Problem is that a sizable portion of the US population
view Comey's actions in the 'if you could go back in
time and kill baby Hitler...' perspective. Yes it's
illegal, yes it's unconstitutional...but was trying to
save the 'World' so it's justified.
I think you
framed it similar...this is the same as injecting
bleach into our veins in the hope in clears up a
pimple on our nose.
With the country's attention focused on James Comey's book publicity gala interview
with ABC at 10pm ET, the former FBI Director has thrown former President Obama and his Attorney
General Loretta Lynch under the bus, claiming they "jeopardized" the Hillary Clinton email
investigation.
Comey called out Obama and Lynch in his new book, A Higher Loyalty , set to come out on
Tuesday. In it, he defends the FBI's top brass and counterintelligence investigators charged
with probing Clinton's use of a private email server and mishandling of classified information,
reports the
Washington Examiner , which received an advanced copy.
" I never heard anyone on our team -- not one -- take a position that seemed driven by their
personal political motivations . And more than that: I never heard an argument or observation I
thought came from a political bias. Never ... Instead we debated, argued, listened, reflected,
agonized, played devil's advocate, and even found opportunities to laugh as we hashed out major
decisions .
Comey says that multiple public statements made by Obama about the investigation
"jeopardized" the credibility of the FBI investigation - seemingly absolving Clinton of any
crime before FBI investigators were able to complete their work .
" Contributing to this problem, regrettably, was President Obama . He had jeopardized the
Department of Justice's credibility in the investigation by saying in a 60 Minutes interview
on Oct. 11, 2015, that Clinton's email use was "a mistake" that had not endangered national
security," Comey writes. "Then on Fox News on April 10, 2016, he said that Clinton may have
been careless but did not do anything to intentionally harm national security, suggesting
that the case involved overclassification of material in the government."
" President Obama is a very smart man who understands the law very well . To this day, I
don't know why he spoke about the case publicly and seemed to absolve her before a final
determination was made. If the president had already decided the matter, an outside observer
could reasonably wonder, how on earth could his Department of Justice do anything other than
follow his lead." -
Washington Examiner
Of course, Comey had already begun
drafting Clinton's exoneration before even interviewing her, something which appears to
have been "forgotten" in his book.
" The truth was that the president -- as far as I knew, anyway -- he had only as much
information as anyone following it in the media . He had not been briefed on our work at all.
And if he was following the media, he knew nothing, because there had been no leaks at all up
until that point. But, his comments still set all of us up for corrosive attacks if the case
were completed with no charges brought."
"Matter" not "Investigation"
Comey also describes a September 2015 meeting with AG Lynch in which she asked him to
describe the Clinton email investigation as a "matter" instead of an investigation.
"It occurred to me in the moment that this issue of semantics was strikingly similar to the
fight the Clinton campaign had waged against The New York Times in July. Ever since then, the
Clinton team had been employing a variety of euphemisms to avoid using the word
'investigation,'" Comey writes.
" The attorney general seemed to be directing me to align with the Clinton campaign strategy
. Her "just do it" response to my question indicated that she had no legal or procedural
justification for her request, at least not one grounded in our practices or traditions.
Otherwise, I assume, she would have said so.
Comey said others present in the meeting with Lynch thought her request was odd and
political as well - including one of the DOJ's senior leaders.
" I know the FBI attendees at our meeting saw her request as overtly political when we
talked about it afterward . So did at least one of Lynch's senior leaders. George Toscas, then
the number-three person in the department's National Security Division and someone I liked,
smiled at the FBI team as we filed out, saying sarcastically, ' Well you are the Federal Bureau
of Matters ,'" Comey recalled.
That said, Comey "didn't see any instance when Attorney General Lynch interfered with the
conduct of the investigation," writing "Though I had been concerned about her direction to me
at that point, I saw no indication afterward that she had any contact with the investigators or
prosecutors on the case."
In response, Loretta Lynch promptly issued a statement in which she said that if James Comey
" had any concerns regarding the email investigation, classified or not, he had ample
opportunities to raise them with me both privately and in meetings. He never did."
"... Bill Clinton attacked Yugoslavia, blithely violating Internal Law. George Bush Jr. did the same by attacking Iraq, and Barack Obama by attacking Libya and Syria. As for Donald Trump, he has never hidden his distrust of supra-national rules. ..."
"... " Globalisation ", in other words the " globalisation of Anglo-Saxon values ", has created a class society between states. ..."
"... " Communication ", a new name for " propaganda ", has become the imperative in international relations. From the US Secretary of State brandishing a phial of pseudo-anthrax to the British Minister for Foreign Affairs lying about the origin of Novitchok in the Salisbury affair, lies have become the substitute for respect, and cause general mistrust. ..."
"... Russia is wondering today about the possible desire of the Western powers to block the United Nations. If this is so, it would create an alternative institution, but there would no longer be a forum which would enable the two blocks to discuss matters. ..."
o the Western powers hope to put an end to the constraints of International Law? That is the
question asked by the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sergueï Lavrov, at the Moscow
conference on International Security [ 1 ].
Over the last few years, Washington has been promoting the concept of " unilateralism ".
International Law and the United Nations are supposed to bow to the power of the United
States.
This concept of political life is born of the History of the United States - the colonists
who came to the Americas intended to live as they chose and make a fortune there. Each
community developed its own laws and refused the intervention of a central government in local
affairs. The President and the Federal Congress are charged with Defense and Foreign Affairs,
but like the citizens themselves, they refused to accept an authority above their own.
Bill Clinton attacked Yugoslavia, blithely violating Internal Law. George Bush Jr. did
the same by attacking Iraq, and Barack Obama by attacking Libya and Syria. As for Donald Trump,
he has never hidden his distrust of supra-national rules.
Making an allusion to the Cebrowski-Barnett doctrine [ 2 ], Sergueï Lavrov declared: " We
have the clear impression that the United States seek to maintain a state of controlled chaos
in this immense geopolitical area [the Near East], hoping to use it to justify the military
presence of the USA in the region, without any time limit, in order to promote their own agenda
".
The United Kingdom also seem to feel quite comfortable with breaking the Law. Last month, it
accused Moscow in the " Skripal affair ", without the slightest proof, and attempted to unite a
majority of the General Assembly of the UN to exclude Russia from the Security Council. It
would of course be easier for the Anglo-Saxons to unilaterally rewrite the Law without having
to take notice of the opinions of their opponents.
Moscow does not believe that London took this initiative. It considers that Washington is
calling the shots.
" Globalisation ", in other words the " globalisation of Anglo-Saxon values ", has
created a class society between states. But we should not confuse this new problem with
the existence of the right to a veto. Of course, the UNO, while it declares equality between
states whatever their size, distinguishes, within the Security Council, five permanent members
who have a veto. This Directorate, composed of the main victors of the Second World War, is a
necessity for them to accept the principle of supra-national Law. However, when this
Directorate fails to embody the Law, the General Assembly may take its place. At least in
theory, because the smaller states which vote against a greater state are obliged to suffer
retaliatory measures.
La " globalisation of Anglo-Saxon values " ignores honour and highlights profit, so that the
weight of the propositions by any state will be measured only by the economic development of
its country. However, over the years, three states have managed to gain an audience to the
foundations of their propositions, and not in function of their economy – they are the
Iran of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (today under house arrest in his own country), the Venezuela of
Hugo Chávez, and the Holy See.
The confusion engendered by Anglo-Saxon values has led to the financing of intergovernmental
organisations with private money. As one thing leads to another, the member states of the
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), for example, have progressively abandoned their
propositional power to the profit of private telecom operators, who are united in a "
consultative committee ".
" Communication ", a new name for " propaganda ", has become the imperative in
international relations. From the US Secretary of State brandishing a phial of pseudo-anthrax
to the British Minister for Foreign Affairs lying about the origin of Novitchok in the
Salisbury affair, lies have become the substitute for respect, and cause general
mistrust.
During the first years of its creation, the UNO attempted to forbid " war propaganda ", but
today, it is the permanent members of the Security Council who indulge in it.
The worst occurred in 2012, when Washington managed to obtain the nomination of one of its
worst war-hawks, Jeffrey Feltman, as the number 2 of the UNO [ 3 ]. From that date onward, wars have
been orchestrated in New York by the very institution that is supposed to prevent them.
Russia is wondering today about the possible desire of the Western powers to block the
United Nations. If this is so, it would create an alternative institution, but there would no
longer be a forum which would enable the two blocks to discuss matters.
Just as a society which falls into chaos, where men are wolves for men when deprived of the
Law, so the world will become a battle-field if it abandons International Law. Thierry Meyssan
This is probably the most vicious attack on Trump trangressions that i encountered so far...
Notable quotes:
"... The problem for Trump is that what his accusers are saying puts him in legal and political jeopardy. They are claiming, in effect, that he has committed a variety of unlawful and impeachable offenses – from obstruction of justice to violations of campaign finance laws. ..."
"... The Clinton-Lewinsky dalliance led to a series of events that prevented Clinton from doing even more harm to our feeble welfare state institutions than he would otherwise have done. ..."
There is no doubt about it: Stormy Daniels is a formidable woman. Karen McDougal is no slouch either, though she is hard to admire
after that riff, in her Anderson Cooper interview, about how religious and Republican she is; she even said that she used to love
the Donald. Stormy Daniels is better than that.
How wonderfully appropriate it would be if she were to become the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back.
Even in a world as topsy-turvy as ours has become, there has to be a final straw.
To be sure, evidence of Trump's vileness, incompetence, and mental instability is accumulating at breakneck speed, and there are
polls now that show support for him holding fast or even slightly rising. Trump's hardcore "base" seems more determined than ever
to stand by their man.
But even people as benighted as they are bound to realize eventually that they have been had. Many of them already do, but don't
care; they hate Clinton Democrats that much. This is understandable, but foolish; so foolish, in fact, that they can hardly keep
it up indefinitely.
To think otherwise is to despair for the human race.
What, if anything, can bring them to their senses in time for the 2018 election?
Stormy Daniels says she only wants to tell her story, not bring Trump down. But her political instincts seem decent, and she is
one shrewd lady. Therefore, I would not be the least surprised if that is not quite true. It hardly matters, though, what her intentions
are; I'd put my money on her.
A recession might also do the trick. A recession is long overdue, and Trump's tax cut for the rich and his tariffs are sure to
make its consequences worse when it happens.
To turn significant portions of Trump's base against him, a major military conflagration might also do -- not the kind Barack
Obama favored, fought far away and out of public view, but a real war, televised on CNN, and waged against an enemy state like North
Korea or Iran. It would have to go quickly and disastrously wrong, though, in ways that even willfully blind, terminally obtuse Trump
supporters could not fail to see.
Or the gods could smile upon us, causing Trump's exercise regimen (sitting in golf carts) and his fat-ridden, cholesterol rich
diet to catch up with him, as it would with most other sedentary septuagenarians. The only downside would be that a heart attack
or stroke might elicit sympathy for the poor bastard. No sane person could or should hope for a calamitous economic downturn or for
yet another devastating, pointless, and manifestly unjust war, especially one that could become a war to end all wars (along with
everything else), on the off-chance that some good might come of it. And if the best we can do is hope that cheeseburgers with fries
will save us, we are grasping at straws.
These are compelling reasons to hope that the accusations made by Daniels and McDougal and Summer Zervos – and other consensual
and non-consensual Trump victims and "playmates" – gain traction. If the several defamation lawsuits now in the works can get the
president deposed, this is not out of the question.
The problem for Trump is not that his accusers' revelations will cause his base to defect; no matter how salacious their stories
and no matter how believable they may be. Trump's moral turpitude is taken for granted in their circles; and they do not care about
the myriad ways his words and deeds offend the dignity of the office he holds or embarrass the country he purports to put "first."
If any of that mattered to them, they would have jumped ship long ago.
Except perhaps for unreconstructed racists and certifiable sociopaths, white evangelicals are Trump's strongest supporters. What
a despicable bunch of hypocrites they are! As long as Trump delivers on their agendas, his salacious escapades don't faze them at
all. Godly folk have evidently changed a good deal since the Cotton Mather days.
What has not changed is their seemingly limitless ability to believe nonsense.
And in case light somehow does manage to shine through, Trump has shown them how to restore the darkness they crave. When cognitive
dissonance threatens, all they need do is scream "fake news."
The problem for Trump is that what his accusers are saying puts him in legal and political jeopardy. They are claiming, in
effect, that he has committed a variety of unlawful and impeachable offenses – from obstruction of justice to violations of campaign
finance laws.
In this case as in so many others, it is the cover-up, not the underlying "crime," that could lead to his undoing – especially
if the stories Daniels and the others are telling shed light upon or otherwise connect with or meld into Robert Mueller's investigation
of (alleged) Russian "meddling" in the 2016 election.
Trump could and probably will survive their charges. His base is such a preternaturally obdurate lot that there may ultimately
be no last straw for them. We may have no choice, in the end, but to despair for a sizeable chunk of the human race.
Stormy Daniels would not be any less admirable on that account. She took Trump on and came out on top. For all the world (minus
the willfully blind) to see, she, the porn star, is a strong woman who has her life together, while he, the president, is a discombobulated
sleaze ball who is leading himself and his country to ruin.
***
It was different with Monica Lewinsky, another presidential paramour who, almost two decades ago, also held the world's attention.
There was nothing sleazy or venal about Lewinsky's involvement with Bill Clinton; and, for all I know, unless chastity counts,
she is as good and virtuous a person as can be. But personal qualities are not what made her affair with our forty-second president
as historically significant as it turned out to be.
It would be fair to say that of all the women who have ever had intimate knowledge of that old horn dog's private parts, there
is no one who did more good for her country. If only for that, if there were a heaven, there would be special place in it just for
her.
The Clinton-Lewinsky dalliance led to a series of events that prevented Clinton from doing even more harm to our feeble welfare
state institutions than he would otherwise have done.
Who knows how much progress he would have turned back had he and Monica never done the deed or at least not been found out. Building
on groundwork laid down by Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush, he and his wife had already terminated Aid to Families With Dependent
Children, one of the main government programs aimed at relieving poverty. This was to be just the first step in "ending welfare as
we know it."
With their "donors" pushing for more austerity, those two neoliberal pioneers were itching to begin privatizing other, more widely
supported social programs, including even Social Security, the so-called "third rail" of American politics.
The "Lewinsky matter" put the kybosh on that idea, leaving the American people forever in Monica's debt.
Back in the Kennedy days, Mel Brook's two-thousand year old man got it right when he said: presidents "gotta do it," to which
he added – " because if they don't do it to their wives and girlfriends, they do it to the nation."
Stormy Daniels made much the same point ten years ago, while flirting with the idea of running against Louisiana Senator David
Vitter. Vitter's political career had been almost ruined when his name turned up in the phone records of the infamous "DC Madam,"
Deborah Jeane Palfrey. Daniels told voters that, unlike Vitter, she would "screw (them) honestly."
What then are we to make of the fact that Trump screws both the nation and his wife (maybe) and his girlfriends (or whatever they
are)?
Blame it on arrested development, on the fact that despite his more than seventy-one years, Trump still has the mind of a teenage
boy, one with money and power enough to live out his fantasies.
The contrast with Bill Clinton is stark. Clinton is a philanderer with eclectic tastes, a charming rascal with a broad and mischievous
mind. Honkytonk women from Arkansas appeal to him as much as zaftig MOTs from the 90210 area code.
Trump, on the other hand, goes for super-models, Playboy centerfolds, and aspiring beauty queens -- standard teenage
fantasy fare.
He seems to have had little trouble living his dreams – not thanks to his magnetic face, form and figure, and certainly not to
his refinement, wit or charm, but to his inherited and otherwise ill-gotten wealth.
It is money and the power that follows from it that draws women to his net.
Henry Kissinger understood; recall his musings on the aphrodisiacal properties of power. Even in his prime, that still unindicted
war criminal (and later-day Hillary Clinton advisor) was even more repellent than Trump. But that never kept him from having to fight
the ladies off.
This fact of life puts a heavy responsibility on the women with whom presidents hook up.
Consider Melania. She made a Faustian bargain when she agreed to become Trump's trophy bride; in return for riches and a soft
life in a gilded tower, she sold her soul. She might have thought better of it had she taken the burdens she would incur as First
Lady into account, but why would she? The prospect was too improbable.
She has, it seems, a very practical, old world view of marriage, and is therefore tolerant of her husband's womanizing. At the
same time, as a mother and daughter, she is, like most immigrants, a strong proponent of old world "family values."
Too much of a proponent perhaps; insofar as her idea was to "chain migrate" her parents out of Slovenia and onto Easy Street,
or to raise a kid who would never want for anything, there were less onerous ways of going about it. After all, there are plenty
of rich Americans lusting after supermodels out there, and it is a good bet that many of them are less repellent than Trump.
She was irresponsible as well. She ought to have realized that the man she married had already spawned two idiot sons, along with
other fruit from the poisonous tree, and that four bad apples in one generation are enough.
And so now she finds herself a single mother – not in theory, of course, but very definitely in practice. Unlike most women in
that position, she is not wanting for resources. But it must be a hard slog, even so. To her credit, Melania seems to be handling
the burden well. More power to her!
She also deserves credit for her body language when the Donald is around; the contempt she shows for him is wonderful to behold.
Best of all is her sense of the absurd. The way she plagiarized from Michelle Obama had obvious comic validity, and making childhood
bullying her First Lady cause – all First Ladies have causes -- was a stroke of genius.
On balance, therefore, it is hard not to feel sorry for her. Of all the women in Trump's ambit, she deserves humiliation the least.
The rumor mill has it that with all the publicity about Daniels and the others , she has finally had enough. This may
be the case; the old world ethos requires discretion and a concern with appearances. That is not the Donald's way, however, and now
she is paying the price.
What a magnificent humiliation it would be if she and Trump were to split up on that account. This could happen soon. I would
expect, though, that through a combination of carrots and sticks, Trump and his fixers will find a way to minimize the political
effects. More likely still, they will channel Joe Kennedy and Jackie O, and figure out a way to head the problem off.
Then there is poor forgotten Tiffany. Her Wikipedia entry lists her as both a law student and a "socialite." I hope her studious
side wins out and that, despite the genes from her father's side, she is at least somewhat decent and smart.
I'd be more confident of that if she would do what Ronald Reagan's daughter, Patti, did: use her mother's, not her father's, name.
Unless she is a sleaze ball too, a Trump in the Eric and Don Junior mold, that would be a fine way to make a political point.
It would also pay back over the years. With the Trump administration on its current trajectory, who, in a few years' time, would
take a Tiffany Trump seriously? A Tiffany Maples would stand a better chance.
Her half-sister, the peerless Ivanka, the Great Blonde Hope, is, of course, her father's sweetie. Let's not go there, however.
Her marriage to Jared Kushner is already enough to process.
What a pair those two make; and what a glorious day it will be when the law finally catches up with Jared, as it did with his
Trump-like father, Charles. Perhaps he will take Ivanka down a notch or two with him. Despite an almost complete lack of qualifications,
Trump made his son-in-law his minister of almost everything; a pretty good gig for a feckless, airhead rich kid. Among other things,
Trump enabled him to become Benjamin Netanyahu's ace in the hole. Netanyahu is a Kushner family friend. Netanyahu has more than his
share of legal troubles too. Let them all go down together!
Ivanka and Jared are well matched – they share a "business model." It has them exploiting their daddies' connections and money.
Jared peddles real estate; his efforts have gotten his family into serious debt, while putting him in solid with Russian and Eastern
European oligarchs, Gulf state emirs, and Mohammad bin Salman – people in comparison with whom his father-in-law seems almost virtuous.
Ivanka sells trinkets and schmatas to people who think the Trump name is cool. There actually are such people; at two
hundred grand a pop, Mar-a-Lago is full of them. Ivanka's demographic is made up mostly of their younger set.
Two other presidential women bare mention: Hope Hicks and Nikki Haley. Surely, they both have tales to tell, but it looks, for
now, as if their stories would be of little or no prurient interest. Neither of them appear to have been propositioned or groped.
Even though Hicks is said to be like a daughter to the Donald – we know what that could mean! – it is a safe bet that there was
nothing of a romantic nature going on between them. For one thing, Hicks seems too close to Ivanka; for another, she is known to
have dallied with two Trump subordinates, Corey Lewandowski and Rob Porter. The don is hardly the type to let his underlings have
at his women.
Haley had to quash a spate of rumors that flared up thanks to some suggestive remarks Michael Wolff made while hawking Fire
and Fury . The rumor caught on because people who hadn't yet fully realized what a piece of work Trump is, imagined that something
had to be awry inasmuch as her main qualification for representing the United States at the United Nations was an undergraduate degree
in accounting. Abject servility to the Israel lobby also helped.
But the Trump administration is full of ambitious miscreants whose views on Israel and Palestine are as abject and servile as
hers, and compared to many others in Trump's cabinet she is, if anything, over qualified. Think of neurosurgeon Ben Carson heading
the Department of Housing and Urban Development. He is qualified because, as a child, he lived in public housing.
With the exception of Stormy Daniels, Karen McDougal, Summer Zervos and whoever else comes forward with a juicy and credible tale
to tell, the women currently in the president's ambit, though good for gossip and interesting in the ways that characters on reality
TV shows can be, are of little or no political consequence.
This could change if any of them decides to "go rogue," to use an expression from the Sarah Palin days. But, while neither Melania
nor Tiffany can yet be judged hopeless, it would be foolish to expect much of anything good to come from either of them.
Stormy, Karen, Summer, and whoever else steps forward are a better bet. They are the only ones with any chance of doing as much
for their country and the world as Monica Lewinsky did a generation ago.
Among the president's women, they are a breed apart. This is plainly the case with Stormy Daniels; it is already clear that she
deserves what all Trump's money can never buy – honor and esteem. To the extent that the others turn out to be similarly courageous,
they will too.
"... Running against what she (wrongly) perceived (along with most election prognosticators) as a doomed and feckless opponent and as the clear preferred candidate of Wall Street and the intimately related U.S foreign policy elite , including many leading Neoconservatives put off by Trump's isolationist and anti-interventionist rhetoric, the "lying neoliberal warmonger" Hillary Clinton arrogantly figured that she could garner enough votes to win without having to ruffle any ruling-class feathers. ..."
"... Smart Wall Street and K Street Democratic Party bankrollers have long understood that Democratic candidates have to cloak their dollar-drenched corporatism in the deceptive campaign discourse of progressive- and even populist-sounding policy promise to win elections. ..."
"... Trump trailed well behind Clinton in contributions from defense and aerospace – a lack of support extraordinary for a Republican presidential hopeful late in the race. ..."
"... one fateful consequence of trying to appeal to so many conservative business interests was strategic silence about most important matters of public policy. Given the candidate's steady lead in the polls, there seemed to be no point to rocking the boat with any more policy pronouncements than necessary ..."
"... Misgivings of major contributors who worried that the Clinton campaign message lacked real attractions for ordinary Americans were rebuffed. The campaign sought to capitalize on the angst within business by vigorously courting the doubtful and undecideds there, not in the electorate ..."
"... Of course, Bill and Hillary helped trail-blaze that plutocratic "New Democrat" turn in Arkansas during the late 1970s and 1980s. The rest, as they say, was history – an ugly corporate-neoliberal, imperial, and racist history that I and others have written about at great length. ..."
"... My Turn: Hillary Clinton Targets the Presidency ..."
"... Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton ..."
"... The Condemnation of Little B: New Age Racism in America ..."
"... Still, Trump's success was no less tied to big money than was Hillary's failure. Candidate Trump ran strangely outside the longstanding neoliberal Washington Consensus, as an economic nationalist and isolationist. His raucous rallies were laced with dripping denunciations of Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, and globalization, mockery of George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, rejection of the New Cold War with Russia, and pledges of allegiance to the "forgotten" American "working-class." He was no normal Republican One Percent candidate. ..."
"... Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy. But it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache ..."
"... "In a frontal assault on the American establishment, the Republican standard bearer proclaimed 'America First.' Mocking the Bush administration's appeal to 'weapons of mass destruction' as a pretext for invading Iraq, he broke dramatically with two generations of GOP orthodoxy and spoke out in favor of more cooperation with Russia . He even criticized the 'carried interest' tax break beloved by high finance" (emphasis added). ..."
"... "What happened in the final weeks of the campaign was extraordinary. Firstly, a giant wave of dark money poured into Trump's own campaign – one that towered over anything in 2016 or even Mitt Romney's munificently financed 2012 effort – to say nothing of any Russian Facebook experiments [Then] another gigantic wave of money flowed in from alarmed business interests, including the Kochs and their allies Officially the money was for Senate races, but late-stage campaigning for down-ballot offices often spills over on to candidates for the party at large." ..."
"... "In a harbinger of things to come, additional money came from firms and industries that appear to have been attracted by Trump's talk of tariffs, including steel and companies making machinery of various types [a] vast wave of new money flowed into the campaign from some of America's biggest businesses and most famous investors. Sheldon Adelson and many others in the casino industry delivered in grand style for its old colleague. Adelson now delivered more than $11 million in his own name, while his wife and other employees of his Las Vegas Sands casino gave another $20 million. ..."
"... Peter Theil contributed more than a million dollars, while large sums also rolled in from other parts of Silicon Valley, including almost two million dollars from executives at Microsoft and just over two million from executives at Cisco Systems. ..."
"... Among those were Nelson Peltz and Carl Icahn (who had both contributed to Trump before, but now made much bigger new contributions). In the end, along with oil, chemicals, mining and a handful of other industries, large private equity firms would become one of the few segments of American business – and the only part of Wall Street – where support for Trump was truly heavy the sudden influx of money from private equity and hedge funds clearly began with the Convention but turned into a torrent " ..."
"... The critical late wave came after Trump moved to rescue his flagging campaign by handing its direction over to the clever, class-attuned, far-right white- and economic- nationalist "populist" and Breitbart executive Steve Bannon, who advocated what proved to be a winning, Koch brothers-approved "populist" strategy: appeal to economically and culturally frustrated working- and middle-class whites in key battleground states, where the bloodless neoliberal and professional class centrism and snooty metropolitan multiculturalism of the Obama presidency and Clinton campaign was certain to depress the Democratic "base" vote ..."
"... Neither turnout nor the partisan division of the vote at any level looks all that different from other recent elections 2016's alterations in voting behavior are so minute that the pattern is only barely differentiated from 2012." ..."
"... An interesting part of FJC's study (no quick or easy read) takes a close look at the pro-Trump and anti-Hillary Internet activism that the Democrats and their many corporate media allies are so insistently eager to blame on Russia and for Hillary's defeat. FJC find that Russian Internet interventions were of tiny significance compared to those of homegrown U.S. corporate and right-wing cyber forces: ..."
"... By 2016, the Republican right had developed internet outreach and political advertising into a fine art and on a massive scale quite on its own. ..."
"... Breitbart and other organizations were in fact going global, opening offices abroad and establishing contacts with like-minded groups elsewhere. Whatever the Russians were up to, they could hardly hope to add much value to the vast Made in America bombardment already underway. Nobody sows chaos like Breitbart or the Drudge Report ." ..."
"... no support from Big Business ..."
"... Sanders pushed Hillary the Goldman candidate to the wall, calling out the Democrats' capture by Wall Street, forcing her to rely on a rigged party, convention, and primary system to defeat him. The small-donor "socialist" Sanders challenge represented something Ferguson and his colleagues describe as "without precedent in American politics not just since the New Deal, but across virtually the whole of American history a major presidential candidate waging a strong, highly competitive campaign whose support from big business is essentially zero ." ..."
"... American Oligarchy ..."
"... teleSur English ..."
"... we had no great electoral democracy to subvert in 2016 ..."
"... Only candidates and positions that can be financed can be presented to voters. As a result, in countries like the US and, increasingly, Western Europe, political parties are first of all bank accounts . With certain qualifications, one must pay to play. Understanding any given election, therefore, requires a financial X-ray of the power blocs that dominate the major parties, with both inter- and intra- industrial analysis of their constituent elements." ..."
"... Elections alone are no guarantee of democracy, as U.S. policymakers and pundits know very well when they rip on rigged elections (often fixed with the assistance of U.S. government and private-sector agents and firms) in countries they don't like ..."
"... Majority opinion is regularly trumped by a deadly complex of forces in the U.S. ..."
"... Trump is a bit of an anomaly – a sign of an elections and party system in crisis and an empire in decline. He wasn't pre-approved or vetted by the usual U.S. " deep state " corporate, financial, and imperial gatekeepers. The ruling-class had been trying to figure out what the Hell to do with him ever since he shocked even himself (though not Steve Bannon) by pre-empting the coronation of the "Queen of Chaos." ..."
"... His lethally racist, sexist, nativist, nuclear-weapons-brandishing, and (last but not at all least) eco-cidal rise to the nominal CEO position atop the U.S.-imperial oligarchy is no less a reflection of the dominant role of big U.S. capitalist money and homegrown plutocracy in U.S. politics than a more classically establishment Hillary ascendancy would have been. It's got little to do with Russia, Russia, Russia – the great diversion that fills U.S. political airwaves and newsprint as the world careens ever closer to oligarchy-imposed geocide and to a thermonuclear conflagration that the RussiaGate gambit is recklessly encouraging. ..."
On the Friday after the Chicago Cubs won the World Series and prior to the Tuesday on which
the vicious racist and sexist Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, Bernie
Sanders spoke to a surprisingly small crowd in Iowa City on behalf of Hillary Clinton. As I
learned months later, Sanders told one of his Iowa City friends that day that Mrs. Clinton was
in trouble. The reason, Sanders reported, was that Hillary wasn't discussing issues or
advancing real solutions. "She doesn't have any policy positions," Sanders said.
The first time I heard this, I found it hard to believe. How, I wondered, could anyone run
seriously for the presidency without putting issues and policy front and center? Wouldn't any
serious campaign want a strong set of issue and policy positions to attract voters and fall
back on in case and times of adversity?
Sanders wasn't lying. As the esteemed political scientist and money-politics expert Thomas
Ferguson and his colleagues Paul Jorgensen and Jie Chen note in an important study released by
the Institute for New Economic Thinking two months ago, the Clinton campaign "emphasized
candidate and personal issues and avoided policy discussions to a degree without precedent in
any previous election for which measurements exist .it stressed candidate qualifications [and]
deliberately deemphasized issues in favor of concentrating on what the campaign regarded as
[Donald] Trump's obvious personal weaknesses as a candidate."
Strange as it might have seemed, the reality television star and presidential pre-apprentice
Donald Trump had a lot more to say about policy than the former First Lady, U.S. Senator, and
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a wonkish Yale Law graduate.
"Courting the Undecideds in Business, not in the Electorate"
What was that about? My first suspicion was that Hillary's policy silence was about the
money. It must have reflected her success in building a Wall Street-filled campaign funding
war-chest so daunting that she saw little reason to raise capitalist election investor concerns
by giving voice to the standard fake-progressive "hope" and "change" campaign and policy
rhetoric Democratic presidential contenders typically deploy against their One Percent
Republican opponents. Running against what she (wrongly) perceived (along with most election
prognosticators) as a doomed and feckless opponent and as the clear preferred candidate of
Wall
Street and the intimately related U.S foreign policy elite , including many leading
Neoconservatives put off by Trump's isolationist and anti-interventionist rhetoric, the
"lying
neoliberal warmonger" Hillary Clinton arrogantly figured that she could garner enough votes
to win without having to ruffle any ruling-class feathers. She would cruise into the White
House with no hurt plutocrat feelings simply by playing up the ill-prepared awfulness of her
Republican opponent.
If Ferguson, Jorgensen, and Chen (hereafter "JFC") are right, I was on to something but not
the whole money and politics story. Smart Wall Street and K Street Democratic Party bankrollers
have long understood that Democratic candidates have to cloak their dollar-drenched corporatism
in the deceptive campaign discourse of progressive- and even populist-sounding policy promise
to win elections. Sophisticated funders get it that the Democratic candidates' need to
manipulate the electorate with phony pledges of democratic transformation. The big
money backers know it's "just politics" on the part of candidates who can be trusted to
serve elite interests (like Bill
Clinton 1993-2001 and Barack
Obama 2009-2017 ) after they gain office.
What stopped Hillary from playing the usual game – the "manipulation of populism by
elitism" that Christopher
Hitchens once called "the essence of American politics" – in 2016, a year when the
electorate was in a particularly angry and populist mood? FJC's study is titled "
Industrial Structure and Party Competition in an Age of Hunger Games : Donald Trump and the
2016 Presidential Election." It performs heroic empirical work with difficult campaign finance
data to show that Hillary's campaign funding success went beyond her party's usual corporate
and financial backers to include normally Republican-affiliated capitalist sectors less
disposed than their more liberal counterparts to abide the standard progressive-sounding policy
rhetoric of Democratic Party candidates. FJC hypothesize that (along with the determination
that Trump was too weak to be taken all that seriously) Hillary's desire get and keep on board
normally Republican election investors led her to keep quiet on issues and policy concerns that
mattered to everyday people. As FJC note:
"Trump trailed well behind Clinton in contributions from defense and aerospace – a
lack of support extraordinary for a Republican presidential hopeful late in the race. For
Clinton's campaign the temptation was irresistible: Over time it slipped into a variant of
the strategy [Democrat] Lyndon Johnson pursued in 1964 in the face of another [Republican]
candidate [Barry Goldwater] who seemed too far out of the mainstream to win: Go for a grand
coalition with most of big business . one fateful consequence of trying to appeal to so
many conservative business interests was strategic silence about most important matters of
public policy. Given the candidate's steady lead in the polls, there seemed to be no point to
rocking the boat with any more policy pronouncements than necessary . Misgivings of
major contributors who worried that the Clinton campaign message lacked real attractions for
ordinary Americans were rebuffed. The campaign sought to capitalize on the angst within
business by vigorously courting the doubtful and undecideds there, not in the electorate
" (emphasis added). Hillary
Happened
FJC may well be right that a wish not to antagonize off right-wing campaign funders is what
led Hillary to muzzle herself on important policy matters, but who really knows? An alternative
theory I would not rule out is that Mrs. Clinton's own deep inner conservatism was sufficient
to spark her to gladly dispense with the usual progressive-sounding campaign boilerplate. Since
FJC bring up the Johnson-Goldwater election, it is perhaps worth mentioning that 18-year old
Hillary was a "Goldwater Girl" who worked for the arch-reactionary Republican presidential
candidate in 1964. Asked about that episode on National
Public Radio (NPR) in 1996 , then First Lady Hillary said "That's right. And I feel like my
political beliefs are rooted in the conservatism that I was raised with. I don't recognize this
new brand of Republicanism that is afoot now, which I consider to be very reactionary, not
conservative in many respects. I am very proud that I was a Goldwater girl."
It was a revealing reflection. The right-wing Democrat Hillary acknowledged that her
ideological world view was still rooted in the conservatism of her family of origin. Her
problem with the reactionary Republicanism afoot in the U.S. during the middle 1990s was that
it was "not conservative in many respects." Her problem with the far-right Republican
Congressional leaders Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay was that they were betraying true
conservatism – "the conservatism [Hillary] was raised with." This was worse even than the
language of the Democratic Leadership Conference (DLC) – the right-wing Eisenhower
Republican (at leftmost) tendency that worked to push the Democratic Party further to the Big
Business-friendly right and away from its working-class and progressive base.
What happened? Horrid corporate Hillary happened. And she's still happening. The "lying
neoliberal warmonger" recently went to India to double down on her
"progressive neoliberal" contempt for the "basket of deplorables" (more on that phrase
below) that considers poor stupid and backwards middle America to be by
saying this : "If you look at the map of the United States, there's all that red in the
middle where Trump won. I win the coasts. But what the map doesn't show you is that I won the
places that represent two-thirds of America's gross domestic product (GDP). So I won the places
that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward" (emphasis added).
That was Hillary Goldman Sachs-Council on Foreign Relations-Clinton saying "go to Hell" to
working- and middle-class people in Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri,
Indiana, and West Virginia. It was a raised middle and oligarchic finger from a super-wealthy
arch-global-corporatist to all the supposedly pessimistic, slow-witted, and retrograde losers
stuck between those glorious enclaves (led by Wall Street, Yale, and Harvard on the East coast
and Silicon Valley and Hollywood on the West coast) of human progress and variety (and GDP!) on
the imperial shorelines. Senate Minority Leader Dick
Durbin had to go on television to say that Hillary was "wrong" to write off most of the
nation as a festering cesspool of pathetic, ass-backwards, lottery-playing, and opioid-addicted
white-trash has-beens. It's hard for the Inauthentic Opposition Party (as the late Sheldon Wolin reasonably called
the Democrats ) to pose as an authentic opposition party when its' last big-money
presidential candidate goes off-fake-progressive script with an openly elitist rant like
that.
Historic Mistakes
Whatever the source of her strange policy silence in the 2016 campaign, that hush was "a
miscalculation of historic proportion" (FJC). It was a critical mistake given what Ferguson and
his colleagues call the "Hunger Games" misery and insecurity imposed on tens of millions of
ordinary working- and middle-class middle-Americans by decades of neoliberal capitalist
austerity , deeply exacerbated by the Wall Street-instigated Great Recession and the weak
Obama recovery. The electorate was in a populist, anti-establishment mood – hardly a
state of mind favorable to a wooden, richly globalist, Goldman-gilded candidate, a long-time
Washington-Wall Street establishment ("swamp") creature like Hillary Clinton.
In the end, FJC note, the billionaire Trump's ironic, fake-populist "outreach to blue collar
workers" would help him win "more than half of all voters with a high school education or less
(including 61% of white women with no college), almost two thirds of those who believed life
for the next generation of Americans would be worse than now, and seventy-seven percent of
voters who reported their personal financial situation had worsened since four years ago."
Trump's popularity with "heartland" rural and working-class whites even provoked Hillary
into a major campaign mistake: getting caught on video telling elite Manhattan election
investors that half of Trump's supporters were a "basket
of deplorables." There was a hauntingly strong parallel between Wall Street Hillary's
"deplorables" blooper and the super-rich Republican candidate Mitt Romney's
infamous 2012 gaffe : telling his own affluent backers saying that 47% of the population
were a bunch of lazy welfare cheats. This time, though, it was the Democrat – with a
campaign finance profile closer to Romney's than Obama's in 2012 – and not the Republican
making the ugly plutocratic and establishment faux pas .
"A Frontal Assault on the American Establishment"
Still, Trump's success was no less tied to big money than was Hillary's failure. Candidate
Trump ran strangely outside the longstanding neoliberal Washington Consensus, as an economic
nationalist and isolationist. His raucous rallies were laced with dripping denunciations of
Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, and globalization, mockery of George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq,
rejection of the New Cold War with Russia, and pledges of allegiance to the "forgotten"
American "working-class." He was no normal Republican One Percent candidate. As FJC
explain:
"In 2016 the Republicans nominated yet another super-rich candidate – indeed,
someone on the Forbes 400 list of wealthiest Americans. Like legions of conservative
Republicans before him, he trash-talked Hispanics, immigrants, and women virtually non-stop,
though with a verve uniquely his own. He laced his campaign with barely coded racial appeals
and in the final days, ran an ad widely denounced as subtly anti-Semitic. But in striking
contrast to every other Republican presidential nominee since 1936, he attacked
globalization, free trade, international financiers, Wall Street, and even Goldman Sachs. '
Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy. But it
has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache . When
subsidized foreign steel is dumped into our markets, threatening our factories, the
politicians do nothing. For years, they watched on the sidelines as our jobs vanished and our
communities were plunged into depression-level unemployment.'"
"In a frontal assault on the American establishment, the Republican standard bearer
proclaimed 'America First.' Mocking the Bush administration's appeal to 'weapons of mass
destruction' as a pretext for invading Iraq, he broke dramatically with two generations of GOP
orthodoxy and spoke out in favor of more cooperation with Russia . He even criticized
the 'carried interest' tax break beloved by high finance" (emphasis added).
Big Dark Money and Trump: His Own and Others'
This cost Trump much of the corporate and Wall Street financial support that Republican
presidential candidates usually get. The thing was, however, that much of Trump's "populist"
rhetoric was popular with a big part of the Republican electorate, thanks to the "Hunger Games"
insecurity of the transparently bipartisan New Gilded Age. And Trump's personal fortune
permitted him to tap that popular anger while leaping insultingly over the heads of his less
wealthy if corporate and Wall Street-backed competitors ("low energy" Jeb Bush and "little
Marco" Rubio most notably) in the crowded Republican primary race.
A Republican candidate
dependent on the usual elite bankrollers would never have been able to get away with Trump's
crowd-pleasing (and CNN and FOX News rating-boosting) antics. Thanks to his own wealth, the
faux-populist anti-establishment Trump was ironically inoculated against pre-emption in the
Republican primaries by the American campaign finance "wealth
primary," which renders electorally unviable candidates who lack vast financial resources
or access to them.
Things were different after Trump won the Republican nomination, however. He could no longer
go it alone after the primaries. During the Republican National Convention and "then again in
the late summer of 2016," FJC show, Trump's "solo campaign had to be rescued by major
industries plainly hoping for tariff relief, waves of other billionaires from the far, far
right of the already far right Republican Party, and the most disruption-exalting corners of
Wall Street." By FJC's account:
"What happened in the final weeks of the campaign was extraordinary. Firstly, a giant wave
of dark money poured into Trump's own campaign – one that towered over anything in 2016
or even Mitt Romney's munificently financed 2012 effort – to say nothing of any Russian
Facebook experiments [Then] another gigantic wave of money flowed in from alarmed business
interests, including the Kochs and their allies Officially the money was for Senate races,
but late-stage campaigning for down-ballot offices often spills over on to candidates for the
party at large."
"The run up to the Convention brought in substantial new money, including, for the first
time, significant contributions from big business. Mining, especially coal mining; Big Pharma
(which was certainly worried by tough talk from the Democrats, including Hillary Clinton,
about regulating drug prices); tobacco, chemical companies, and oil (including substantial
sums from executives at Chevron, Exxon, and many medium sized firms); and telecommunications
(notably AT&T, which had a major merge merger pending) all weighed in. Money from
executives at the big banks also began streaming in, including Bank of America, J. P. Morgan
Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo. Parts of Silicon Valley also started coming in from
the cold."
"In a harbinger of things to come, additional money came from firms and industries that
appear to have been attracted by Trump's talk of tariffs, including steel and companies
making machinery of various types [a] vast wave of new money flowed into the campaign from
some of America's biggest businesses and most famous investors. Sheldon Adelson and many
others in the casino industry delivered in grand style for its old colleague. Adelson now
delivered more than $11 million in his own name, while his wife and other employees of his
Las Vegas Sands casino gave another $20 million.
Peter Theil contributed more than a million
dollars, while large sums also rolled in from other parts of Silicon Valley, including almost
two million dollars from executives at Microsoft and just over two million from executives at
Cisco Systems. A wave of new money swept in from large private equity firms, the part of Wall
Street which had long championed hostile takeovers as a way of disciplining what they mocked
as bloated and inefficient 'big business.' Virtual pariahs to main-line firms in the Business
Roundtable and the rest of Wall Street, some of these figures had actually gotten their start
working with Drexel Burnham Lambert and that firm's dominant partner, Michael Milkin.
Among
those were Nelson Peltz and Carl Icahn (who had both contributed to Trump before, but now
made much bigger new contributions). In the end, along with oil, chemicals, mining and a
handful of other industries, large private equity firms would become one of the few segments
of American business – and the only part of Wall Street – where support for Trump
was truly heavy the sudden influx of money from private equity and hedge funds clearly began
with the Convention but turned into a torrent "
The critical late wave came after Trump moved to rescue his flagging campaign by handing its
direction over to the clever, class-attuned, far-right white- and economic- nationalist
"populist" and Breitbart executive Steve Bannon, who advocated what proved to be a winning,
Koch brothers-approved "populist" strategy: appeal to economically and culturally frustrated
working- and middle-class whites in key battleground states, where the bloodless neoliberal and
professional class centrism and snooty metropolitan multiculturalism of the Obama presidency
and Clinton campaign was certain to depress the
Democratic "base" vote. Along with the racist voter suppression carried out by Republican
state governments (JFC rightly chide Russia-obsessed political reporters and commentators for
absurdly ignoring this important factor) and (JFC intriguingly suggest) major anti-union
offensives conducted by employers in some battleground states, this major late-season influx of
big right-wing political money tilted the election Trump's way.
The Myth of Potent Russian Cyber-Subversion
As FJC show, there is little empirical evidence to support the Clinton and corporate
Democrats' self-interested and diversionary efforts to explain Mrs. Clinton's epic fail and
Trump's jaw-dropping upset victory as the result of (i) Russian interference, (ii), then FBI
Director James Comey's October Surprise revelation that his agency was not done investigating
Hillary's emails, and/or (iii) some imagined big wave of white working-class racism, nativism,
and sexism brought to the surface by the noxious Orange Hulk. The impacts of both (i) and (ii)
were infinitesimal in comparison to the role that big campaign money played both in silencing
Hillary and funding Trump.
The blame-the-deplorable-racist-white-working-class narrative is
belied by basic underlying continuities in white working class voting patterns. As FJC note: "
Neither turnout nor the partisan division of the vote at any level looks all that different
from other recent elections 2016's alterations in voting behavior are so minute that the
pattern is only barely differentiated from 2012." It was about the money – the big
establishment money that the Clinton campaign took (as FJC at least plausibly argue) to
recommend policy silence and the different, right-wing big money that approved Trump's
comparative right-populist policy boisterousness.
An interesting part of FJC's study (no quick or easy read) takes a close look at the
pro-Trump and anti-Hillary Internet activism that the Democrats and their many corporate media
allies are so insistently eager to blame on Russia and for Hillary's defeat. FJC find that
Russian Internet interventions were of tiny significance compared to those of homegrown U.S.
corporate and right-wing cyber forces:
"The real masters of these black arts are American or Anglo-American firms. These compete
directly with Silicon Valley and leading advertising firms for programmers and personnel.
They rely almost entirely on data purchased from Google, Facebook, or other suppliers,
not Russia . American regulators do next to nothing to protect the privacy of voters
and citizens, and, as we have shown in several studies, leading telecom firms are major
political actors and giant political contributors. As a result, data on the habits and
preferences of individual internet users are commercially available in astounding detail and
quantities for relatively modest prices – even details of individual credit card
purchases. The American giants for sure harbor abundant data on the constellation of bots,
I.P. addresses, and messages that streamed to the electorate "
" stories hyping 'the sophistication of an influence campaign slickly crafted to mimic and
infiltrate U.S. political discourse while also seeking to heighten tensions between groups
already wary of one another by the Russians miss the mark.' By 2016, the Republican right had
developed internet outreach and political advertising into a fine art and on a massive scale
quite on its own. Large numbers of conservative websites, including many that that tolerated
or actively encouraged white supremacy and contempt for immigrants, African-Americans,
Hispanics, Jews, or the aspirations of women had been hard at work for years stoking up
'tensions between groups already wary of one another.' Breitbart and other organizations were
in fact going global, opening offices abroad and establishing contacts with like-minded
groups elsewhere. Whatever the Russians were up to, they could hardly hope to add much value
to the vast Made in America bombardment already underway. Nobody sows chaos like Breitbart or
the Drudge Report ."
" the evidence revealed thus far does not support strong claims about the likely success
of Russian efforts, though of course the public outrage at outside meddling is easy to
understand. The speculative character of many accounts even in the mainstream media is
obvious. Several, such as widely circulated declaration by the Department of Homeland
Security that 21 state election systems had been hacked during the election, have collapsed
within days of being put forward when state electoral officials strongly disputed them,
though some mainstream press accounts continue to repeat them. Other tales about Macedonian
troll factories churning out stories at the instigation of the Kremlin, are clearly
exaggerated."
The Sanders Tease: "He Couldn't Have Done a Thing"
Perhaps the most remarkable finding in FJC's study is that Sanders came tantalizingly close
to winning the Democratic presidential nomination against the corporately super-funded Clinton
campaign with no support from Big Business . Running explicitly against the "Hunger
Games" economy and the corporate-financial plutocracy that created it, Sanders pushed Hillary
the Goldman candidate to the wall, calling out the Democrats' capture by Wall Street, forcing
her to rely on a rigged party, convention, and primary system to defeat him. The small-donor
"socialist" Sanders challenge represented something Ferguson and his colleagues describe as
"without precedent in American politics not just since the New Deal, but across virtually the
whole of American history a major presidential candidate waging a strong, highly
competitive campaign whose support from big business is essentially zero ."
Sanders pulled this off, FJC might have added, by running in (imagine) accord with
majority-progressive left-of-center U.S. public opinion. But for the Clintons' corrupt advance-
control of the Democratic National Committee and convention delegates, Ferguson et al might
further have noted, Sanders might well have been the Democratic presidential nominee, curiously
enough in the arch-state-capitalist and oligarchic United States
Could Sanders have defeated the billionaire and right-wing billionaire-backed Trump in the
general election? There's no way to know, of course. Sanders consistently out-performed Hillary
Clinton in one-on-one match -up polls vis a vis Donald Trump during the primary season, but
much of the big money (and, perhaps much of the corporate media) that backed Hillary would have
gone over to Trump had the supposedly
"radical" Sanders been the Democratic nominee.
Even if Sanders has been elected president, moreover, Noam Chomsky is certainly correct in
his recent judgement that Sanders would have been able to achieve very little in the White
House. As Chomsky told Lynn Parramore two weeks ago, in
an interview conducted for the Institute for New Economic Thinking, the same think-tank
that published FJC's remarkable study:
"His campaign [was] a break with over a century of American political history. No
corporate support, no financial wealth, he was unknown, no media support. The media simply
either ignored or denigrated him. And he came pretty close -- he probably could have won the
nomination, maybe the election. But suppose he'd been elected? He couldn't have done a thing.
Nobody in Congress, no governors, no legislatures, none of the big economic powers, which
have an enormous effect on policy. All opposed to him. In order for him to do anything, he
would have to have a substantial, functioning party apparatus, which would have to grow from
the grass roots. It would have to be locally organized, it would have to operate at local
levels, state levels, Congress, the bureaucracy -- you have to build the whole system from
the bottom."
As Chomsky might have added, Sanders oligarchy-imposed "failures" would have been great
fodder for the disparagement and smearing of "socialism" and progressive, majority-backed
policy change. "See? We tried all that and it was a disaster!"
I would note further that the Sanders phenomenon's policy promise was plagued by its
standard bearer's persistent loyalty to the giant and absurdly expensive U.S.-imperial Pentagon
System, which each year eats up hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars required to implement
the progressive, majority-supported policy agenda that Bernie F-35 Sanders ran
on.
"A Very Destructive Ideology"
The Sanders challenge was equally afflicted by its candidate-centered electoralism. This
diverted energy away from the real and more urgent politics of building people's movements
– grassroots power to shake the society to its foundations and change policy from the
bottom up (Dr. Martin Luther King's preferred strategy at the end of his life just barely short
of 50 years ago, on April 4 th , 1968) – and into the narrow, rigidly
time-staggered grooves of a party and spectacle-elections crafted by and for the wealthy Few
and the American
Oligarchy 's "permanent political class" (historian Ron Formisano). As Chomsky explained on the eve of the 2004
elections:
"Americans may be encouraged to vote, but not to participate more meaningfully in the
political arena. Essentially the election is a method of marginalizing the population. A huge
propaganda campaign is mounted to get people to focus on these personalized quadrennial
extravaganzas and to think, 'That's politics.' But it isn't. It's only a small part of
politics The urgency is for popular progressive groups to grow and become strong enough so
that centers of power can't ignore them. Forces for change that have come up from the grass
roots and shaken the society to its core include the labor movement, the civil rights
movement, the peace movement, the women's movement and others, cultivated by steady,
dedicated work at all levels, every day, not just once every four years sensible [electoral]
choices have to be made. But they are secondary to serious political action."
"The only thing that's going to ever bring about any meaningful change," Chomsky told Abby Martin on teleSur
English in the fall of 2015, "is ongoing, dedicated, popular movements that don't pay
attention to the election cycle." Under the American religion of voting,
Chomsky told Dan Falcone and Saul Isaacson in the spring of 2016, "Citizenship means every
four years you put a mark somewhere and you go home and let other guys run the world. It's a
very destructive ideology basically, a way of making people passive, submissive objects [we]
ought to teach kids that elections take place but that's not politics."
For all his talk of standing atop a great "movement" for "revolution," Sanders was and
remains all about this stunted and crippling definition of citizenship and politics as making
some marks on ballots and then returning to our domiciles while rich people and their
agents (not just any "other guys") "run [ruin?-P.S.] the world [into the ground-P.S.]."
It will take much more in the way of Dr. King's politics of "who' sitting in the streets,"
not "who's sitting in the White House" (to use Howard Zinn's
excellent dichotomy ), to get us an elections and party system worthy of passionate citizen
engagement. We don't have such a system in the U.S. today, which is why the number of eligible
voters who passively boycotted the 2016 presidential election is larger than both the number
who voted for big money Hillary and the number who voted for big money Trump.
(If U.S. progressives really want to consider undertaking the epic lift involved in passing
a U.S. Constitutional Amendment, they might want to focus on this instead of calling for a
repeal of the Second Amendment. I'd recommend starting with a positive Democracy Amendment that
fundamentally overhauls the nation's political and elections set-up in accord with elementary
principles and practices of popular sovereignty. Clauses would include but not be limited to
full public financing of elections and the introduction of proportional representation for
legislative races – not to mention the abolition of the Electoral College, Senate
apportionment on the basis of total state population, and the outlawing of gerrymandering.)
Ecocide Trumped by Russia
Meanwhile, back in real history, we have the remarkable continuation of a bizarre
right-wing, pre-fascist presidency not in normal ruling-class hands, subject to the weird whims
and tweets of a malignant narcissist who doesn't read memorandums or intelligence briefings.
Wild policy zig-zags and record-setting White House personnel turnover are par for the course
under the dodgy reign of the orange-tinted beast's latest brain spasms. Orange Caligula spends
his mornings getting his information from FOX News and his evenings complaining to and seeking
advice from a small club of right-wing American oligarchs.
Trump poses grave environmental and nuclear risks to human survival. A consistent Trump
belief is that climate change is not a problem and that it's perfectly fine – "great" and
"amazing," in fact – for the White House to do everything it can to escalate the
Greenhouse Gassing-to-Death of Life on Earth. The nuclear threat is rising now that he has
appointed a frothing right-wing uber-warmonger – a longtime advocate of bombing Iran and
North Korea who led the charge for the arch-criminal U.S. invasion of Iraq – as his top
"National Security" adviser and as he been convinced to expel dozens of Russian diplomats.
Thanks, liberal and other Democratic Party RussiaGaters!
The Clinton-Obama neoliberal Democrats have spent more than a year running with the
preposterous narrative that Trump is a Kremlin puppet who owes his presence in the White House
to Russia's subversion of our democratic elections. The climate crisis holds little
for the Trump and Russia-obsessed corporate media. The fact that the world stands at the eve of
the ecological self-destruction, with the Trump White House in the lead, elicits barely a
whisper in the reigning commercial news media. Unlike Stormy Daniels, for example, that little
story – the biggest issue of our or any time – is not good for television ratings
and newspaper sales.
Sanders, by the way, is curiously invisible in the dominant commercial media, despite his
quiet survey status as the nation's "most popular politician." That is precisely what you would
expect in a corporate and financial oligarchy buttressed by a powerful corporate, so-called
"mainstream" media oligopoly.
Political Parties as "Bank Accounts"
One of the many problems with the obsessive Blame-Russia narrative that a fair portion of
the dominant U.S. media is running with is that we had no great electoral democracy to
subvert in 2016 . Saying that Russia has "undermined [U.S.-] American democracy" is like
me – middle-aged, five-foot nine, and unblessed with jumping ability – saying that
the Brooklyn Nets' Russian-born center Timofy Mozgof subverted my career as a starting player
in the National Basketball Association. In state-capitalist societies marked by the toxic and
interrelated combination of weak popular organization, expensive politics, and highly
concentrated wealth – all highly evident in the New Gilded Age United States –
electoral contests and outcomes boil down above all and in the end to big investor class cash.
As Thomas Ferguson and his colleagues explain:
"Where investment and organization by average citizens is weak, however, power passes by
default to major investor groups, which can far more easily bear the costs of contending for
control of the state. In most modern market-dominated societies (those celebrated recently as
enjoying the 'end of History'), levels of effective popular organization are generally low,
while the costs of political action, in terms of both information and transactional
obstacles, are high. The result is that conflicts within the business community normally
dominate contests within and between political parties – the exact opposite of what
many earlier social theorists expected, who imagined 'business' and 'labor' confronting each
other in separate parties Only candidates and positions that can be financed can be presented
to voters. As a result, in countries like the US and, increasingly, Western Europe, political parties are first of all bank accounts . With certain qualifications, one
must pay to play. Understanding any given election, therefore, requires a financial X-ray of
the power blocs that dominate the major parties, with both inter- and intra- industrial
analysis of their constituent elements."
Here Ferguson might have said "corporate-dominated" instead of "market-dominated" for the
modern managerial corporations emerged as the "visible hand" master of the "free market" more
than a century ago.
We get to vote? Big deal.
People get to vote in Rwanda, Russia, the Congo and countless
other autocratic states as well. Elections alone are no guarantee of democracy, as U.S.
policymakers and pundits know very well when they rip on rigged elections (often fixed with the
assistance of U.S. government and private-sector agents and firms) in countries they don't
like, which includes any country that dares to "question the basic principle that the United
States effectively owns the world by right and is by definition a force for good" ( Chomsky,
2016 ).
Majority opinion is regularly trumped by a deadly complex of forces in the U.S. The
list of interrelated and mutually reinforcing culprits behind this oligarchic defeat of popular
sentiment in the U.S. is extensive. It includes but is not limited to: the campaign finance,
candidate-selection, lobbying, and policy agenda-setting power of wealthy individuals,
corporations, and interest groups; the special primary election influence of full-time party
activists; the disproportionately affluent, white, and older composition of the active (voting)
electorate; the manipulation of voter turnout; the widespread dissemination of false,
confusing, distracting, and misleading information; absurdly and explicitly unrepresentative
political institutions like the Electoral College, the unelected Supreme Court, the
over-representation of the predominantly white rural population in the U.S. Senate; one-party
rule in the House of "Representatives"; the fragmentation of authority in government; and
corporate ownership of the reigning media, which frames current events in accord with the
wishes and world view of the nation's real owners.
Yes, we get to vote. Super. Big deal. Mammon reigns nonetheless in the United States, where,
as the leading liberal
political scientists Benjamin Page and Martin Gilens find , "government policy reflects the
wishes of those with money, not the wishes of the millions of ordinary citizens who turn out
every two years to choose among the preapproved, money-vetted candidates for federal office."
Trump is a bit of an anomaly – a sign of an elections and party system in crisis and an
empire in decline. He wasn't pre-approved or vetted by the usual U.S. "
deep state " corporate, financial, and imperial gatekeepers. The ruling-class had been
trying to figure out what the Hell to do with him ever since he shocked even himself
(though not Steve Bannon) by pre-empting the coronation of the "Queen of Chaos."
He is a
homegrown capitalist oligarch nonetheless, a real estate mogul of vast and parasitic wealth who
is no more likely to fulfill his populist-sounding campaign pledges than any previous POTUS of
the neoliberal era.
His lethally racist, sexist, nativist, nuclear-weapons-brandishing, and
(last but not at all least) eco-cidal rise to the nominal CEO position atop the U.S.-imperial
oligarchy is no less a reflection of the dominant role of big U.S. capitalist money and
homegrown plutocracy in U.S. politics than a more classically establishment Hillary ascendancy
would have been. It's got little to do with Russia, Russia, Russia – the great diversion
that fills U.S. political airwaves and newsprint as the world careens ever closer to
oligarchy-imposed geocide and to a thermonuclear conflagration that the RussiaGate gambit is
recklessly encouraging.
"... Mild -- Hillary was warned not to use her own personal servers by her staff. She ignored them. Because of this, her emails were susceptible to hacking and, surprise, surprise, several foreign governments did hack into her data. She had classified information on those servers. That's a no-no. I think it's called "felonious dissemination of classified material". No intent is required for there to be a crime. ..."
"... Some of the crimes were that Comey drafted an exoneration letter of Hillary Clinton months before she was ever interviewed. She was also under subpoena to hand over "all" emails, but she took it upon herself to delete over 30,000 of them. These were "subpoenaed" emails. Who just takes it upon themselves to destroy subpoenaed documents? She had her hard drives destroyed. She handed over her cell phones without the SIM cards in them. ..."
"... The FBI never even forensically examined her hard drives; they left that up to Crowdstrike. Yeah, like the FBI would ever do that! ..."
Mild -- Hillary was warned not to use her own personal servers by her staff. She
ignored them. Because of this, her emails were susceptible to hacking and, surprise,
surprise, several foreign governments did hack into her data. She had classified information
on those servers. That's a no-no. I think it's called "felonious dissemination of classified
material". No intent is required for there to be a crime.
Some of the crimes were that Comey drafted an exoneration letter of Hillary Clinton
months before she was ever interviewed. She was also under subpoena to hand over "all"
emails, but she took it upon herself to delete over 30,000 of them. These were "subpoenaed"
emails. Who just takes it upon themselves to destroy subpoenaed documents? She had her hard
drives destroyed. She handed over her cell phones without the SIM cards in them.
The FBI never even forensically examined her hard drives; they left that up to
Crowdstrike. Yeah, like the FBI would ever do that!
Her husband, Bill Clinton, coincidentally (yeah, right!) meets Loretta Lynch on an Arizona
tarmac for 45 minutes. The Attorney-General of the United States, who has the wife of this
man under investigation, stops to talk with him? What? Who does that? A first year law
student wouldn't have done this. Loretta Lynch should have been fired on the spot. Instead,
she leaves the decision up to Comey. That's not Comey's job. His job is to pass on the
evidence he collects to the Attorney-General. She, or someone in her department, makes the
decision, not Comey.
I know all about addiction. It isn't pretty. A destroyer of lives. Trump's brother was an
alcoholic, I believe, who died early. He warned Trump never to smoke or drink, and Trump took
his advice. He does neither. He saw what it did to his loved one.
I'm also a great admirer of Charles Dickens, one of the greatest writers ever to live! But
even his characters are rife with repeating the same behaviors over and over again, even
destructive ones. You can't help an addict that isn't ready for your help, unless you want to
bash your head into a brick wall repeatedly. I know. I've been there and done that.
The opioid epidemic didn't just start on Trump's watch. It really got kicked into high
gear after the 2008 financial crisis. Doctors were prescribing opioids to whole towns,
thinking it was better for them to get disability than be out on the streets. Wrong move.
People are getting their hands on these pills, and then reselling them, making small
fortunes. And a lot of these opioids are being laced with Fentanyl (coming in from China).
Deadly stuff!
The country has completely lost its moral center, its communities, its sense of decency.
This has been happening for decades now. It's a great shame what has happened to a once-great
country.
The whole story of Hillary's using a personal server for all communications, including
classified material, is something I found incredibly stupid. I am a retired Radio Operator,
and worked for an MSC contracted ship for my last six years, and had "secret" clearance. Our
computer had a separate hard drive for all classified communications, that was removed after
each download/upload and stored in a safe. If I had mishandled any classified info, I have no
doubt I'd be in prison.
Hillary is even quoted as saying she thought the (c) in communications didn't refer to
"classified", but was an enumeration, although she never bothered to ask where the (a) and
(b) were.
The law requires "gross negligence" for prosecution, and Peter Strzok had it changed in
the report to "extreme carelessness". If that isn't an interference in the judicial process,
I don't know what is.
backwardsevolution , March 20, 2018 at 9:25 pm
Hi, Skip. I'm glad you followed orders and didn't end up in the brig. Hillary, on the
other hand, seems to like to ignore rules. When asked if she wiped her servers clean, she had
the gall to say, "Do you mean with a cloth?" Talk about feigning ignorance. Her life was the
government, and to think that she didn't know what "classified" meant is too much of a
stretch for anyone.
She knew exactly what she was doing. She just never dreamed that she'd get caught. She
didn't want to use the government servers because they have a back-up system, and when you're
trying to elicit money from foreign governments in exchange for favors, you don't want to be
on a system with a back-up. You want to be able to control that system yourself, as in
deleting everything. She was trying to get around future Freedom of Information requests by
having her own servers.
And that Peter Strzok, who the heck is this guy and who gave him permission to change the
wording? And he's the same guy who interviewed General Flynn. The whole thing stinks. There
is no way that Strzok would have done what he did without someone higher up telling him to.
Hillary's helpers were all given immunity before they even started talking, and apparently
they weren't interviewed separately, but all together in one room. What?
Skip, you have a nice day and don't let this stuff get you down.
"... If on November 6 the Democratic Party makes the net gain of 24 seats needed to win control of the House of Representatives, former CIA agents, military commanders, and State Department officials will provide the margin of victory and hold the balance of power in Congress. ..."
"... Since its establishment in 1947 -- under the administration of Democratic President Harry Truman -- the CIA has been legally barred from carrying out within the United States the activities which were its mission overseas: spying, infiltration, political provocation, assassination. These prohibitions were given official lip service but ignored in practice. ..."
"... The Church Committee in particular featured the exposure of CIA assassination plots against foreign leaders like Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, General Rene Schneider in Chile, and many others. More horrors were uncovered: MK-Ultra, in which the CIA secretly subjected unwitting victims to experimentation with drugs like LSD; ..."
"... Operation Mockingbird, in which the CIA recruited journalists to plant stories and smear opponents; Operation Chaos, an effort to spy on the antiwar movement and sow disruption; Operation Shamrock, under which the telecommunications companies shared traffic with the NSA for more than a quarter century. ..."
"... The Church and Pike committee exposures, despite their limitations, had a devastating political effect. The CIA and its allied intelligence organizations in the Pentagon and NSA became political lepers, reviled as the enemies of democratic rights. The CIA in particular was widely viewed as "Murder Incorporated." ..."
"... The last 15 years have seen a massive expansion of the CIA and other intelligence agencies, backed by an avalanche of media propaganda, with endless television programs and movies glorifying American spies and assassins ..."
"... The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks . ..."
"... This process was well under way in the administration of Barack Obama, which endorsed and expanded the various operations of the intelligence agencies abroad and within the United States. Obama's endorsed successor, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as the chosen candidate of the Pentagon and CIA, touting her toughness as a future commander-in-chief and pledging to escalate the confrontation with Russia, both in Syria and Ukraine. ..."
"... The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of resentment over the disruption of its operations in Syria, and it has successfully used the campaign to force a shift in the policy of the Trump administration on that score. ..."
"... The 2018 election campaign marks a new stage: for the first time, military-intelligence operatives are moving in large numbers to take over a political party and seize a major role in Congress. The dozens of CIA and military veterans running in the Democratic Party primaries are "former" agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This "retired" status is, however, purely nominal. Joining the CIA or the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs is like joining the Mafia: no one ever actually leaves; they just move on to new assignments. ..."
In a three-part series published last week, the
World Socialist Web Site documented an unprecedented influx of intelligence and
military operatives into the Democratic Party. More than 50 such military-intelligence
candidates are seeking the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts identified by the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as its targets for 2018. These include both vacant
seats and those with Republican incumbents considered vulnerable in the event of a significant
swing to the Democrats.
If on November 6 the Democratic Party makes the net gain of 24 seats needed to win control
of the House of Representatives, former CIA agents, military commanders, and State Department
officials will provide the margin of victory and hold the balance of power in Congress. The
presence of so many representatives of the military-intelligence apparatus in the legislature
is a situation without precedent in the history of the United States.
Since its establishment in 1947 -- under the administration of Democratic President Harry
Truman -- the CIA has been legally barred from carrying out within the United States the
activities which were its mission overseas: spying, infiltration, political provocation,
assassination. These prohibitions were given official lip service but ignored in practice.
In the wake of the Watergate crisis and the forced resignation of President Richard Nixon,
reporter Seymour Hersh published the first devastating exposure of the CIA domestic spying, in
an investigative report for the New York Times on December 22, 1974. This report
triggered the establishment of the Rockefeller Commission, a White House effort at damage
control, and Senate and House select committees, named after their chairmen, Senator Frank
Church and Representative Otis Pike, which conducted hearings and made serious attempts to
investigate and expose the crimes of the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency.
The Church Committee in particular featured the exposure of CIA assassination plots against
foreign leaders like Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, General Rene Schneider in
Chile, and many others. More horrors were uncovered: MK-Ultra, in which the CIA secretly
subjected unwitting victims to experimentation with drugs like LSD;
Operation Mockingbird, in
which the CIA recruited journalists to plant stories and smear opponents; Operation Chaos, an
effort to spy on the antiwar movement and sow disruption; Operation Shamrock, under which the
telecommunications companies shared traffic with the NSA for more than a quarter century.
The Church and Pike committee exposures, despite their limitations, had a devastating
political effect. The CIA and its allied intelligence organizations in the Pentagon and NSA
became political lepers, reviled as the enemies of democratic rights. The CIA in particular was
widely viewed as "Murder Incorporated."
In that period, it would have been unthinkable either for dozens of "former"
military-intelligence operatives to participate openly in electoral politics, or for them to be
welcomed and even recruited by the two corporate-controlled parties. The Democrats and
Republicans sought to distance themselves, at least for public relations purposes, from the spy
apparatus, while the CIA publicly declared that it would no longer recruit or pay American
journalists to publish material originating in Langley, Virginia. Even in the 1980s, the
Iran-Contra scandal involved the exposure of the illegal operations of the Reagan
administration's CIA director, William Casey.
How times have changed. One of the main functions of the "war on terror," launched in the
wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, has been to
rehabilitate the US spy apparatus and give it a public relations makeover as the supposed
protector of the American people against terrorism.
This meant disregarding the well-known connections between Osama bin Laden and other Al
Qaeda leaders and the CIA, which recruited them for the anti-Soviet guerrilla war in
Afghanistan, waged from 1979 to 1989, as well as the still unexplained role of the US
intelligence agencies in facilitating the 9/11 attacks themselves.
The last 15 years have seen a massive expansion of the CIA and other intelligence agencies,
backed by an avalanche of media propaganda, with endless television programs and movies
glorifying American spies and assassins ( 24 , Homeland , Zero Dark
Thirty , etc.)
The American media has been directly recruited to this effort. Judith Miller of the New
York Times , with her reports on "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, is only the most
notorious of the stable of "plugged-in" intelligence-connected journalists at the
Times , the Washington Post , and the major television networks. More
recently, the Times has installed as its editorial page editor James Bennet, brother
of a Democratic senator and son of the former administrator of the Agency for International
Development, which has been accused of working as a front for the operations of the Central
Intelligence Agency.
The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based
entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either
unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been
accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly
paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks .
In centering its opposition to Trump on the bogus allegations of Russian interference, while
essentially ignoring Trump's attacks on immigrants and democratic rights, his alignment with
ultra-right and white supremacist groups, his attacks on social programs like Medicaid and food
stamps, and his militarism and threats of nuclear war, the Democratic Party has embraced the
agenda of the military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political
voice.
This process was well under way in the administration of Barack Obama, which endorsed and
expanded the various operations of the intelligence agencies abroad and within the United
States. Obama's endorsed successor, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as the chosen candidate of the
Pentagon and CIA, touting her toughness as a future commander-in-chief and pledging to escalate
the confrontation with Russia, both in Syria and Ukraine.
The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of
resentment over the disruption of its operations in Syria, and it has successfully used the
campaign to force a shift in the policy of the Trump administration on that score. A chorus of
media backers -- Nicholas Kristof and Roger Cohen of the New York Times , the entire
editorial board of the Washington Post , most of the television networks -- are part
of the campaign to pollute public opinion and whip up support on alleged "human rights" grounds
for an expansion of the US war in Syria.
The 2018 election campaign marks a new stage: for the first time, military-intelligence
operatives are moving in large numbers to take over a political party and seize a major role in
Congress. The dozens of CIA and military veterans running in the Democratic Party primaries are
"former" agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This "retired" status is, however,
purely nominal. Joining the CIA or the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs is like joining the
Mafia: no one ever actually leaves; they just move on to new assignments.
The CIA operation in 2018 is unlike its overseas activities in one major respect: it is not
covert. On the contrary, the military-intelligence operatives running in the Democratic
primaries boast of their careers as spies and special ops warriors. Those with combat
experience invariably feature photographs of themselves in desert fatigues or other uniforms on
their websites. And they are welcomed and given preferred positions, with Democratic Party
officials frequently clearing the field for their candidacies.
The working class is confronted with an extraordinary political situation. On the one hand,
the Republican Trump administration has more military generals in top posts than any other
previous government. On the other hand, the Democratic Party has opened its doors to a
"friendly takeover" by the intelligence agencies.
The incredible power of the military-intelligence agencies over the entire government is an
expression of the breakdown of American democracy. The central cause of this breakdown is the
extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite, whose interests the state
apparatus and its "bodies of armed men" serve. Confronted by an angry and hostile working
class, the ruling class is resorting to ever more overt forms of authoritarian rule.
Millions of working people want to fight the Trump administration and its ultra-right
policies. But it is impossible to carry out this fight through the "axis of evil" that connects
the Democratic Party, the bulk of the corporate media, and the CIA. The influx of
military-intelligence candidates puts paid to the longstanding myth, peddled by the trade
unions and pseudo-left groups, that the Democrats represent a "lesser evil." On the contrary,
working people must confront the fact that within the framework of the corporate-controlled
two-party system, they face two equally reactionary evils.
The Justice Department's internal watchdog has been investigating former FBI
Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for apparently sitting on emails obtained from Anthony Weiner's
laptop, the
Washington Post 's Devlin Barrett and Karoun Demirjian reported Tuesday (of note, Barrett
was recently outed as a
potential source of FBI leaks , according to text messages between FBI employees accused of
political bias)
... ... ...
The inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, has been asking witnesses why FBI leadership seemed unwilling to move forward on
the examination of emails found on the laptop of former
congressman Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) until late October about three weeks after first being alerted to the issue, according
to these people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.
McCabe tried to stall probe of Weiner laptop emails til after the election
McCabe's colleagues got suspicious about the delay
Comey sent 11th-hour letter that reopened the probe in order to correct for McCabe's perceived
bias
Further pointing towards evidence of political bias is an October, 2016 Wall St. Journal article
which reported that McCabe's wife received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions
from close Clinton ally, then-Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe for her failed run at VA state
legislature.
"... If Mueller's probe drags on and fails to produce a "smoking gun," the whole affair may end up seeming so complex, muddy, and partisan that most of the public would prefer to move on, eager to talk about something else . ..."
"... In 1996, Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole decided to take a hard line on China -- portraying the nation as a growing economic and geopolitical threat to the United States and a violator of international rules and norms. In response, China tried to leverage its extensive diplomatic , intelligence , and financial networks in the United States in order to sway the election in favor of Dole's rival, Democrat Bill Clinton. ..."
"... This is not a theory, it is historical fact: there was a major Congressional investigation . In the end, several prominent Democratic fundraisers, including close Clinton associates, were found to be complicit in the Chinese meddling efforts and pled guilty to various charges of violating campaign finance and disclosure laws (most notably James T. Riady , Johnny Chung , John Huang , and Charlie Trie ). Several others fled the country to escape U.S. jurisdiction as the probe got underway. The Democratic National Committee was forced to return millions of dollars in ill-gotten funds (although by that point, of course, their candidate had already won). ..."
"... Clinton authorized a series of controversial defense contracts with China as well -- despite Department of Justice objections . Federal investigators were concerned that the contractors seemed to be passing highly sensitive and classified information to the Chinese. And indeed, the companies in question were eventually found to have violated the law by giving cutting-edge missile technology to China, and paid unprecedented fines related to the Arms Export Control Act during the administration of George W. Bush. But they were inexplicably approved in the Bill Clinton years. ..."
A president can be reelected despite corruption, foreign meddling, and sex
scandals Bill Clinton was reelected with help from China. / The Baffler Imagine for a
moment that special counsel Robert Mueller is unable to establish direct and intentional
collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. Or, suppose he proves collusion by a few
former campaign aides but finds nothing directly implicating the president himself. In either
event -- or in just about any other imaginable scenario -- it seems improbable that Congress
will have the votes to impeach Trump or otherwise hold him accountable prior to 2020.
In other words, Russiagate could well continue to distract and infuriate Trump without
breaking his hold on power.
Is it shocking to think evidence of Russian chicanery could be shrugged off? Don't be
shocked. After all, the last major case of foreign meddling and collusion in a U.S.
presidential race didn't exactly end up rocking the republic.
In 1996, Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole decided to
take a hard line on China -- portraying the nation as a growing economic and geopolitical
threat to the United States and a violator of international rules and norms. In response, China
tried to leverage its extensive diplomatic
, intelligence
, and financial
networks in the United States in order to sway the election in favor of Dole's rival, Democrat
Bill Clinton.
This is not a theory, it is historical fact: there was a major
Congressional investigation . In the end, several prominent Democratic fundraisers,
including close Clinton associates, were found to be complicit in the Chinese meddling efforts
and pled guilty to various charges of violating campaign finance and disclosure laws (most
notably James
T. Riady , Johnny Chung , John Huang , and
Charlie Trie ). Several others fled
the country to escape U.S. jurisdiction as the probe got underway. The Democratic National
Committee was forced to return millions of dollars
in ill-gotten funds (although by that point, of course, their candidate had already won).
It was a scandal that persisted after the election in no small part because many of
Clinton's own policies in his second term seemed to lend credence to insinuations of
collusion.
Several prominent Democratic fundraisers, including close Clinton associates, were found
to be complicit in Chinese meddling efforts and pled guilty to campaign finance
violations.
Rather than attempting to punish the meddling country for undermining the bedrock of our
democracy, Bill Clinton worked to ease sanctions and
normalize relations with Beijing -- even as the U.S. ratcheted up sanctions against Cuba,
Iran, and Iraq. By the end of his term, he signed a series of sweeping trade deals that
radically expanded China's economic and geopolitical clout -- even though some in
his administration
forecast that this would come at the expense of key American industries and U.S.
manufacturing workers.
Clinton authorized a series of controversial defense contracts with China as well --
despite Department of Justice objections . Federal investigators were concerned that the
contractors seemed to be passing highly sensitive and classified information to the Chinese.
And indeed, the companies in question were eventually
found to have violated the law by giving cutting-edge missile technology to China, and paid
unprecedented fines related to the Arms Export Control Act during the administration of George
W. Bush. But they were inexplicably approved in the Bill Clinton years.
For a while, polls showed that the public found the president's posture on China to be so
disconcerting that most supported appointing an independent
counsel (a la Mueller) to investigate whether the Clinton Administration had essentially been "
bought ."
Law enforcement officials shared these concerns: FBI director Louis Freeh (whom Clinton
could not get rid of, having just
fired his predecessor ) publically called
for the appointment of an independent counsel. So did the chief prosecutor charged with
investigating Chinese meddling, Charles La
Bella . However, they were blocked at every turn by Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno
-- eventually leading La Bella to resign in protest of the AG's
apparent obstruction.
The 1996 Chinese collusion story, much like the 2016 Russian collusion story, dragged on for
nearly two years -- hounding Clinton at every turn. That is, until it was discovered that the
president had been having an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
The 1996 Chinese collusion story dragged on for nearly two years -- hounding Clinton at
every turn. That is, until the Monica Lewinsky scandal came along.
This was Bill Clinton's second known extra-marital
affair with a subordinate : in the lead-up to his 1992 election it was also discovered that
Clinton had been involved in a long-running affair with Gennifer Flowers -- an employee of the
State of Arkansas during Bill's governorship there,
appointed as a result of Clinton's intercession on her behalf.
The drama of the inquiry into Bill Clinton's myriad alleged sexual improprieties, the
President's invocation of executive
privilege to prevent his aides from having to testify against him, Clinton's perjury ,
subsequent
impeachment by the House,
acquittal in the Senate, and eventual
plea-bargain deal -- these sucked the oxygen away from virtually all other stories related
to the president.
Indeed, few today seem to remember that the Chinese meddling occurred at all. This despite
continuing China-related financial improprieties involving both
the Clintons and the DNC Chairman who presided over the 1996 debacle,
Terry McAuliffe -- and despite the fact that the intended target of the current
foreign meddling attempt just so happens to be married to the intended beneficiary of
the last.
And the irony in this, of course, is that not only do we find ourselves reliving an
apparently ill-fated collusion investigation, but the foreign meddling story is once again
competing with a presidential sex scandal -- this time involving actual porn stars. (Gennifer
Flowers and Paula Jones both
posed for Penthouseafter their involvement with Clinton surfaced.
Stormy Daniels and Karen
McDougal are well-established in the industry.)
Much like Bill Clinton, our current president has a long pattern of accusations of
infidelity, sexual harassment and even assault. However all of Trump's alleged sexual
misconduct incidents occurred before he'd assumed any public office. Therefore,
although some Democrats hope to provide Trump's accusers an opportunity to
testify before Congress if their party manages to retake the House in 2018, the
legal impact of these accounts is likely to be nil. The political significance of such
theater is likely being overestimated as well.
The danger for Democrats in all this is that they could get lulled into the notion that
Trump's liabilities -- the Mueller probe, the alleged affairs, and whatever new scandals and
outrages Trump generates in the next two years -- will be sufficient to energize and mobilize
their base in 2020. Democratic insiders and fatcats are likely to think they can put forward
the same sort of unpalatable candidate and platform they did last cycle -- only this time,
they'll win! A strong showing in 2018 could even reinforce this sense of complacency -- leading
to another debacle in the race for the White House in 2020.
Democrats consistently snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by believing they've got some
kind of lock. Remember the " Emerging Democratic Majority
" thesis? Remember Hillary Clinton's alleged 2016 " Electoral Firewall ?"
What have the Democrats learned from 2016? The answer is, very little if they believe the
essential problem was just James Comey and the Russians.
Here's one lesson Democrats would do well to internalize:
The party has won by running charismatic people against Republican cornflake candidates (see
Clinton v. Bush I or Dole, or Obama v. McCain or Romney). Yet whenever Democrats find
themselves squaring off against a faux-populist who plays to voters' base instincts, the party
always make the same move: running a wonky technocrat with an impressive resume, detailed
policy proposals, and little else.
Does it succeed in drawing a sharp contrast? Pretty much always. Does it succeed at winning
the White House? Pretty much never: Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, and now Clinton.
Democrats could be headed for trouble if they are counting on the Mueller investigation to
bring Trump down.
Democrats rely heavily on irregular voters to win elections; negative partisanship races
tend to depress turnout for these constituents. More broadly, if left with a choice between a
"lesser of two evils" the public
tends to stick with the "devil they know." In short: precisely what Democrats
don't need in 2020 is a negative partisanship race.
A referendum on Trump might not play out the way Democrats expect. Against all odds, it
looks like the president will even have
an actual record to run on . He should not be underestimated.
Clinton-style triangulation is also likely to backfire. Contemporary research suggests there
just aren't a lot of " floating voters " up for grabs
these days. Rather than winning over disaffected Republicans, this approach would likely just
alienate the Democratic base.
The party's best bet is to instead focus on
mobilizing the left by articulating a compelling positive message for why Americans should
vote for them (rather than just against Trump). They will need to respond to Trump
with
a populist of their own -- someone who can credibly appeal to people in former Obama
districts that
Hillary Clinton lost . And they need to activate those who
sat the last election out -- for instance by delivering for elements of their base that the
party has largely taken for granted in recent cycles.
If the Democratic National Committee wants to spend its time talking about Russia and sex
scandals instead of tending to these priorities, then we should all brace for another humiliating
"black swan" defeat for the party in 2020.
But, you say, isn't Trump the
least popular president ever after one year in office? Guess whose year-one
(un)popularity is closest to Trump's? Ronald Reagan. He was under 50 percent in approval
ratings at the end of his first year; but he went on to win reelection in an historic
landslide. Barack Obama was barely breaking
even after year one but won reelection comfortably. Bill Clinton was only slightly above 50
percent after his first year.
You know who else had the lowest approval rating in a quarter-century after Trump's first
year in office? The
Democratic Party.
Musa al-Gharbi is a Paul F. Lazarsfeld Fellow in Sociology at
Columbia University. Readers can connect to his research and social media via his website .
"... Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons. ..."
"... Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing. ..."
"... Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before any Steele's Dossier. This was a program. ..."
- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
My coming book is precisely about that. Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George
Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons.
Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it
is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat
it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing.
Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered
a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving
forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before
any Steele's Dossier. This was a program.
John McCain is a war veteran and a policy maker, who has seen war closer than Marshal or Ike
still he will shy away from any war even with nuclear Russia.
While McCain is a war veteran, his career was not in any way distinguished - rather he pretty
clearly was given "hall pass" after "hall pass" given his father and grandfather. It also
seems pretty clear his time as a POW has probably significantly influenced his view of the
world.
"The Nightingale's Song" has an excellent treatment of his Naval Academy and service time,
along with and in contrast to Ollie North, Jim Webb, admiral Poindexter and Bud MacFarlane.
Not a pretty picture..
John McCain is a war veteran and a policy maker, who has seen war closer than Marshal or
Ike still he will shy away from any war even with nuclear Russia.
Seeing generations of your close and remote relatives killed and your property destroyed
as a result of war is usually a very sobering collective experience. McCain, apart from being
a rather exceptional warmonger, doesn't know what it is, despite experiencing some serious
trials while being a POW. Ike saw, for starters, concentration camps and, unlike, McCain was
mostly on the ground. This is a crucial distinction.
"It also seems pretty clear his time as a POW has probably significantly influenced his view
of the world."
I agree, and, that was the point I tried to make, not all veterans are necessary qualified
MINDS for deciding future of the coming generations. I have the same suspicion for General
Kelly, having lost a son in Afghanistan and having power to influence the war in Afghanistan,
I think is this situation, like judges, one has to recuse him/herself to be part of planers.
Soros might well be a front company for an intelligence agency.
Notable quotes:
"... a former FBI investigator, Feinstein staffer and now a Fusion GPS operative ..."
"... This is quite plausible. Silicon Valley billionaires are definitely "investing" in their PC propaganda agenda. The Seattle billionaire and now the world's wealthiest man owns the neocon rag published from our nation's capital. He's also got lucrative contracts from our IC. Alexa is quite happy to listen into all your private conversations at home. ..."
"... "This funding is critical to ensuring that we continue an aggressive response to malign influence and disinformation and that we can leverage deeper partnerships with our allies, Silicon Valley, and other partners in this fight," said Steve Goldstein, undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs." ..."
"... I have often wondered if Soros is not a front company for an intelligence agency. ..."
"... i think it was the open Russia foundation that was funded by Soros, but i see former owner of yukos - Mikhail Khodorkovsky has his name attached to it... ..."
"... It seems the Magnitsky Act is a critical juncture in all the developments towards singling out russia for everything.. ..."
"... i don't know soros or khodorkovskys connection to bill browder in all of this, but would be curious to know. it seems they are all operating to bring down russia, in some way, shape or form.. ..."
"... My understanding is that Mr. Soros has funded, participated and closely associated himself with US' IC community, for various regime change and copes mostly Eastern Europe in past decades. We know that US IC community has the agenda ( a hard on) for discrediting and removing legally elected president of US from his office. We know US Democratic Party has paid and hired members of foreign intelligence for connecting presidential campaign of DT to Russians, for a possible killing of 2 birds with one shot. We know the cheassy silicon billionaires, are no other than the same old Move on Organization which to the bone are clintonian DLC, or the latter day Obamachies. We know Mr. Soros an Easter European migrant like Zbig is totally and fiercely anti anti Russian. ..."
"... When all facts put to gather, sounds like all these elements, entities, and personalities share a common motif and goal, which centers on anti Trump and anti Puttin Russia. When put together, makes a villain's marriage in haven. ..."
"In a Daily Caller op-ed calling the Russian meddling narrative a "
false public manipulation ," Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska claims that Daniel Jones -
a former FBI investigator, Feinstein staffer and now a
Fusion GPS operative - told the Russian Oligarch's lawyer in March, 2017 that Fusion
GPS was funded by " a group of Silicon Valley billionaires and George Soros. "" Zerohedge
------------
Now, this is something different. I have no idea what the relative truthiness of this may
be, but... pl
This is quite plausible. Silicon Valley billionaires are definitely "investing" in their
PC propaganda agenda. The Seattle billionaire and now the world's wealthiest man owns the
neocon rag published from our nation's capital. He's also got lucrative contracts from our
IC. Alexa is quite happy to listen into all your private conversations at home.
I appreciate your use of the phrase ' relative truthiness', and I suggest this latest
truthiness is just part of the movie, and a great movie it is.
Still, it's about time Soros
showed up and he's in good company too, along with this week's poisoned Russian spy and a
paid prostitute with a Trump story to tell. Next ?
We're probably due for a
Clinton/Russia-related Julian Assange document dump, some Russian intel officer arrests in DC
and....a new Steele-equivalent originator offering a more respectable document since after
all any evidence is good evidence.
Anything to keep the show going and the audience enthralled !
As for Soros himself, I suggest that there are plenty of Soros's with plenty of attached
money trails, but George has the watch.
All he is missing is the white cat on his lap.
"This funding is critical to ensuring that we continue an aggressive response to malign
influence and disinformation and that we can leverage deeper partnerships with our allies,
Silicon Valley, and other partners in this fight," said Steve Goldstein, undersecretary of
state for public diplomacy and public affairs."
Soros? All NGO's that apear in MSM articles, I look up their funding. Most funding traces
back to State Dep NED and Soros, along with other older money 'philanthropist' type
foundations.
I have often wondered if Soros is not a front company for an intelligence agency.
i think it was the open Russia foundation that was funded by Soros, but i see former owner
of yukos - Mikhail Khodorkovsky has his name attached to it...
It seems the Magnitsky Act is a critical juncture in all the developments towards
singling out russia for everything..
i don't know soros or khodorkovskys connection to bill browder in all of this, but would
be curious to know. it seems they are all operating to bring down russia, in some way, shape
or form..
My understanding is that Mr. Soros has funded, participated and closely associated
himself with US' IC community, for various regime change and copes mostly Eastern Europe in
past decades. We know that US IC community has the agenda ( a hard on) for discrediting and
removing legally elected president of US from his office. We know US Democratic Party has
paid and hired members of foreign intelligence for connecting presidential campaign of DT to
Russians, for a possible killing of 2 birds with one shot. We know the cheassy silicon
billionaires, are no other than the same old Move on Organization which to the bone are
clintonian DLC, or the latter day Obamachies. We know Mr. Soros an Easter European migrant
like Zbig is totally and fiercely anti anti Russian.
When all facts put to gather, sounds like all these elements, entities, and
personalities share a common motif and goal, which centers on anti Trump and anti Puttin
Russia. When put together, makes a villain's marriage in haven.
Interesting that a former staffer from Senator Feinstein is implicated in the mess. How many
others are there who have been doing the same thing? I wonder if Congresswoman Debbie
Wasserman-Schultt's IT staffer Mr. Arwan was accessing any relevant information while he was
on her payroll and for whom?
"... Instead, Mueller, who micromanaged the anthrax case and fell in love with the dubious dog evidence, personally assured Ashcroft and presumably George W. Bush that in Steven Hatfill the bureau had its man. Comey, in turn, was asked by a skeptical Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz if Hatfill was another Richard Jewell -- the security guard wrongly accused of the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Comey replied that he was "absolutely certain" they weren't making a mistake. ..."
"... Such certitude seems to be Comey's default position in his professional life. Mueller didn't exactly distinguish himself with contrition, either. In 2008, after Ivins committed suicide as he was about to be apprehended for his crimes, and the Justice Department had formally exonerated Hatfill -- and paid him $5.82 million in a legal settlement -- Mueller could not be bothered to walk across the street to attend the press conference announcing the case's resolution. When reporters did ask him about it, Mueller was graceless. "I do not apologize for any aspect of the investigation," he said, adding that it would be erroneous "to say there were mistakes." ..."
"... Does this mean Comey and Mueller are bad guys? I'm not saying that. Mueller, for one, answered his country's call and enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps when many others of his generation were avoiding combat service in Vietnam. Both men have forsaken millions of dollars in salary at private law firms for public service. Neither has ever had a hint of personal scandal. ..."
"... Connolly said he thought Comey was a "decent guy" who was legitimately fooled by that business with the dogs. And while Willman and I were discussing whether Mueller's reputation for competence was deserved, the reporter volunteered that he did not question the man's integrity. Fair enough. I would, however, pose this query to the keepers of official Washington's agreed-upon narrative. ..."
"... Having lived inside the Beltway for years getting my first graduate degree, and having returned there repeatedly in the course of a couple decades of federal service, I can tell you that there are no heroes there, and damn few honorable men. ..."
"... That night I saw them partying together in a Georgetown bar with their hands up the skirts of a couple Senate pages. Not interns, PAGES who were only high school age. But nobody was going to refuse to over serve a couple of senators nor even their too young to be in the bar (or legally consent to what was going on, even if they had been older) "dates." ..."
First, Jim Comey and Bob Mueller have a long history as professional allies. For Mueller to be brought in to investigate the behavior
of the guy who sacked Comey seems a conflict of interest. Perhaps this is the wrong way to look at it, and Mueller's professionalism
will supersede any personal loyalty. OK, but here's a second reason: These two guys, working in tandem, have a track record of bureaucratic
infighting -- with another Republican White House as their shared adversary -- that belies their reputations for being above political
intrigue. This is not news. Some of the positive coverage in the last few days highlighted that episode. It's a long and convoluted
story, but the story line that took hold in Washington went like this:
In March 2004, Comey, then deputy attorney general, sped with sirens blazing to the hospital bedside of his boss, John Ashcroft,
who was recovering from gallbladder surgery. At the time, the Justice Department was being pressured by White House counsel Alberto
Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card to sign papers reauthorizing a secret anti-terrorism domestic surveillance program initiated
after 9/11. The clock was running out and the papers had to be signed or the program would lapse. But Comey, who had a dim view of
the program's constitutionality, wouldn't do it. When he heard Gonzales and Card were on their way to the hospital, Comey rushed
there, too, to stop them.
Comey had enlisted Bob Mueller, then FBI director, as an ally. Both men apparently told George W. Bush privately they'd quit rather
than extend the program. "Here I stand, I can do no other," Comey told Bush. That's Martin Luther's iconic line, and although in
2016 Hillary Clinton would come to see Comey as more akin to Judas than Luther, one thing is apparent: Jim Comey is a government
appointee who thinks of himself in a manner many people find grandiose. Bush backed down in the face of the Comey-Mueller insurrection,
but three years later Comey told his dramatic Ashcroft hospital bed story in a congressional hearing that eviscerated Gonzales, who
was attorney general by then.
The third and most important factor tempering my enthusiasm for the new special prosecutor is that Comey and Mueller badly bungled
the biggest case they ever handled. They botched the investigation of the 2001 anthrax letter attacks that took five lives and infected
17 other people, shut down the U.S. Capitol and Washington's mail system, solidified the Bush administration's antipathy for Iraq,
and eventually, when the facts finally came out, made the FBI look feckless, incompetent, and easily manipulated by outside political
pressure.
This, too, was an enormously complex case. But here are some facts: Despite the jihadist slogans accompanying the mailed anthrax,
it had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein or any foreign element; the FBI ignored a 2002 tip from a scientific colleague of the actual
anthrax killer, who turned out to be a Fort Detrick scientist named Bruce Edwards Ivins; the reason is that they had quickly obsessed
on an innocent man named Steven Hatfill; the bureau was bullied into focusing on the government scientist by Democratic Sen. Patrick
Leahy (whose office, along with that of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, was targeted by an anthrax-laced letter) and was duped
into focusing on Hatfill by two sources -- a conspiracy-minded college professor with a political agenda who'd never met Hatfill
and by Nicholas Kristof, who put her conspiracy theories in the paper while mocking the FBI for not arresting Hatfill.
In truth, Hatfill was an implausible suspect from the outset. He was a virologist who never handled anthrax, which is a bacterium.
(Ivins, by contrast, shared ownership of anthrax patents, was diagnosed as having paranoid personality disorder, and had a habit
of stalking and threatening people with anonymous letters -- including the woman who provided the long-ignored tip to the FBI).
So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency did a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds from
California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters. These dogs were shown to Hatfill,
who promptly petted them. When the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they'd "alerted" on Hatfill and that
he must be the killer.
You'd think that any good FBI agent would have kicked these quacks in the fanny and found their dogs a good home. Or at least
checked news accounts of criminal cases in California where these same dogs had been used against defendants who'd been convicted
-- and later exonerated. As Pulitzer Prize-winning Los Angeles Times investigative reporter David Willman detailed in his authoritative
book on the case, a California judge who'd tossed out a murder conviction based on these sketchy canines called the prosecution's
dog handler "as biased as any witness that this court has ever seen."
Instead, Mueller, who micromanaged the anthrax case and fell in love with the dubious dog evidence, personally assured Ashcroft
and presumably George W. Bush that in Steven Hatfill the bureau had its man. Comey, in turn, was asked by a skeptical Deputy Secretary
of Defense Paul Wolfowitz if Hatfill was another Richard Jewell -- the security guard wrongly accused of the Atlanta Olympics bombing.
Comey replied that he was "absolutely certain" they weren't making a mistake.
Such certitude seems to be Comey's default position in his professional life. Mueller didn't exactly distinguish himself with
contrition, either. In 2008, after Ivins committed suicide as he was about to be apprehended for his crimes, and the Justice Department
had formally exonerated Hatfill -- and paid him $5.82 million in a legal settlement -- Mueller could not be bothered to walk across
the street to attend the press conference announcing the case's resolution. When reporters did ask him about it, Mueller was graceless.
"I do not apologize for any aspect of the investigation," he said, adding that it would be erroneous "to say there were mistakes."
Does this mean Comey and Mueller are bad guys? I'm not saying that. Mueller, for one, answered his country's call and enlisted
in the U.S. Marine Corps when many others of his generation were avoiding combat service in Vietnam. Both men have forsaken millions
of dollars in salary at private law firms for public service. Neither has ever had a hint of personal scandal.
I know Steven Hatfill's attorney, Thomas Connolly, well, and David Willman, a former newsroom colleague, even better -- and I
spoke to them last week about these events. Connolly said he thought Comey was a "decent guy" who was legitimately fooled by
that business with the dogs. And while Willman and I were discussing whether Mueller's reputation for competence was deserved, the
reporter volunteered that he did not question the man's integrity. Fair enough. I would, however, pose this query to the keepers
of official Washington's agreed-upon narrative.
While running for president, Donald Trump promised to "drain the swamp." He won enough votes, in the right states, to make him
president. So here's the question: How does official Washington, which clearly does not want to be drained, think the 63 million
people who voted for Trump will feel about an investigation run by D.C. insiders with a history of grandstanding -- an investigation
that some Democrats and commentators are saying aloud they hope will end in impeachment? And what will those Trump voters think of
uncritical media coverage of this effort by a self-righteous press corps that has suddenly rediscovered its investigative-reporting
impulses, and which behaves as if little of this relevant context is even worth mentioning? .
Carl M. Cannon is executive editor and Washington Bureau chief of RealClearPolitics.
Having lived inside the Beltway for years getting my first graduate degree, and having returned there repeatedly in the
course of a couple decades of federal service, I can tell you that there are no heroes there, and damn few honorable men.
I recall sitting in the senate gallery once, doing a little studying somewhere warm while waiting for my bus (security was
pretty lax in those days) watching Ted Kennedy and Jesse Helms going at it like the sergeant at arms was going to have to physically
restrain them from killing one another. It was all Kabuki theater.
That night I saw them partying together in a Georgetown bar with their hands up the skirts of a couple Senate pages. Not
interns, PAGES who were only high school age. But nobody was going to refuse to over serve a couple of senators nor even their
too young to be in the bar (or legally consent to what was going on, even if they had been older) "dates."
And over the next four or five decades, the place has changed little, and that mainly for the worse. No, if you are expecting
to find people of honor, don't waste your time looking at those who have spent their careers inside the beltway.
Trump +247: Mueller, the 9/11 Cover-up and the DNC Crisis
Robert Mueller is
considered to be a man of integrity, of impeccable credentials and character. His appointment
to investigate Russian involvement in the 2016 election was lauded by the Establishment
political class, media and a great deal of the public. And yet the same media is utterly
failing to connect his name to the recent Saudi scandal that's been quietly making the news. It
seems the media would rather this story just went away. For years some of the families
associated with the victims of 9/11 have been dissatisfied with the official investigation.
With good reason they view it as insufficient, truncated and even corrupt.
Many angles of the 9/11 story were not investigated and many more received only a surface
level consideration. The Saudi angle as some would have it has not been sufficiently considered
and as the years have gone by numerous investigations and inquiries seem to point to Riyadh
playing no small role in the attacks. Many believed this to be the case even in the fall of
2001. Saudi politics have always been confusing and the relationship of the extensive royal
family with jihadist groups has always been a present danger but murky and difficult to grasp.
On the one hand there's a real antagonism between the House of Saud and groups like al Qaeda.
On the other hand the Saudis have provided extensive funding for the spread of Wahhabism and
they certainly played no small part in funding some of the Mujahideen groups in 1980's
Afghanistan. Some of these same figures (including but not limited to bin Laden) would be
instrumental in the founding of al Qaeda. This part of the story isn't all that controversial.
Where it becomes problematic for many is that the US and all too often Israel have been right
there, right alongside Riyadh in backing these various projects. US intelligence continues to
struggle in distancing itself from the founders and initial characters surrounding the founding
of al Qaeda and even some of the important figures that later affiliated with the Taliban. You
can be sure the media has done all it can to facilitate the re-crafting of the narrative. The
so-called 9/11 families were always suspicious of Riyadh. It's understandable considering the
fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Investigations have shown that Saudi
diplomats and intelligence were in contact with some of these men and even high ranking figures
like Ambassador Prince Bandar were involved in funding them. The thing is, the connections
point not only to the Saudis but to American intelligence... both the FBI and the CIA. These
terrorists were facilitated. The story of their entry and surveillance is more than a little
remarkable. There were agents that were on to them but they were silenced and set aside. The
scale of the 9/11 cover-up ranges far beyond some Saudi connections to the hijackers. Some
believe this is all about money, the connections between the Bush family and the House of Saud.
Michael Moore and others have intimated as much. But that can't be the whole story. That might
explain some of the cover-up, though such an explanation is hardly sufficient. It does not
explain the way in which these men were facilitated by the FBI in the days leading up to 9/11.
The CIA angle is also worth looking into and is potentially vast and certainly more than a
little suspicious.
Mueller as head of the FBI played a leading role in the suppression of the 9/11 investigation.
If there is a cover-up, as indeed I and many others believe there to be, then Mueller is one of
the chief perpetrators. Mueller at this point must be reckoned a top figure (or more likely an
actor/agent) within the Deep State. His task vis-à-vis the 9/11 investigation was to
obscure the hijacker's connections to US intelligence and to deflect any investigation of the
Saudi's. For those that have sought to peel back the layers of deception surrounding 9/11 and
its cover-up, Mueller is undoubtedly reckoned one of the great villains of the whole affair. To
reckon him a man of integrity is laughable... if such things can be laughed at. The fact that
he was selected to investigate supposed Russian manipulation of the US election is more than a
little interesting. The ironic part is this... those who question 9/11 are deemed conspiracy
theorists. And yet the whole Putin/Trump/Wikileaks narrative which Mueller will supposedly
uncover is... a conspiracy theory and yet one without merit. All too often conspiracy theories
are rooted in conjecture and inference based on circumstantial evidence. That they all too
often err does not discount the reality of a conspiracy. It's simply that there are too many
gaps in knowledge or often false assumptions driving the inference. The Ockham's Razor
reductionist method of focusing purely on so-called brute facts also proves insufficient to
postulate unifying theories and in fact is often hostile to the attempt. For a conspiracy
theory to be plausible the inference has to make sense in light of the larger context and what
can hopefully be described as overwhelming circumstantial evidence. It's akin to and often is
criminal in nature. There has to be motive and intent. There has to be some benefit in terms of
the outcome. These questions do not guarantee a correct answer or an accurate interpretation of
events but they are at the very least necessary to employ the inference that is at the heart of
all such inquiries and investigations. The Russian narrative with regard to the 2016 US
presidential election fails this most basic of tests. The motives and outcome of the supposed
conspiracists fails on all fronts.
I'm speaking politically at this point. Profits and dirty
business deals (of which there is some evidence) cannot be entirely divorced from politics, but
the motives, means and desired outcome are often quite different. There a host of narratives
being spun about Trump and the nature of his administration. Once again I would argue the
proper way to understand these events is in terms of an Establishment internecine battle. The
present political struggle is not about an embattled Establishment at war with an insurgent
rogue power. Rather I view it as a battle of intramural factions and yet undoubtedly some of
those factions view this struggle as existential... or it is in their tactical interest to cast
it thus. The DNC is in a state of crisis. It has turned to the media, to Hollywood and
entertainment figures and to conspiracy theories to explain the election. The results of the
2016 election have discredited their narrative about the United States, what it is and what
direction it is heading. Are they that different from Trump? The answer is a resounding 'no'
and while they grandstand for the cameras in decrying his thuggish buffoonery they have offered
little political resistance to his agenda.
Hillary Clinton is trying to salvage her legacy. Her
defeat in 2016 discredited her life-narrative and historical legacy. She was to go down in
history as the great pioneer in modern American politics. Obama stole some of her thunder. Her
subsequent defeat at the hands of Donald Trump has completely discredited her. Corrupt, plastic
and probably self-deceived she has turned in desperation to a grand conspiracy theory in order
to justify her loss. As she sees it, she is not a defeated politician but the victim of a
crime. It would seem that in her distorted mind she is only one tier below the assassinated
Kennedy brothers. Hers is a great administration stolen, a tragic 'what if' that will haunt
American political history. But it's all nonsense of course as are the often contrived Kennedy
narratives. The two slain brothers are intriguing figures to be sure, complicated and yet
hardly the virtuous paragons they are often made out to be. They represented possibility and
yet the change in their character came too late. Clinton has also changed and shifted in her
outlook but in quite the opposite direction.
She is not the 'liberal' woman many took her to be
in the 1990s. And yet she has only grown more deeply entrenched and tied to the US
Establishment. She ranks high on the list of corrupt politicians and she utterly lacks the
charm and personal connection that many colourful political figures have possessed. She can't
even compete with her husband.
Odious to be sure he is nevertheless a masterful politician. The
dirty secret of modern democracy is that it has little to do with objective consideration of
issues. Some people vote for tribal factions and some vote on the basis of personality. The
latter are the folks who are most easily manipulated by the Madison Avenue types and the
camera-work of television producers and directors. The Democrats who were once perceived to
have stood for the working class have been exposed. Generations of betrayal and the breaking of
the trade unions have destroyed that old base that helped put them into office for several
decades. They still command a great deal of the minority vote but their grip is not as solid as
it once was and social disintegration has led to a great deal of apathy. Figures like Hillary
Clinton are not capable of stirring the disengaged masses to participation. The truth is that
Hillary Clinton has long been hated by a huge section of the electorate.
The DNC has lost vast
portions of its base. The Democrats have embraced sexual perversion and identity politics and
yet have done so while moving to the Right in terms of economics and militarism. The Left is
beginning to peel off and the Right has moved even farther to the Right leaving no Centrists or
working class sector who would still vote democratic or possible consider swinging that
direction in a tight contest. We are left with two Right-wing parties...a Centre-Right and a
Far Right. The US Establishment has been concerned with the direction the Far Right has headed.
It has clearly taken the government into a position of being unable to govern. It is generating
too much chaos and dysfunctionality. In 2016 the bulk of the US Establishment was invested in
the DNC and Hillary Clinton. Please understand the bulk of the Establishment is really above
the political factions. Much of that is just theatre for the masses.
The pseudo-political war
between the Red and the Blue also spawns vast sums of money and creates occasions to generate
and launder even more. The Clinton defeat created a crisis because it signalled that many
assumptions that have dominated for more than a generation have collapsed. The Trump victory
signalled not just a crisis for the 2016-2020 political cycle, but a looming threat of social
unrest. The Establishment fears the masses and if the working class starts to unite they are in
trouble. Seeds of distrust and fear must be sown. Identity politics divides the populist
street. Discrediting Trump will not only hinder his agenda and ability to be effective but it
will keep the street divided. People will focus on events like Charlottesville and Trump's
foolish comments rather than the real issues that place this society, even this civilisation in
danger. The Establishment is banking on the fact that the generals can restrain him from
disastrous war.
Mueller's task will be to expose enough of the obvious corruption within his
family and organisation to leave him paralysed. Mueller is the Establishment's Sword of
Damocles, an ever present threat. Like Kenneth Starr, he will continue to dig and gather dirt,
whether related or not. With Trump the pile of refuse will be all but endless and he will
likely generate as many problems in trying to cover up his deeds as the actual acts and
problems themselves. Mueller's placement remains an ongoing threat to Trump... and yet it's one
that may not work as Trump seems all too often divorced from reality. Obstruction of justice is
as likely to bring him down as anything else. His own hubris and attempts to cover his tracks
will further destroy what little integrity he has left. Eventually someone like Mueller will be
able to issue a report and say almost whatever he wants. The political class will believe it,
because they want to. If they can restrain him... good. If he self-destructs... that's okay
too. If he wages war that's also a fine thing. No one in ruling circles has a problem with US
militarism. What they don't like it was it's done unilaterally and without utilising the proper
mechanisms that proved plausibility, cover and a right narrative. I am certain there are some
that are very concerned about what's happening with regard to North Korea and rightly so.
They
are not opposed to war but how it is being set up and prosecuted. In the meantime the
Establishment will continue to spin out the narrative that the country was undermined by dark
foreign influences. A new Cold War, a new age of McCarthyism is upon us. Censorship, often
voluntary has returned with a vengeance. The corrupt moguls who dominate the media and the
neo-media centers of Silicon Valley are part of this re-tooling of American society. Even the
Trump interlude is being used to re-shape the Internet and to bolster the surveillance state.
It's not that hard when millions are apparently more than willing to not only to reject any
notions of privacy but are eager to give up their biometric data to the realm of cyberspace and
its corrupt and incompetent guardians. Mueller is no man of integrity. He is a shill for the
powers that be. His evident lack of virtue and honesty has no power to render judgment as to
what Trump is or is not. These are all evil people. Some seem to be fooled into thinking that
there are some 'good' folks who make it into these positions of power. Mueller will investigate Manafort who is obviously a corrupt businessman if not something else. He actually looks more
like a CIA connected figure to me. His history and placement within the Trump campaign raises
some very interesting questions... as does the timing of his departure. Yet thus far the
evidence surrounding Manafort seems to actually exonerate Trump and his campaign, a point the
media seems unwilling to acknowledge.
Did Trump's people go after dirt on the Clinton's? Of
course they did and so did the Clinton's. Are they tied in with corrupt business people in
Ukraine and Russia? Yes. So are the Clinton's. Are these people tied in with the political
powers within Ukraine and Russia? Of course. But once again the notion that the Putin
collaborated with Trump and Assange and that it was these leaks and some ads taken out on
social media that somehow stole the election and led to Clinton's loss... is absurd. The
evidence is not there and thus far the policies of the Trump administration do not support
this. If this were the case then Putin must be seething. It's a betrayal on the order of the
Kennedy double-cross of Sam Giancana and the mafia. But I doubt anyone wants to revisit that
chapter of history. In a way Mueller's position is both interesting and ironic. All the events
of the present, the discussions about leaks, media, wars, politics, Russia etc.... all rest on
the foundation created by 9/11. And so now the investigator of corruption is one of the
guardians who continues to protect that fortress of lies upon which the new order has been
built. For if 9/11 were to come undone the Orwellian regime wed to the War on Terror narrative
would collapse. It is therefore appropriate that Mueller continues in his role as guardian and
the media will do all it can to make him out as a man of integrity.
When in reality he is
already known as one who is utterly lacking character, an obstructor and facilitator of mass
murder. He can claim no moral superiority vis-à-vis someone like Trump...and you can be
sure Trump knows it.
"... Mystery surrounds Robert Mueller and his investigation into Russia and President Trump. Some think he is the ultimate professional, others that he is a Democrat lackey, still others maintain he is working on Trump's side. ..."
"... The anthrax letters began just a week after the 9/11 attack. While planning the airplane hijackings, Al-Qaeda had been weaponizing anthrax , setting up a lab in Afghanistan manned by Yazid Sufaat, the same man who housed two of the 9/11 hijackers . Two hijackers later sought medical help due to conditions consistent with infection via anthrax : Al Haznawi went to the emergency room for a skin lesion which he claimed was from "bumping into a suitcase," and ringleader Mohamed Atta needed medicine for "skin irritation." A team of bioterrorism experts from John Hopkins confirmed that anthrax was the most likely cause of the lesion. Meanwhile, the 9/11 hijackers were also trying to obtain crop-dusting airplanes . ..."
"... A former FBI official involved in the investigation sued the FBI , alleging the FBI concealed evidence exculpatory to Ivins. ..."
"... Mueller made his position known, saying, "I do not apologize for any aspect of this investigation," and stated that the FBI had made no mistakes. ..."
Mystery surrounds Robert Mueller and his investigation into Russia and President Trump. Some
think he is the ultimate professional, others that he is a Democrat lackey, still others
maintain he is working on Trump's side.
We can see how he works if we look at how Mueller ran his second-most important
investigation as FBI Director. In September of 2001, an entity began mailing anthrax through
the US Postal system, hitting such prominent targets as NBC and Senator Daschle's office. The
terrorist attacks killed five and left others hospitalized. The
world panicked .
Under Mueller's management, the FBI launched an investigation lasting ten years. They now
brag about
spending "hundreds of thousands of investigator hours on this case." Let's take a closer look
at Mueller's response to understand the context of the investigation -- who his people
investigated, targeted, and found guilty.
The anthrax letters began just a week after the 9/11 attack. While planning the airplane
hijackings, Al-Qaeda had been weaponizing
anthrax , setting up a lab in Afghanistan manned by Yazid Sufaat, the same man who
housed
two of the 9/11 hijackers . Two hijackers later sought medical help due to conditions
consistent with
infection via anthrax : Al Haznawi went to the emergency room for a skin lesion which he
claimed was from "bumping into a suitcase," and ringleader Mohamed Atta needed medicine for
"skin irritation." A team of bioterrorism experts from John Hopkins confirmed that anthrax was
the most likely cause of the lesion. Meanwhile, the 9/11 hijackers were also trying to obtain crop-dusting
airplanes .
So how did Mueller's investigative team handle the case?
Mueller issued a
statement in October of 2001, while anthrax victims were still dying: the FBI had found "no
direct link to organized terrorism." The John Hopkins team of experts was mistaken, the
FBI continued , Al Haznawi never had an anthrax infection. The crop-dusting airplanes they
needed was possibly for a separate and unrelated anthrax attack.
A few weeks later, the FBI released a
remarkable profile of the attacker. FBI experts eschewed analysis of the content of the
letters, where it was written in bold block letters, "Death to America, Death to Israel, Allah
is Great." Instead, they focused on a "linguistic analysis," stating that the letter's writer
was atypical in many respects and not "comfortable or practiced in writing in lower case
lettering." The FBI therefore concluded that it was likely a disgruntled
American with bad personal skills.
The investigators hypothesized that the attacker was a lonely American who had wanted to
kill people with anthrax for some undefined time period, but then became "mission oriented"
following 9/11 and immediately prepared and mailed the deadly spores while pretending to be a
Muslim.
Mueller's FBI honed in on Steven Hatfill as the culprit -- a "flag-waving"
American, who had served in the Army, then dedicated himself to protecting America from
bioterrorist threats by working in the United States Army Medical Research Institute of
Infectious Diseases.
There was no direct link
from Hatfill to the attacks, by the FBI's own admission, and the bureau never charged Hatfill.
The FBI did however spy on, follow, and harass him non-stop for years. The Department of
Justice also publicly outed Hatfill as the possible terrorist.
While Hatfill's dignity and life was being trampled on by America's secret police, Mueller
took a stand. But on a different topic. He made front page news for threatening President Bush he would
resign over NSA policy. All while his own team was trampling on the rights of an
American in the FBI's largest-ever investigation.
Hatfill successfully sued the government for its unlawful actions. He won almost $6 million
dollars.
After the Hatfill investigation blew up in the FBI's face, they moved on to Bruce Ivins,
another Army researcher who had actually volunteered to help the FBI investigate this case, and
had been doing so for years. It wasn't until five years after the attack that Mueller's men
decided
Ivins was a target .
The FBI case against Ivins, once again, was based on circumstantial evidence.
The prosecution stated Ivins purposefully gave a misleading sample of anthrax spore, but
Frontline documented
this was not true. Ivins was "familiar" with the area from which the anthrax letters were
mailed, the FBI said, but Pulitzer Prize winning ProPublica lays out the accepted facts of the
case showing it was impossible
for Ivins to make the trip to mail the letters .
The spores used in the attacks were a similar type to the laboratory spores where Ivins
worked, but that ignored the fact that the anthrax letters had a unique additive -- so
sophisticated and dangerous a scientist commented
, "This is not your mother's anthrax" -- that was likely produced by a nation state or
Al-Qaeda.
Ivins was never indicted, just given the Hatfill treatment. His house was raided, and he was
threatened with a death sentence, or as his lawyer put it, put under "
relentless pressure of accusation and innuendo ." He committed suicide.
One week later, U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor
stated Ivins was guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt," and they were "confident that Dr.
Ivins was the only person responsible for these attacks."
Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, one of the intended victims of the anthrax terror attacks,
did not
believe that Ivins was the sole actor . Mueller ordered an independent audit of the FBI's
case by the National Academy of Science, then formally closed the case in 2010, sticking with
the conclusion that Ivins, and Ivins alone, committed the terror attack. One year later the NAS
released their results and confirmed what many scientists had been repeating for years: the
FBI's science and conclusions were not solid .
A former FBI official involved in the investigation
sued the FBI , alleging the FBI concealed evidence exculpatory to Ivins.
Mueller made his position known,
saying, "I do not apologize for any aspect of this investigation," and stated that the FBI had
made no mistakes.
The investigation was an unmitigated disaster for America. Mueller didn't go after al-Qaida
for the anthrax letters because he couldn't find a direct link. But then he targeted American
citizens without showing a direct link. For his deeds, he had the second longest tenure as FBI
Director ever, and was roundly applauded by nearly everyone ( except Republican
Rep. Louie Gohmert ).
Now he's running the Trump-Russia investigation. Daniel Ashman is the author of two books,
"Dominate No-Limit Hold'em" and "Secrets of Short-Handed No Limit Hold'em," that have been
published worldwide and translated into four languages. Follow him at @dashman76 .
Obama was a CIA protégé. At least in his young years. How CIA protégé can ask for 911 investigation, or release of some
materials? That's unrealistic.
Mueller was Bush II appointee. That tells us a lot, because it was Cheney who vetted all candidates.
Notable quotes:
"... President Bush did not want the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia investigated. President Bush has deep ties to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its royal family and only wanted to protect the Kingdom. President Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq -- not Saudi Arabia. So, 29 full pages that said "Saudi" and "Bandar" instead of "Hussein" and "Iraq" was a huge problem for President Bush. ..."
"... Notwithstanding the lack of cooperation from the FBI and the pressure from the Bush Administration to thwart any investigation of the Saudis, the Joint Inquiry was still able to write 29 full pages regarding Saudi complicity in the 9/11 attacks. No other nation is given such singular prominence in the Joint Inquiry's Final Report. Not Iraq. Not Iran. Not Syria. Not Sudan. Not even Afghanistan or Pakistan. ..."
"... The 29 pages have been kept secret and suppressed from the American public for fifteen years -- not for matters of genuine national security -- but for matters of convenience, embarrassment, and cover-up. Executive Order 13526 makes that a crime. Neither James Clapper nor Barack Obama want to release a statement about that ..."
"... The only thing James Clapper and Barack Obama are willing to say about the delayed release of the 29 pages is that they stand by the investigation of the 9/11 Commission. This punt by President Barack Obama is repulsive. President Obama's deference to the 9/11 Commission -- who themselves admit that they were unable to fully investigate the Saudi role in the 9/11 attacks -- depicts Obama's utter lack of interest, engagement, or support of the 9/11 families. ..."
"... Four months after Khallad bin Attash met with the two 9/11 hijackers in Los Angeles, the USS Cole was bombed and seventeen U.S. sailors were killed. Khallad bin Attash, Khalid al Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi were all named as co-conspirators in the bombing of the USS Cole. ..."
First and foremost, here is what you need to know when you listen to any member of our
government state that the newly released 29 pages are no smoking gun -- THEY ARE LYING.
Our government's relationship to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is no different than an
addict's relationship to heroin. Much like a heroin addict who will lie, cheat, and steal to
feed their vice, certain members of our government will lie, cheat, and steal to continue their
dysfunctional and deadly relationship with the KSA -- a relationship that is rotting this
nation and its leaders from the inside out.
When CIA Director John Brennan states that he believes the 29 pages prove that the
government of Saudi Arabia had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks, recognize that John Brennan
is not a man living in reality -- he is delusional by design, feeding and protecting his Saudi
vice.
When Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, Anne W. Patterson, testifies --
under oath -- that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is an ally that does everything they can to help
us fight against Islamic terrorism, recognize that her deep, steep Saudi pandering serves and
protects only her Saudi vice.
Do not let any person in our government deny the damning
reality of the 29 pages.
And as you read the 29 pages remember that they were written during 2002 and 2003.
President Bush did not want the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia investigated. President Bush has
deep ties to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its royal family and only wanted to protect the
Kingdom. President Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq -- not Saudi Arabia. So, 29 full pages that
said "Saudi" and "Bandar" instead of "Hussein" and "Iraq" was a huge problem for President
Bush.
It is well documented that the Joint Inquiry received enormous push-back against its
investigation into the Saudis. In fact, former FBI Director Mueller acknowledges that much of
the information implicating the Saudis that the Inquiry investigators ultimately uncovered was
unknown to him. Why does Mueller say this? Mostly because Mueller and other FBI officials had
purposely tried to keep any incriminating information specifically surrounding the Saudis out
of the Inquiry's investigative hands. To repeat, there was a concerted effort by the FBI and
the Bush Administration to keep incriminating Saudi evidence out of the Inquiry's
investigation. And for the exception of the 29 full pages, they succeeded in their effort.
Notwithstanding the lack of cooperation from the FBI and the pressure from the Bush
Administration to thwart any investigation of the Saudis, the Joint Inquiry was still able to
write 29 full pages regarding Saudi complicity in the 9/11 attacks. No other nation is given
such singular prominence in the Joint Inquiry's Final Report. Not Iraq. Not Iran. Not Syria.
Not Sudan. Not even Afghanistan or Pakistan.
The 29 pages have been kept secret and suppressed from the American public for fifteen years
-- not for matters of genuine national security -- but for matters of convenience,
embarrassment, and cover-up. Executive Order 13526 makes that a crime. Neither James Clapper
nor Barack Obama want to release a statement about that .
The only thing James Clapper and Barack Obama are willing to say about the delayed release
of the 29 pages is that they stand by the investigation of the 9/11 Commission. This punt by
President Barack Obama is repulsive. President Obama's deference to the 9/11 Commission -- who
themselves admit that they were unable to fully investigate the Saudi role in the 9/11 attacks
-- depicts Obama's utter lack of interest, engagement, or support of the 9/11 families.
Frankly, it re-victimizes the 9/11 families by not acknowledging the truth, blocking our path
to justice, and the very vital assignment of accountability to those who should be held
responsible. Most alarmingly, Obama's silence keeps us unsafe because instead of calling for an
emergency session of Congress to immediately name the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as a State
Sponsor of Terrorism, President Obama continues to downplay, belittle, and ignore the truth
leaving us vulnerable to terrorist attacks that are still to this very day being funded by our
"ally" the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
To be clear, the 9/11 Commission did NOT fully investigate the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Staff Director Philip Zelikow blocked any investigation into the Saudis. Zelikow even went so
far as to fire an investigator who had been brought over from the Joint Inquiry to specifically
follow-up on the Saudi leads and information uncovered in the Joint Inquiry. I will repeat --
the investigator was fired. In addition, Zelikow re-wrote the 9/11 Commission's entire section
regarding the Saudi's and their connection to the 9/11 attacks. Former 9/11 Commissioners John
Lehman, Bob Kerrey, and Tim Roemer have all acknowledged that the Saudis were not adequately
investigated by the 9/11 Commission. Thus, for any government official to hang their hat on the
9/11 Commission's Final Report -- when Commissioners, themselves, have admitted that the Saudis
were not fully investigated, is absurd and disgraceful.
For example, one glaring piece of information was not mentioned in either the 9/11
Commission or the Joint Inquiry's 29 pages -- the information regarding Fahad Thumairy and
Khallad bin Attash found in both an FBI
report and a CIA
report -- that are now declassified. Both reports indicate that Fahad Thumairy -- a Saudi
Consulate official -- helped bring Khallad bin Attash into the United States in June of 2000 so
he could meet with two of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid al Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi. Thumairy
escorted bin Attash -- a known al Qaeda operative -- through INS and Customs at LAX evading
security and any possible alarm bells. Again, this information is found in both a CIA and FBI
report.
Four months after Khallad bin Attash met with the two 9/11 hijackers in Los Angeles, the USS
Cole was bombed and seventeen U.S. sailors were killed. Khallad bin Attash, Khalid al Mihdhar
and Nawaf al Hazmi were all named as co-conspirators in the bombing of the USS Cole.
Where is the information regarding bin Attash and Thumairy? Has it ever been investigated?
Had our intelligence agencies capitalized on the known connection between Thumairy and bin
Attash, they would have been able to thwart the bombing of the USS Cole. In addition, they
would have had access and the ability to weave together nearly all the pieces of the 9/11
attacks -- more than nine months before the 9/11 attacks happened.
But as history shows, Saudi Consulate official Fahad Thumairy was not investigated and 17
sailors in addition to 3,000 others were killed.
I'm sure that Barack Obama, John Brennan, Anne Patterson, and Philip Zelikow would all
consider Thumairy's operational and financial support of Attash, Mihdhar, and Hazmi as within
the threshold of being an "ally" of the United States. I, and the rest of America, would
not.
I know summer is a busy time. I know that next week is the Republican Convention. I know
that Congress is out of session for two months. And I know that ISIS attacks continue in Nice,
Orlando, San Bernardino, Belgium, Paris, and more. Just like I know that Donald Trump picked
Mike Pence as his running mate and that there was a coup in Turkey. For an Administration
looking to dump some insanely incriminating evidence and have nobody take notice -- doing it
yesterday when Congress was leaving for their two month summer recess was probably the best day
anyone could have imagined.
But, the world is an unstable, crazy place. And, while I used to think I was safe because my
government was looking out for me and making decisions that were in my best interests and that
of other citizens, I now know better. For fifteen long years, I have fought to get information
regarding the killing of my husband from the U.S. government. I have fought, pleaded, and
begged for the truth, transparency, justice, and accountability because my husband and 3,000
others were brutally slaughtered in broad daylight. And our government has done nothing but
block, thwart, impede, and obstruct that path to truth, transparency, accountability, and
justice. Even going so far as to gaslight us to this very day by denying the plain truth
written on the plain paper of the 29 pages.
Please read the 29 pages. Look at the facts and evidence. And then watch the venal way
various members of our government and media play spin-master on those facts -- telling you to
deny the very harsh, sobering reality found within those 29 pages. I hope their gaslighting
disgusts you as much as it disgusts me.
Note that these 29 pages merely detail the Saudi connection to the 9/11 attacks in San
Diego . They briefly touch on the Phoenix information, as well. Though more notably, the
29 pages do not include information found in the more than 80,000 documents that are currently
being reviewed by a federal judge in Florida -- 80,000 documents that neither the 9/11
Commission, the Joint Inquiry, the Clinton, Bush, or Obama White House, nor the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia wants us to know about.
More than anything, please know this: The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia provided operational and
financial support to the 9/11 hijackers. That is a fact. And, the U.S. government has been
covering up that fact for fifteen years -- even to this very day. And that is a crime.
Corruption, greed, and vice, specifically as it pertains to protecting the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia, is not a one-party problem. It spans both democratic and republican administrations.
Blame President Clinton, President Bush, and President Obama -- as well as, all of their
officials and appointees. They are ALL to blame for failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks,
helping to facilitate the 9/11 attacks through their own abject negligence, using the 9/11
attacks to further ill-begotten gains and goals, and covering-up the 9/11 attacks by not coming
clean with the American public for fifteen years.
(9/11 widows Monica Gabrielle, Mindy Kleinberg, Lorie Van Auken, and Patty Casazza all sign
their names to this blog)
"... I actually had a chance to meet Director Mueller personally the night before I testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee [he was] trying to get us on his side, on the FBI side, so that we wouldn't say anything terribly embarrassing. ..."
"... When you had the lead-up to the Iraq War Mueller and, of course, the CIA and all the other directors, saluted smartly and went along with what Bush wanted, which was to gin up the intelligence to make a pretext for the Iraq War. ..."
"... For instance, in the case of the FBI, they actually had a receipt, and other documentary proof, that one of the hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had not been in Prague, as Dick Cheney was alleging. And yet those directors more or less kept quiet. That included CIA, FBI, Mueller, and it included also the deputy attorney general at the time, James Comey ..."
"... Rowley also noted that Mueller presided over "the 'post 9-11 round-up' of innocent immigrants, the anthrax investigation fiasco, as well as going along with a form of martial law (made possible via secret OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] memos written by John Yoo etc. predicated upon Yoo's theories of absolute 'imperial presidency' or 'war presidency' powers that the Bush administration was making [Attorney General John] Ashcroft sign off on) ..."
"... While not the worst of the bunch, neither Comey nor Mueller deserve their Jimmy Stewart 'G-man' reputations for absolute integrity but have merely been, along the lines of George 'Slam Dunk' Tenet, capable and flexible politicized sycophants to power, that enmeshed them in numerous wrongful abuses of power along with presiding over plain official incompetence. It's sad that political partisanship is so blinding and that so few people remember the actual sordid history. ..."
Rowley, a former FBI special agent and division counsel whose May 2002 memo to then-FBI Director Robert Mueller exposed some of
the FBI's pre-9/11 failures, was named one of TIME magazine's "Persons of the Year" in 2002. She just appeared on The Real
News report "
Special
Counsel Investigating Trump Campaign Has Deep Ties to the Deep State ," about Mueller being appointed to investigate the Trump
campaign's ties to Russia.
While Mueller has been widely described as being of impeccable character by much of official Washington, Rowley said today: "The
truth is that Robert Mueller (and James Comey as deputy attorney general -- see my
New York Times op-ed
on day of Comey's confirmation hearing ) presided over a cover-up "
In her interview, Rowley noted: "The FBI and all the other officials claimed that there were no clues, that they had no warning
[about 9/11] etc., and that was not the case. There had been all kinds of memos and intelligence coming in. I actually had a
chance to meet Director Mueller personally the night before I testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee [he was] trying to get
us on his side, on the FBI side, so that we wouldn't say anything terribly embarrassing.
"When you had the lead-up to the Iraq War Mueller and, of course, the CIA and all the other directors, saluted smartly and
went along with what Bush wanted, which was to gin up the intelligence to make a pretext for the Iraq War.
For instance, in the case of the FBI, they actually had a receipt, and other documentary proof, that one of the hijackers,
Mohamed Atta, had not been in Prague, as Dick Cheney was alleging. And yet those directors more or less kept quiet. That included
CIA, FBI, Mueller, and it included also the deputy attorney general at the time, James Comey."
Rowley also noted that Mueller presided over "the 'post 9-11 round-up' of innocent immigrants, the anthrax investigation fiasco,
as well as going along with a form of martial law (made possible via secret OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] memos written by John Yoo
etc. predicated upon Yoo's theories of absolute 'imperial presidency' or 'war presidency' powers that the Bush administration was
making [Attorney General John] Ashcroft sign off on)."
"While not the worst of the bunch, neither Comey nor Mueller deserve their Jimmy Stewart 'G-man' reputations for absolute
integrity but have merely been, along the lines of George 'Slam Dunk' Tenet, capable and flexible politicized sycophants to power,
that enmeshed them in numerous wrongful abuses of power along with presiding over plain official incompetence. It's sad that political
partisanship is so blinding and that so few people remember the actual sordid history."
As part of what Donald Trump has dubbed an ongoing "witch hunt", Special Counsel Robert Mueller has subpoenaed longtime Donald
Trump associate and former aide Sam Nunberg. requesting he appear before a grand jury investigating Russian interference in the 2016
elections. Nunberg, however,
told Bloomberg he has no intention of cooperating with Mueller's subpoena.
"I'm not going to cooperate with Mueller. It's a fishing expedition ," Nunberg
told Bloomberg News . " They want me in there for a grand jury for testimony about Roger Stone. He didn't do anything. What is
he going to do? His investigation is BS. Trump did not collude with Putin. It's a joke."
Nunberg was on Trump's payroll from mid-2011 to August 2015 when he was fired from Trump's campaign shortly after it emerged that
he had posted racially charged Facebook posts. In July 2016, Trump sued him for violating a confidentiality agreement, however the
suit was dropped the following month.
. "What's he going to do? He's so tough - let's see what they do. I'm not going to spend 40 hours going over emails. I have a
life."
Nunberg told Bloomberg he expects one line of questioning before the grand jury to be related to Stone, who Nunberg worked with
closely over the years.
In a somewhat surreal interview, Nunberg also spoke with NBC's Katy Tur on Monday afternoon, reiterating that he was not going
to comply with the subpoena while stating his belief that his onetime boss may be guilty of collusion with the Russians.
After admitting to host Katy Tur that he'd been interviewed by Mueller's investigators, the host asked Nunberg if he believes
the special counsel "has anything" on Trump.
"I think they may," the ex-aide responded. "I think he may have done something during the election. But I don't know that for
sure."
This isn't the first time Nunberg's given a rambling MSNBC interview. Last week, he called presidential adviser and son-in-law
Jared Kushner a "weak link" who has done "nefarious things," and earlier this year, called Trump an "idiot" and a "complete pain
in the ass to work for." In the latter interview, which was conducted by host Joy Ann Reid, many noted that Nunberg appeared to be
intoxicated.
... ... ...
In the subpoena dated Feb. 27, Bloomberg reports that Nunberg was also asked to turn over emails, texts and other communications
with 10 campaign associates, including Trump, former campaign manager Corey Lewandoski and outgoing White House communications director
Hope Hicks starting in November 2015 and running through the present.
Another possible line of questioning could be related to Trump's activities in Moscow in 2013 during the Miss Universe pageant,
which the president once owned. The book by author Michael Wolff, "Fire and Fury," quotes Nunberg extensively describing the early
months of the Trump administration. Wolff said the former adviser was "generally regarded as the man who understood Trump's whims
and impulses best" and a Bannon associate. Mueller's team interviewed Bannon earlier this month.
Incidentally, when asked if Nunberg was correct that Trump "may have done something during the election", Press Sec. Sanders dnied,
saying that "He's incorrect...I certainly can't speak to him or the lack of knowledge that he clearly has."
Seriously, what about Trump's Hotels? Do they employ any Russians? I think that black jack dealer looked Russian.
I am not a big fan of OJ, but Jesus Christ this Mueller investigation acts like our QA department. Non-stop making you do retarded
shit just because someone, somewhere might not fully get exactly what you did because they are retarded.
Mueller better just close up shop before the people supporting him give him the hook. Russian Troll farm? Really? Shitposting
is now a national security issue. omg.
The longer this goes on, the more I think that our government just needs to go away. Total loss of all credibility. And when
he does find something HUGE, if it isn't related to Trump (Uranium One) he just passes it by.
We are now past the point of absurd. Trump will next be guilty of having a bottle of Stoli at his house.
Kudos to this guy for calling this for what it is. Just downright stupid.
I took Russian as my foreign language elective in college and sometimes even understand some of it. I also read RT from time
to time and donated to the Trump campaign.
So someone that worked for Trump says that he doesn't know for sure if Trump did something bad and it is headline news? Give
me a break! What click-bait garbage this article is.
I love the liberal delusion that the Trump-Russia evidence is going to show up any day now while they continue to ignore the
fact that Hillary paid for Kremlin help in the election.
How Ex-Spy Christopher Steele Compiled His Explosive Trump-Russia Dossier
Source A -- to use the careful nomenclature of his dossier -- was "a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure." Source B was
"a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin."
Maybe this is the guy who stops pretending? He already sounds like would call Mueller for what he is. I bet Mueller is sitting
there in his psychosis thinking that because this guy said what he did he is the one really holding all the dirt.
Someone should go and testify and just start dropping bombs.
I think all witnesses should do the same. Then when they are forced to testify under penalty of contempt, they should plead
the 5th amendment and force Mueller to grant them immunity. This is all total BS. Any witness who cooperates and appears before
a grand jury runs the risk of some bogus perjury or obstruction of justice charges. Mueller is a piece of human vermin.
Mueller has already committed a crime he lied to the Senate, if there was any law and order in this Country Mueller would have
been locked up a long time ago.
I don't know anything about this guy but glad to see someone is calling bullshit on this ongoing witch hunt. And there are
plenty of idiots thinking it is a real thing when basically nothing has been uncovered in a year and a half related to Trump/Putin.
Meanwhile gigantic conflicts on the Hillary side are going totally uninvestigated..
Mueller is not looking for anything Russia-related because he knows no such evidence exists. Instead, he is looking to file
completely unrelated charges against other people such as Paul Manafort, who can then be pressured into making false accusations
against Trump. "Special Counsel" Mule-er is nothing but the leader of a star chamber packed with (((Democrat))) loyalists who
have no interest in serving justice. This entire ruse is nothing but a seditious attempt to overthrow a Constitutionally elected
president because the Deep State and its cronies remain in a state of apoplexy over the 2016 election results. More than anything,
this reminds me of some kind of Stalinist NKVD secret police operation from the 1930s: false charges supported by fraudulent evidence
followed by show trials that delivered the expected results. Truth and justice be damned. Of course, we know (((who))) was calling
the shots in the Soviet Secret Police, don't we?
I don't think he's actually investigating anything. Once in awhile, he pops up with serious-sounding garbage, that really means
nothing.
He's intended to be a shark in the waters around this administration, nothing more. A "potential" threat he might "find" something.
He's had his time at the "Russian collusion" plate, and he needs to be outta pitches.
Meanwhile, the country's business isn't getting done, and Trump's time in office isn't open-ended.
Business like infrastructure, the BloCare repeal, the wall, sanctuary city crackdowns, trade deal overhauls (not simply tariffs,
but new deals or no deals at all), and much more.
His supporters really DO need to rise mightily and force these issues to the front and center.
The Bolshevik fascists are stymieing this president, as they bide their time toward the midterms.
Only in Americana, the deep State mother fuckers, can go over the president like never before, and undermine his authority,
take down his staff and stall his presidency... and basically place him in a corner for the kill.
Trump since his inauguration, wasn't able to get anything done because of these fuckers... they are enemies of the people!
Why are these freaks being allowed to make a mockery of Trump presidency using bs excuses? How stupid people can be to believe
on this shit! Where are the good politicians if any left in Washington? Is there any political decency left in the States? WTFIGO?
Most veterans and folks on the service that I know of are ashamed of these debacle!
The President needs to set a deadline for Mueller - end of summer would be good - either present evidence of collusion with
Russia to Congress - or you're fired. Otherwise this investigation will still be ongoing when Ivanka is sworn in as the 46th.
president January 20, 2025.
He is setting up a trap for Mueller. Get Mueller to go balls to the wall and make a misstep and blow his whole investigation
up by being retarded. Stone created an art of being a provocateur. This guy learned from Stone. Mueller will see that conversation
and think " WE got the President dig dig dig send subpoenas, do raids. " Thing is doing raids on innocent people catches up to
you very fast. You never know who knows who and who is connected to who. This will get Mueller to spend more money and he will
for sure go over the line and cut his own throat. Keystone cops tend to die by their own gun.
"... Prior to the convention, Manafort was involved in the successful fight to remove language from the party's platform which called for providing lethal weapons to the Poroshenko government, allegedly to fight against "Russian subversion." Manafort had the backing of Trump for this, as Trump had campaigned for an end to U.S. support for regime change wars, such as the Obama-neocon coup in Ukraine. ..."
"... (Manafort was also instrumental in including a plank supporting restoration of Glass Steagall banking separation, something vehemently opposed by Wall Street and the City of London financial institutions.) ..."
"... It was also in June that CIA Director John Brennan was briefed by GCHQ Director Hannigan, on "evidence" compiled by his agency, of "suspicious" activity they had picked up on Russian activity with Trump. GCHQ is Britain's cyber security intelligence agency, which works directly with MI5 and MI6. Brennan then pulled together an inter-agency task force to investigate the British charges of Russian activity. Among those in the FBI unit which was part of this task force were the now-famous duo, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, whose extensive text messaging shows that they were engaged in creating the fake narrative of "Russian meddling and Trump collusion". One text spoke of developing the Russiagate narrative to either defeat Trump in November, or provide an "insurance policy" against him, if he won. ..."
"... Beginning in 2013, Steele drafted more than 100 memos on Ukraine and Russia, and passed these on to Winer, who was then a special assistant to Kerry on Libya, which had been destroyed in a Clinton-Obama regime change operation. Winer admitted, in an oped in the Washington Post on February 8, 2018, that he passed these on to Victoria Nuland, who asked that he continue to bring them to her. Note that these were written at the time of, and the immediate aftermath of the coup in Ukraine. The Washington Post Deep State conduit, James Rosen, wrote that Nuland found these reports "informative and sometimes helpful", and asked Winer to keep them coming. ..."
"... When asked about the Steele memos on Ukraine in an interview with CBS on February 4 -- four days before Winer's oped was published -- Nuland lied, denying that she had used the Steele memos. ..."
"... Nunes and Grassley are both investigating the Steele-Winer-Nuland connection to see what this means as far as Obama administration direct involvement in running the Russiagate coup. ..."
"... The new indictments against Manafort come from squeezing his former partner, Rick Gates. Using a prosecutor's set of tools, Mueller went after Gates on his weak flank, the threat to him and his family of bankruptcy, were he to fight the charges. In entering his guilty plea, Gates told the court, "Despite my initial desire to vigorously defend myself, I have had a change of heart. The reality of how long this legal process will likely take, the cost, and the circus-like atmosphere of an anticipated trial are too much. I will better serve my family moving forward by exiting this process." ..."
"... On the new charges against Manafort on money laundering, a well-informed insider said he's astonished at the lengths to which Mueller is going. He noted the irony that, when Mueller and Comey were FBI Directors, they never made a criminal case against leading banks which engaged in billions of dollars in money laundering, much of it proceeds from drug and arms-trafficking. ..."
"... One of the banks given a repeated pass was the notorious HSBC, which while being fined repeatedly for money laundering, never faced criminal prosecution. Among those arguing against criminal charges was the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, who said a criminal proceeding against a "systemically important" bank, such as HSBC, would risk "global financial disaster." Obama's Attorney General Holder shared this view, as he refused to file any criminal charges against "Too Big to Fail" banks. ..."
"... Until his appointment by Obama as Director of the FBI, James Comey served on the Board of Directors of HSBC! ..."
"... From this review of the significance of Ukraine in the whole Russiagate process, it becomes clear that the perversion of justice it represents is surpassed only by the danger which flows from the anti-Russia theme it serves. Unless there is an intervention to shut down this witch hunt, as there was to end the hysterical red-baiting charges of the infamous Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s, the threshold for a possible nuclear confrontation with Russia is being dramatically reduced. It was Trump's campaign pledge to cooperate with Russia, rather than prepare for war, which is the reason for the Russiagate fraud. ..."
"... With the Ukraine tensions heightened by recent developments, full exposure of Steele's dirty role, and that of his collaborators, has become an essential component of a war-avoidance strategy. ..."
What is not generally known, however, due to the lying coverage in the Transatlantic "Fake
News" media, is that included in this unholy alliance of coup plotters were armed militia units
made up of neo-Nazis, who were responsible for the bloodshed on Maidan Square in Kiev, and
which threatened the ethnic Russians, which constitute the majority of the population in the
eastern Ukraine regions of Donetsk and Luhansk.
The lie that there was no neo-Nazi involvement has been maintained, despite ample evidence
to the contrary, including interviews with militants pronouncing admiration for Hitler's
collaborators in the Bandera movement in Ukraine during World War II, when Ukrainian units
murdered ethnic Poles, Russians, and other "non-Ukrainians", including Ukrainian Jews. The
armed "Banderistas" and related thugs have been incorporated into the security apparatus of the
Kiev regime, and continue to march in the halls of Parliament and on the streets, under banners
with pictures of Bandera, the Nazi collaborator, and symbols going back to their alliance with
the Nazi SS.
The coup provoked a chain of events which the U.S., London and NATO used as justification to
impose punitive sanctions against Russia, while demonizing Russia's President Putin, asserting
that the he was engaged in military operations in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, to reverse the
coup. Efforts to stop the fighting between the regime's armed forces and ethnic Russian rebels
in eastern Ukraine led to the Minsk Accord in 2015, which included a cease fire and the
granting of autonomy for Donetsk and Luhansk. The Minsk Accord was brokered by France, Germany
and Russia.
On January 18, 2018, the Ukrainian Parliament ripped up the Minsk Accord, referring to the
two republics as "temporarily occupied" by an "aggressor country," that is, Russia, and vowed
to reintegrate them, by military force if necessary. This bill, which received the full support
of Ukraine's President Poroshenko, has been described by the Russian Foreign Ministry as "a
preparation for a new war." It occurs simultaneously with an outburst of war-like propaganda
from western neocons, typified by a report from the Center for Strategic and International
Studies (CSIS), released on February 20 with the title, "Coping with Surprise in Great Power
Conflicts." The report charges that both Russia and China are preparing for war against the
U.S., and that the Russians are deploying forces and artillery to overrun the Baltic states in
a lightning strike, to reincorporate them into a new Russian empire!
THE CASE OF PAUL MANAFORT
This background is necessary to understand the vicious hostility behind the targeting of
Paul Manafort, a long-time U.S. political operative, by the "amoral legal assassin", special
counsel Robert Mueller. Manafort, who served as Donald Trump's campaign manager at a key moment
in his fight to secure the Republican nomination, from May to August 2016, was indicted by
Mueller on October 27, 2017, charged with numerous counts of money laundering, tax fraud, not
registering as an agent of a foreign government, and of making false statements to the FBI.
Mueller filed a revised indictment on February 28, 2018, following his "turning" of Manafort's
partner Rick Gates, who filed a guilty plea to a single count on February 22. While awaiting
trial in September, Manafort is confined to house arrest.
None of the charges against Manafort are related to the initial mandate given to Mueller, by
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, to investigate the allegations of Russian hacking and
sundry meddling in the 2016 election, and whether Donald Trump had "colluded" with the
Russians. However, they are directly related to the geopolitical manipulations against Russia,
which have been sharply criticized by Trump, both as a candidate and as President.
Manafort was first placed under surveillance following a FISA Court order in 2014. FISA, the
super-secret court set up as part of the post-9/11 apparat to spy on potential terrorists,
granted the surveillance order as part of an investigation into alleged illegal lobbying on
behalf of the Yanukovych government of Ukraine by Manafort and others. Note that the timing of
the court order coincided with the 2014 coup in Ukraine. Manafort had been working for several
years as an adviser to the Party of the Regions, which was the party of President Yanukovych,
who was overthrown by the regime change coup.
The original FISA warrant targeting Manafort
was subsequently not renewed, for lack of evidence. A second order, however, was approved by
the FISA Court for surveillance of Manafort sometime during 2016 -- the exact date of the order
has not been released -- likely around the time Manafort took over the reins of the Trump
campaign. Manafort played a key role in holding the Trump coalition together heading into the
Republican convention July 18-21, as Bush-directed "Never-Trumpers" were attempting to steal
the nomination away from him.
Prior to the convention, Manafort was involved in the successful fight to remove
language from the party's platform which called for providing lethal weapons to the Poroshenko
government, allegedly to fight against "Russian subversion." Manafort had the backing of Trump
for this, as Trump had campaigned for an end to U.S. support for regime change wars, such as
the Obama-neocon coup in Ukraine.
Democratic Senator Ben Cardin, a leading campaigner for tougher sanctions against Russia --
he was one of the authors of the initial anti-Russia sanctions, in the Magnitsky Act -- accused
Trump and Manafort of changing the platform to benefit Russia, which he accused of robbing
Ukraine of sovereignty! It is now reported that Manafort's role in changing the language in the
platform is "under investigation" by Mueller!
(Manafort was also instrumental in including a plank supporting restoration of Glass
Steagall banking separation, something vehemently opposed by Wall Street and the City of London
financial institutions.)
It was during this same time period, June and July, once it was evident that, barring some
unforeseen event, Trump would be the Republican nominee, that the anti-Trump activities of the
"Deep State" went into high gear. While the "Never Trumpers" were unsuccessfully plotting to
prevent his nomination at the convention, Christopher Steele began churning out memos, paid for
by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, which included wild claims about
Putin's secret service filming Trump in compromising sexual activity during the 2013 Miss
Universe contest in Moscow. His first memo was written on June 20, 2016, and he met for the
first time with an FBI official on July 5, 2016.
It was also in June that CIA Director
John Brennan was briefed by GCHQ Director Hannigan, on "evidence" compiled by his agency, of
"suspicious" activity they had picked up on Russian activity with Trump. GCHQ is Britain's
cyber security intelligence agency, which works directly with MI5 and MI6. Brennan then pulled
together an inter-agency task force to investigate the British charges of Russian activity.
Among those in the FBI unit which was part of this task force were the now-famous duo, Peter
Strzok and Lisa Page, whose extensive text messaging shows that they were engaged in creating
the fake narrative of "Russian meddling and Trump collusion". One text spoke of developing the
Russiagate narrative to either defeat Trump in November, or provide an "insurance policy"
against him, if he won.
This incriminating text describes the meeting as taking place in "Andy's office", a
reference to the now-fired Deputy Director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, who told a Congressional
hearing that there would have been no surveillance warrant issued by the FISA court in October
2016 against Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page, had it not been for the Steele dossier.
Nunes has sent a list of ten questions regarding how the Steele's dossier shaped the
anti-Trump mobilization of Obama's intelligence agencies. Among those receiving the list of ten
questions are James Comey, the former FBI director fired by Trump, Obama's Director of National
Intelligence Clapper, Brennan and Victoria Nuland. They are given until March 2 to answer, or
they will face subpoenas. What Nunes is looking for is answers as to when the Steele dossier
was brought to their attention, by whom, what actions were taken in response to it, its role in
the submission to the FISA Court, and whether President Obama was briefed on what the dossier
contained. They lay the basis for possible indictments against those receiving the questions,
and for Steele. Senators Grassley and Graham have already stated they believe charges should be
filed against Steele, who has thus far been protected by Her Majesty's government, which has
acted to prevent Steele from being brought before a court of law.
STEELE AND THE UKRAINIAN CONNECTION
But Steele's role in shaping U.S. policy predates the setting up of the Get Trump task
force. Both Nunes and Grassley are investigating Steele's connections with the U.S. State
Department, including with the notorious Nuland. They are looking into the role of Jonathan
Winer, a former assistant Secretary of State who served as a long-time aide to former Secretary
of State John Kerry. Winer befriended Steele in 2009, when they were collaborating on
investigations of Russian "corruption".
Beginning in 2013, Steele drafted more than 100
memos on Ukraine and Russia, and passed these on to Winer, who was then a special assistant to
Kerry on Libya, which had been destroyed in a Clinton-Obama regime change operation. Winer
admitted, in an oped in the Washington Post on February 8, 2018, that he passed these on to
Victoria Nuland, who asked that he continue to bring them to her. Note that these were written
at the time of, and the immediate aftermath of the coup in Ukraine. The Washington Post Deep
State conduit, James Rosen, wrote that Nuland found these reports "informative and sometimes
helpful", and asked Winer to keep them coming.
When asked about the Steele memos on Ukraine in an interview with CBS on February 4 --
four days before Winer's oped was published -- Nuland lied, denying that she had used the
Steele memos.
But the Steele-Winer connection continued. In September 2016, Winer met with Steele, who
presented to Winer his anti-Trump dossier. Winer drafted a two-page summary of the dossier,
which he gave to Nuland. She told him to present this to Kerry. Later in the month, Winer met
with Hillary Clinton confidante Sidney Blumenthal, who showed him another specious anti-Trump
dossier, compiled by Clinton operative Cody Shearer. Winer then shared this who Steele, who
then claimed it confirmed the charges he made in his dossier, though coming from different
"sources."
Nunes and Grassley are both investigating the Steele-Winer-Nuland connection to see what
this means as far as Obama administration direct involvement in running the Russiagate
coup. Among those calling for a full criminal investigation into Brennan, Clapper, Comey
and Hillary Clinton, which would reach Obama as well, is former Washington, D.C. U.S. Attorney
Joseph DiGenova, who said it's very likely they could all be indicted.
YET BRITISH HITMAN MUELLER PROCEEDS!
The new indictments against Manafort come from squeezing his former partner, Rick Gates.
Using a prosecutor's set of tools, Mueller went after Gates on his weak flank, the threat to
him and his family of bankruptcy, were he to fight the charges. In entering his guilty plea,
Gates told the court, "Despite my initial desire to vigorously defend myself, I have had a
change of heart. The reality of how long this legal process will likely take, the cost, and the
circus-like atmosphere of an anticipated trial are too much. I will better serve my family
moving forward by exiting this process."
On the new charges against Manafort on money laundering, a well-informed insider said he's
astonished at the lengths to which Mueller is going. He noted the irony that, when Mueller and
Comey were FBI Directors, they never made a criminal case against leading banks which engaged
in billions of dollars in money laundering, much of it proceeds from drug and arms-trafficking.
One of the banks given a repeated pass was the notorious HSBC, which while being fined
repeatedly for money laundering, never faced criminal prosecution. Among those arguing against
criminal charges was the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, who said a
criminal proceeding against a "systemically important" bank, such as HSBC, would risk "global
financial disaster." Obama's Attorney General Holder shared this view, as he refused to file
any criminal charges against "Too Big to Fail" banks.
Until his appointment by Obama as Director of the FBI, James Comey served on the Board of
Directors of HSBC!
From this review of the significance of Ukraine in the whole Russiagate process, it becomes
clear that the perversion of justice it represents is surpassed only by the danger which flows
from the anti-Russia theme it serves. Unless there is an intervention to shut down this witch
hunt, as there was to end the hysterical red-baiting charges of the infamous Senator Joseph
McCarthy in the 1950s, the threshold for a possible nuclear confrontation with Russia is being
dramatically reduced. It was Trump's campaign pledge to cooperate with Russia, rather than
prepare for war, which is the reason for the Russiagate fraud.
With the Ukraine tensions heightened by recent developments, full exposure of Steele's dirty
role, and that of his collaborators, has become an essential component of a war-avoidance
strategy.
I had an experience witnessing Mueller at the Metropolitan Club about 25 years ago. My first and only impression was that he
exuded a high level political corruption.
He hasn't changed a bit. His looks come from central casting. Underneath is a dangerous man. He is only now revealing the depths
that he is willing to go to maintain the worst kinds of corruption. He has to be this corrupt to keep himself out of prison for
his role in the Uranium One scandal. As can plainly be seen he is a Javert type in his willingness to go to the end of the plank
- a really ruthless son of a bitch protected by so many ion Washington.
With few exceptions, all of them have dirt on each other. They are preselected based on whether they are blackmailable or not.
How can we know this? By their behavior. These are not stupid people. They know what we know when it comes to the guilt of people
like Hillary. But they refuse to act because the smell in their closet reeks of little boy's underwear.
I keep seeing all these stupid articles. The answer is simple. .... The rule of law is dead...Our ruling class does what they
want. Who is going after any of them?. ... Nobody...Well why not? Because too many people know where all the bodies are buried.
There is enough "dirt" on people to do 2000 long length movies (greater than 3 hours) about all the scandalous materials. No one
wants to stick their nose out because they will get what Seth got - a bullet in the back...
Muller was the guy who buried 911 investigation. That's probably why he was hired for Russiagate investigation too.
Notable quotes:
"... retired U.S. Navy admiral James A. Lyons, Jr. asks a simple, yet monumentally significant question: Why haven't Congressional
Investigators or Special Counsel Robert Mueller addressed the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich - who multiple people have claimed was
Wikileaks' source of emails leaked during the 2016 U.S. presidential election? ..."
"... Mueller has been incredibly thorough in his ongoing investigations -- however he won't even respond to Kim Dotcom, the New
Zealand entrepreneur who clearly knew about the hacked emails long before they were released, claims that Seth Rich obtained them with
a memory stick , and has offered to provide proof to the Special Counsel investigation. ..."
"... In addition to several odd facts surrounding Rich's still unsolved murder - which officials have deemed a "botched robbery,"
forensic technical evidence has emerged which contradicts the Crowdstrike report. The Irvine, CA company partially funded by Google
, was the only entity allowed to analyze the DNC servers in relation to claims of election hacking: ..."
"... Notably, Crowdstrike has been considered by many to be discredited over their revision and retraction of a report over Russian
hacking of Ukrainian military equipment - a report which the government of Ukraine said was fake news. ..."
"... Also notable is that Crowdstrike founder and anti-Putin Russian expat Dimitri Alperovitch sits on the Atlantic Council - which
is funded by the US State Department, NATO, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukranian Oligarch Victor Pinchuk. Who else is on the Atlantic Council?
Evelyn Farkas - who slipped up during an MSNBC interview with Mika Brzezinski and disclosed that the Obama administration had been spying
on the Trump campaign: ..."
"... "The facts that we know of in the murder of the DNC staffer, Seth Rich, was that he was gunned down blocks from his home on
July 10, 2016. Washington Metro police detectives claim that Mr. Rich was a robbery victim, which is strange since after being shot
twice in the back, he was still wearing a $2,000 gold necklace and watch. He still had his wallet, key and phone. Clearly, he was not
a victim of robbery, " writes Lyons. ..."
"... Another unexplained fact muddying the Rich case is that of a stolen 40 caliber Glock 22 handguns stolen from an FBI agent's
car the same day Rich was murdered. D.C. Metro police said that the theft occurred between 5 and 7 a.m., while the FBI said two weeks
later that the theft had occurred between Midnight and 2 a.m. - fueling speculation that the FBI gun was used in Rich's murder ..."
"... Perhaps the most stunning audio evidence, however, comes from leaked audio of a recorded conversation between Ed Butowsky and
Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who told him of a " purported FBI report establishing that Seth Rich
sent emails to WikiLeaks ." ..."
"... Hersh also told Butowsky that the DNC made up the Russian hacking story as a disinformation campaign – directly pointing a
finger at former CIA director (and now MSNBC/NBC contributor ) John Brennan as the architect. ..."
As rumors swirl that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is
preparing a case against Russians who are alleged to have hacked Democrats during the 2016 election -- a conclusion based solely
on the analysis of cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike, a Friday op-ed in the
Washington Times by retired
U.S. Navy admiral James A. Lyons, Jr. asks a simple, yet monumentally significant question: Why haven't Congressional Investigators
or Special Counsel Robert Mueller addressed the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich - who multiple people have claimed was Wikileaks'
source of emails leaked during the 2016 U.S. presidential election?
Mueller has been incredibly thorough in his ongoing investigations -- however he won't even respond to Kim Dotcom, the New
Zealand entrepreneur who
clearly knew about the hacked emails long before they were released, claims that Seth Rich obtained them with a
memory
stick , and has offered to provide proof to the Special Counsel investigation.
On May 18, 2017, Dotcom proposed that if Congress includes the Seth Rich investigation in their Russia probe, he would provide
written testimony with evidence that Seth Rich was WikiLeaks' source.
In addition to several odd facts surrounding Rich's still unsolved murder - which officials have deemed a "botched robbery,"
forensic technical evidence has emerged which contradicts the Crowdstrike report. The Irvine, CA company
partially
funded by Google , was the
only
entity allowed to analyze the DNC servers in relation to claims of election hacking:
Notably, Crowdstrike has been considered by many to be discredited over their revision and retraction of a report over Russian
hacking of Ukrainian military equipment - a report which the government of Ukraine said was fake news.
In connection with the emergence in some media reports which stated that the alleged "80% howitzer D-30 Armed Forces of Ukraine
removed through scrapping Russian Ukrainian hackers software gunners," Land Forces Command of the Armed Forces of Ukraine informs
that the said information is incorrect .
Ministry of Defence of Ukraine asks journalists to publish only verified information received from the competent official sources.
Spreading false information leads to increased social tension in society and undermines public confidence in the Armed Forces
of Ukraine. –mil.gov.ua (translated) (1.6.2017)
In fact, several respected journalists have cast serious doubt on CrowdStrike's report on the DNC servers:
Pay attention, because Mueller is likely to use the Crowdstrike report to support the rumored upcoming charges against Russian
hackers.
Also notable is that Crowdstrike founder and anti-Putin Russian expat Dimitri Alperovitch sits on the Atlantic Council - which
is funded by the US State Department, NATO, Latvia, Lithuania, and
Ukranian Oligarch Victor Pinchuk.
Who else is on the Atlantic Council?
Evelyn Farkas - who slipped up during an MSNBC interview with Mika Brzezinski and disclosed that the Obama administration had
been spying on the Trump campaign:
The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff dealing with Russians, that they would try
to compromise those sources and methods , meaning we would not longer have access to that intelligence. - Evelyn Farkas
Odd facts surrounding the murder of Seth Rich
"The facts that we know of in the murder of the DNC staffer, Seth Rich, was that he was gunned down blocks from his home on
July 10, 2016. Washington Metro police detectives claim that Mr. Rich was a robbery victim, which is strange since after being shot
twice in the back, he was still wearing a $2,000 gold necklace and watch. He still had his wallet, key and phone. Clearly, he was
not a victim of robbery, " writes Lyons.
Another unexplained fact muddying the Rich case is that of a stolen 40 caliber Glock 22 handguns stolen from an FBI agent's
car the same day Rich was murdered. D.C. Metro police said that the theft occurred between 5 and 7 a.m., while the FBI said two weeks
later that the theft had occurred between Midnight and 2 a.m. - fueling speculation that the FBI gun was used in Rich's murder.
Furthermore, two men working with the Rich family - private investigator and former D.C. Police detective Rod Wheeler and family
acquaintance Ed Butowsky, have previously stated that Rich had contacts with WikiLeaks before his death.
"According to Ed Butowsky, an acquaintance of the family, in his discussions with Joel and Mary Rich, they confirmed that their
son transmitted the DNC emails to Wikileaks ," writes Lyons.
While Wheeler initially told TV station Fox5 that proof of Rich's contact with WikiLeaks lies on the murdered IT staffer's laptop,
he later walked
the claim back - though he maintained that there was "some communication between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks."
Wheeler also claimed in recently leaked audio that Seth Rich's
brother, Aaron – a Northrup Grumman employee, blocked him from looking at Seth's computer and stonewalled his investigation.
Wheeler said that brother Aaron Rich tried to block Wheeler from looking at Seth's computer, even though there could be evidence
on it. "He said no, he said I have his computer, meaning him," Wheeler said. "I said, well can I look at it? He said, what are
you looking for? I said anything that could indicate if Seth was having problems with someone. He said no, I already checked it.
Don't worry about it."
Aaron also blocked Wheeler from finding out about who was at a party Seth attended the night of the murder.
"All I want you to do is work on the botched robbery theory and that's it," Aaron told Wheeler -
Big League Politics
Perhaps the most stunning audio evidence, however, comes from leaked audio of a recorded conversation between Ed Butowsky
and Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who told him of a " purported FBI report establishing that Seth
Rich sent emails to WikiLeaks ."
As transcribed and exclusively reported on by journalist Cassandra Fairbanks last year:
What the report says is that some time in late Spring he makes contact with WikiLeaks, that's in his computer," he says. "
Anyway, they found what he had done is that he had submitted a series of documents -- of emails, of juicy emails, from the DNC."
Hersh explains that it was unclear how the negotiations went, but that WikiLeaks did obtain access to a password protected
DropBox where Rich had put the files.
" All I know is that he offered a sample, an extensive sample, I'm sure dozens of emails, and said 'I want money.' Later, WikiLeaks
did get the password, he had a DropBox, a protected DropBox," he said. They got access to the DropBox."
Hersh also states that Rich had concerns about something happening to him, and had
"The word was passed, according to the NSA report, he also shared this DropBox with a couple of friends, so that 'if anything
happens to me it's not going to solve your problems,'" he added. "WikiLeaks got access before he was killed."
Brennan and Russian disinformation
Hersh also told Butowsky that the DNC made up the Russian hacking story as a disinformation campaign – directly pointing a
finger at former CIA director (and now
MSNBC/NBC contributor
) John Brennan as the architect.
I have a narrative of how that whole f*cking thing began. It's a Brennan operation, it was an American disinformation , and
the fu*kin' President, at one point, they even started telling the press – they were backfeeding the Press, the head of the NSA
was going and telling the press, fu*king c*cksucker Rogers, was telling the press that we even know who in the Russian military
intelligence service leaked it.
(full transcription here and extended audio of the Hersh conversation
here )
Hersh denied that he told Butowsky anything before the leaked audio emerged , telling NPR " I hear gossip [Butowsky] took two
and two and made 45 out of it. "
Technical Evidence
As we mentioned last week, Dotcom's assertion is backed up by an analysis done last year by a researcher who goes by the name
Forensicator , who determined that the DNC files were copied at
22.6 MB/s - a speed virtually impossible to achieve from halfway around the world, much less over a local network - yet a speed
typical of file transfers to a memory stick.
The big hint
Last but not least, let's not forget that Julian Assange heavily implied Seth Rich was a source:
Given that a) the Russian hacking narrative hinges on Crowdstrikes's questionable reporting , and b) a mountain of evidence pointing
to Seth Rich as the source of the leaked emails - it stands to reason that Congressional investigators and Special Counsel Robert
Mueller should at minimum explore these leads.
As retired U.S. Navy admiral James A. Lyons, Jr. asks: why aren't they?
Something all of us here already know, if Mueller gets away from the delusion of Trump-Russia collusion then it will be his
ass in the frying pan. So he won't go after the Clintons, Obama, Comey or anyone else. Hitlery could show up with a gun in her
hand and tell Mueller she shot Seth and he would ignore it.
And, sadly, there ain't nobody gonna do anything about it unless and until a Special Prosecutor from outside DC is hired. Right
now a snowball in hell has a better chance.
Why don't the Democrats scream about the exploitation of his murder against them like they do with every minor accusation? It's as if they want his death to disappear from the public view...wonder why?
I think it is mostly because they know so much of their world hangs in the secrecy. If they let the Seth Rich story get out,
the Uranium One story gets out. If the Uranium One story gets out, the Awans' stolen cars with diplomatic cover for guns to Syria
in return for heroin to America comes out. If that story comes out, then the ISI Pakistani doctors with fake medical degrees pushing
pharma opiods in America comes out. And finally, Pizzagate, Pedogate, call it what you want, it comes out too. And then all of
these dirty sons of bitches go to jail.
And that's why you aren't hearing any of it. Especially from Mueller. I think he got hoodwinked too. They sold him this job
as a slam dunk to get Trump out of the White House. It really is the shits when the best laid plans of mice go south.
One of Trumps big problems is that as an outsider he did not have people both qualified and loyal to appoint to critical offices
in the deep state. That is why he wound up with a cipher like Sessions, a guy naive and gullible enough to believe the justice
department was filled with honorable and trustworthy people or at least men who played by some set of rules. Having found out
the hard way that he screwed up Trump is groping for a way out, trying to use a knife in a gun fight. The other side is too ruthless
and i suspect they will take him down in the end.
"All I know is that he offered a sample, an extensive sample, I'm sure dozens of emails, and said 'I want money.'
Later, WikiLeaks did get the password, he had a DropBox, a protected DropBox," he said. They got access to the
DropBox."
Why has no one followed the money on this yet? This introduces an interesting angle - did Seth Rich get paid by WikiLeaks?
And if so, can we find evidence of the payoff? How did he afford his expensive watch and necklace?
Report a crime, yet don't allow law enforcement access to evidence to help them solve the case.
Sounds like a case in Illinois. A 1 1/2 year old went missing, yet the parent wouldn't let the authorities search the house.
I don't remember if there was a warrant or what finally happened that the police were allowed to search the home, but they did,
and found the baby, dead, under the sofa.
The other key is Rod Rosenstein's post-indictment presser. At the very end, he gave away the game by admitting there was no
collusion, no Americans were involved, and nothing allegedly done by the Russians affected the election's outcome. BOOM. Stick
a fork in Mueller's ham sandwich indictment.
The one bit of evidence that pushes me over from the possible to probably is the gun, what are the odds of this gun being stolen
from the FBI, not just some random joe, but the FBI themselves. If that was the same gun used in the murder than the odds of it
happening to turn up immediately in a robbery where nothing was stolen in an area where no one commits crimes is so small as to
be near zero. It is vague above, what do ballistics say?
If Trump really wants to drain his swamp then this would be the way in, however if they did murder Seth then they'll murder
Trump's family too so he is neutralized unless they can go in and get everyone involved in one go. Otherwise I'd expect the job
to be handed over to someone ready to die, thinking here a retired general/admiral with no family might be the one to do it.
If Kushner was/is involved with such risky staff, why he tried to join Trump administration. It does not requires any IQ
to understand that he will be the target and that knife are out to depose Trump. In view of color revolution against Trump the
best strategy would be to stay in NYC. You need to be squeaky clean to work for him.
Notable quotes:
"... A spokeswoman for the Kushner Cos, Christine Taylor, said "We have not received a copy of any letter from the New York State Department of Financial Services," adding "Our company is a multi-billion enterprise that is extremely financially strong. Prior to our CEO voluntarily resigning to serve our country, we never had any type of inquiries. These type of inquiries appear to be harassment solely for political reasons. " ..."
"... Kushner's family business, the Kushner Companies, has had longstanding financial troubles related to 666 Fifth Avenue, "the most expensive building ever purchased", in New York City. ..."
"... After Kushner bought the Fifth Avenue property in late 2006 for $1.8 billion - with zero skin in the game coming from Kushner, the building came under intense pressure during the financial crisis. Vornado Realty Trust stepped in with financing in exchange for a 49.5% stake in the building, which is now carrying over $1.4 billion in debt according to a March release by Vornado ..."
"... While Jared has separated himself from his family's business and placed assets in a trust, he has fallen into the crosshairs of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Of interest are discussions between Kushner and Chinese investors during the transition, according to sources familiar with the investigation. Kushner met with executives of troubled Chinese conglomerate Anbang Insurance which was recently taken over by China's insurance regulator. Talks between Kushner and Anbang's chairman, Wu Xiaohui, broke down in March 2017, according to the New York Times . ..."
"... Also of interest to Mueller are Kushner's dealings with a Qatari investor over the 666 property, for which Kusher reportedly sought financing from former Prime Minister Jassim Al Thani, according to The Intercept. The discussion apparently went nowhere , similar to the Anbang deal. ..."
"... Dovetailing off of the reports of Kushner's meetings to shore up his finances, the Washington Post reported this week that officials from at least four countries - China, Israel, Mexico and the United Arab Emirates have explored ways to manipulate Kushner by taking advantage of his "complex business arrangements, financial difficulties and lack of foreign policy experience." The story cited current and former US intelligence officials - and noted that it is unclear on whether the cited countries took any action. ..."
"... Kushner is absolute scum, but how come he gets the treatment and not the Clinton foundation ..."
"... Back door attack. The inlaws, the sacred family structure. Eventually trump is going down. ..."
"... They will stop at nothing. They already committed treasonous crimes. ..."
"... They are the majority within gov.org. top to bottom -- Trump is fighting a completely stacked deck of swamp cards. They have no fear of the law. Look at every step they have taken. Look at the reactions. deflection, non-action. Behind the scenes the deals have been made-they will take down Trump ..."
"... If any dirt is found it wasn't an issue worthy of the integrity of the FBI before Kushner gained political office. So the FBI is only discrediting their felonious selves, past and politicized, craven present. ..."
"... Trump's example proved that it is pointless trying to go there and fight them alone. There needs to be a (new) party behind the individual, otherwise one does not stand a chance. ..."
"... Kushner has been systematically targeted by allies and foes alike because he has no foreign diplomacy expertise and they know he can be manipulated. Manipulated due to ignorance and arrogance. The worst kind of manipulation! ..."
"... You don't get unsecured lines from banks anymore unless you are GOD. Not personally. It may be that the company got one, but if Jared got one something funky is going on. ..."
"... NYCB is a garbage bank. They are essentially a 1980s S&L running a book of long maturity multi family loans and funding with purchased CD's in the overnight - 90 day market. (DISCLOSURE: I have been and will be short this stock). As the Fed tightens and the curve flattens, their margins go to shit. They did well in the free money QE world, but their game has been over for a while. They rely on credit underwriting to avoid adding defaults to the litany of woes this environment brings. In fact, taking no credit risk has been their hallmark for years. They generally don't do office or mixed use lending. That they would be making an unsecured line to Kushner is BIZARRE. ..."
"... I would be surprised if DJT is involved in anything illegal in his business. The guy knows how to bend the rules, but risking his great life to launder money for a bunch of Russians?? Just don't see it. Running for the Presidency with skeletons would be suicide, and he knows that. You don't want the antiseptic light of justice shining on the roaches if you've done something not nice. ..."
"... It may be Kushner is as dirty as they come. God knows his Dad is a piece of detritus. I know DJT as a crass vulgarian, with a genius for the common weal and leveraging off OPM. But stupid felon? Not buying it. ..."
"... Thank goodness the FBI and Justice have all the Democrat/Clinton crimes solved so they can dispense equal Justice to the Republicans ..."
After losing his
top secret security clearance and reportedly falling under intense scrutiny by Robert Mueller's probe, the New York Department
of Financial Services has asked Deutsche Bank two local lenders for information about their dealings with Jared Kushner, the Kushner
companies and his family , according to
Bloomberg .
Letters were sent by department superintendent Maria Vullo to Deutsche Bank, Signature Bank and New York Community Bank last week,
said a person who had seen the letter which seeks a response by March 5. Vullo was appointed by New York's Democratic governor, Andrew
Cuomo.
The requested information is broad, and include the banks' processes for approving loans.
Vullo requested copies of emails and other communications between the Kushners and the banks related to financing requests
that have been denied or are pending. She also asked whether the banks have conducted any internal reviews of the Kushners and
their companies and the results of any such inquiries revealed.
The most detailed information about the Kushners' finances can be found in their government disclosures. The couple had unsecured
lines of credit of $5 million to $25 million each from Deutsche Bank, Signature Bank and New York Community Bank according to
a late December filing.
Deutsche Bank's line of credit was extended to Kushner and his mother; lines from the other two banks were extended to Kushner
and his father. Signature Bank also extended a secured line of credit to the couple of $1 million to $5 million, according to
the disclosure. - Bloomberg
A spokeswoman for the Kushner Cos, Christine Taylor, said "We have not received a copy of any letter from the New York State Department
of Financial Services," adding "Our company is a multi-billion enterprise that is extremely financially strong. Prior to our CEO
voluntarily resigning to serve our country, we never had any type of inquiries. These type of inquiries appear to be harassment solely
for political reasons. "
Kushner's family business, the Kushner Companies, has had longstanding financial troubles related to 666 Fifth Avenue, "the most
expensive building ever purchased", in New York City.
After Kushner bought the Fifth Avenue property in late 2006 for $1.8 billion - with zero skin in the game coming from Kushner,
the building came under intense pressure during the financial crisis. Vornado Realty Trust stepped in with financing in exchange
for a 49.5% stake in the building, which is now carrying over $1.4 billion in debt according to a March release by Vornado.
While Jared has separated himself from his family's business and placed assets in a trust, he has fallen into the crosshairs of
Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Of interest are discussions between Kushner and Chinese investors during the transition, according
to sources familiar with the investigation. Kushner met with executives of
troubled Chinese conglomerate Anbang Insurance which was recently taken over by China's insurance regulator. Talks between Kushner
and Anbang's chairman, Wu Xiaohui, broke down in March 2017, according to the
New York Times .
Also of interest to Mueller are Kushner's dealings with a Qatari investor over the 666 property, for which Kusher reportedly sought
financing from former Prime Minister Jassim Al Thani, according to The Intercept. The discussion
apparently went nowhere , similar to the Anbang deal.
Kushner in the crosshairs
Dovetailing off of the reports of Kushner's meetings to shore up his finances, the Washington Post reported this week that officials
from at least four countries - China, Israel, Mexico and the United Arab Emirates have explored ways to manipulate Kushner by taking
advantage of his "complex business arrangements, financial difficulties and lack of foreign policy experience." The story cited current
and former US intelligence officials - and noted that it is unclear on whether the cited countries took any action.
Meanwhile, the presidential son-in-law's security clearance was downgraded from "Top Secret/SCI-level" to "secret" this week,
walling him off from the most sensitive information.
Many had expected that Trump would grant Kushner a waiver, even though Trump himself said Friday that he would let
Chief of Staff
John Kelly decide if such an exception should be granted. In a statement issued last week, Kelly said that any changes to Kushner's
security clearance wouldn't impact his ability to do his job:
"As I told Jared days ago, I have full confidence in his ability to continue performing his duties in his foreign policy portfolio
including overseeing our Israeli-Palestinian peace effort and serving as an integral part of our relationship with Mexico," Kelly
said in the statement.
At the end of the day, unless Kushner or his company broke the law, it appears that this entire exercise is meant to embarrass
the president's son-in-law over his troubled 666 property.
Kushner is absolute scum, but how come he gets the treatment and not the Clinton foundation..... .yeah I know but how in your
face are they going to get... wait dont answer that
Trump, the first US President with two Jewish children
, beholden to the money power
of the US establishment (i.e.,
Jewish
money ) that supported his presidential bid (or
bought the presidency for
him), is making the Israeli dream of stealing Jerusalem and the whole of Palestine a reality; especially since
he owes
Jewish investment banks hundreds of millions of dollars, which can be easily written off the books if certain conditions are met.
"I have determined that it is time to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel," Trump
said .
In one fell swoop, Donald Trump overturned decades of
international
consensus and laws. He also ignored recorded history: Jerusalem was
NEVER the capital of even ancient Israel.
Furthermore, he constantly and nonchalantly overlooks the fact that Israel today is an inhumane,
apartheid
country that uses its carte blanche from the US to do as it pleases in the Middle East. It
oppresses the Palestinians,
treats them like
caged animals , and spreads
chaos in the region regardless of how it affects the peace of the world.
The reason is because the Jews control
the
Federal Reserve , the real center of power in the United States or the
money power of the establishment
(i.e.,
Jewish
money ). In turn, the Fed
wags
every other financial institution in America, and consequently ends up being the
root cause of all
of America's economic ills.
Trump's Jewish Entourage
Not even Trump
, who supposedly wants to "make America great again," dares mention the need to dismantle the Fed. Worse, he drools every
time he talks about
Apartheid
Israel , not unlike every other American politician.
The anti-Christ spirit of
hate
thy neighbor , which revs up the engine of the state of Israel and that of its Prime Minister, seems to fire up Trump's motor
as well with his loathing of
immigrants , especially
of his Mexican neighbors. He and Netanyahu are two peas in a pod – both arrogant, haughty, and supercilious narcissists.
"Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall." Proverbs 16:18
Back door attack. The inlaws, the sacred family structure. Eventually trump is going down.
They will stop at nothing. They already committed treasonous crimes. All the righteous types just don't get it, they are being
played to heighten the drama and division.. they don't give a shit.
They are the majority within gov.org. top to bottom -- Trump is
fighting a completely stacked deck of swamp cards. They have no fear of the law. Look at every step they have taken. Look at the
reactions. deflection, non-action. Behind the scenes the deals have been made-they will take down Trump.
If any dirt is found it wasn't an issue worthy of the integrity of the FBI before Kushner gained political office. So the FBI
is only discrediting their felonious selves, past and politicized, craven present.
Remember WACO. Remember Ruby Ridge. Remember 911. Remember Lynch. Remember DACA. Remember Obama stealing from Freddie and Fannie.
Remember all the government assistance programs you are paying for, that you are not eligible for because of the color of your
skin, that you had no say in. Nice work, FBI.
Trump's example proved that it is pointless trying to go there and fight them alone. There needs to be a (new) party behind
the individual, otherwise one does not stand a chance.
Kushner has been systematically targeted by allies and foes alike because he has no foreign diplomacy expertise and they
know he can be manipulated. Manipulated due to ignorance and arrogance. The worst kind of manipulation!
How much of the loot from the US taxpayer did Deutche get from the "bailout"? The credibility of their organized bankster cartel
is lower than that of a belarus hooker in jail in Thailand, because they practice fraud professionally. The FBI is an active enemy
of the United States. The masks are coming off.
"The Knives Are Out For Kushner: Loans With Deutsche Under Scrutiny By Regulator"
Will this be the catalyst for Trump to fire Muler's sorry-ass or does he just become more defensive every day about taking
action and hope the issue will just sort itself out?
I too would continue unabated like a crazy man until stopped, if I were Muler.
Kushner wants a security clearance? They get to ream, steam and dry clean his ass. This is no game. Now, it just so happens
I ran one of the biggest commercial real estate shops on the Street. I have been in the market recently for a major developer.
5-10X the size of Kushner. You don't get unsecured lines from banks anymore unless you are GOD. Not personally. It may be
that the company got one, but if Jared got one something funky is going on.
You see, on a secured credit line, the bank only has to reserve about 4-8% of the limit as a capital charge. That allows them
to operate at about 12X leverage. If they are charging LIBOR + 300 for the line, and they fund art LIBOR-50, and the line is fully
drawn (no bank wants a line that isn't utilized, that's why they charge non-utilization fees), their 350BP spread translates into
a nice ~35% ROE. That's good business. On an unsecured line, there is a 100 % capital charge. That's a 3.5% ROE. That sucks balls.
I have literally had a major bank walk away from an unsecured $50mm line when it would have given them the inside track for
a $800 million loan they could securitize and make a quick and easy $25 million on. The regulatory headache and capital charges
just made it a non-starter.
NYCB is a garbage bank. They are essentially a 1980s S&L running a book of long maturity multi family loans and funding
with purchased CD's in the overnight - 90 day market. (DISCLOSURE: I have been and will be short this stock). As the Fed tightens
and the curve flattens, their margins go to shit. They did well in the free money QE world, but their game has been over for a
while. They rely on credit underwriting to avoid adding defaults to the litany of woes this environment brings. In fact, taking
no credit risk has been their hallmark for years. They generally don't do office or mixed use lending. That they would be making
an unsecured line to Kushner is BIZARRE.
If I were working for Mueller, I would be very curious about this stuff, too. If they called me, I would give them a list of
things to look for. Something sounds screwy. Either the reporter has the details wrong, or something IS wrong.
I would be surprised if DJT is involved in anything illegal in his business. The guy knows how to bend the rules, but risking
his great life to launder money for a bunch of Russians?? Just don't see it. Running for the Presidency with skeletons would be
suicide, and he knows that. You don't want the antiseptic light of justice shining on the roaches if you've done something not
nice.
It may be Kushner is as dirty as they come. God knows his Dad is a piece of detritus. I know DJT as a crass vulgarian, with
a genius for the common weal and leveraging off OPM. But stupid felon? Not buying it.
" Democracy is not under stress – it's under aggressive attack, as
unconstrained financial greed overrides public accountability ."
I request a lessatorium* on the term 'democracy', because there aren't any democracies.
Rather than redefine the term, why not use a more accurate one, like 'plutocracy', or
'corporatocracy'.
-- -- -- -
* It's like a moratorium, you just do less of it.
"... But not only did Rosenstein discuss with Trump the firing of Comey, he went back to Justice to produce the document to justify what the president had decided to do. ..."
"... How can Rosenstein oversee Mueller's investigation into the firing of James Comey when he was a witness to and a participant in the firing of James Comey? ..."
The most plausible hypothesis is that Steele was simply telling Fusion and the DNC what they wanted to hear to collect the money.
When you go on a witch hunt you're going to find witches.
From the Nunes memo, there was, at the highest level of the FBI, a cabal determined to derail Trump and elect Clinton. Heading
the cabal was Comey, who made the call to exonerate Hillary of criminal charges for imperiling national security secrets, even before
his own FBI investigation was concluded.
Assisting Comey was Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife, running for a Virginia state senate seat, received a windfall of
$467,000 in contributions from Clinton bundler Terry McAuliffe.
Last week, McCabe was discharged from the FBI. Seems that in late September 2016, he learned from his New York field office that
it was sitting on a trove of emails between Anthony Weiner and his wife, Clinton aide Huma Abedin, which potentially contained security
secrets.
Not until late October did Comey inform Congress of what deputy McCabe had known a month earlier.
Other FBI plotters were Peter Strzok, chief investigator in both the Clinton email server scandal and Russiagate, and his FBI
girlfriend, Lisa Page. Both were ousted from the Mueller investigation when their anti-Trump bias and behavior were exposed last
summer.
Filling out the starting five was Bruce Ohr, associate deputy attorney general under Loretta Lynch. In 2016, Ohr's wife was working
for Fusion GPS, the oppo research arm of the Clinton campaign, and Bruce was in direct contact with Steele.
Now virtually all of this went down before Robert Mueller was named special counsel. But the poisoned roots of the Russiagate
investigation and the bristling hostility of the investigators to Trump must cast a cloud of suspicion over whatever charges Mueller
will bring.
Now another head may be about to fall, that of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
If Mueller has given up trying to prove Trump collusion with the Kremlin and moved on to obstruction of justice charges, Rosenstein
moves into the crosshairs.
For the heart of any obstruction scenario is Trump's firing of James Comey and his boasting about why he did it.
But not only did Rosenstein discuss with Trump the firing of Comey, he went back to Justice to produce the document to justify
what the president had decided to do.
How can Rosenstein oversee Mueller's investigation into the firing of James Comey when he was a witness to and a participant in
the firing of James Comey?
The Roman poet Juvenal's question comes to mind. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will watch the watchmen?
Consider where we are. Mueller is investigating alleged Trump collusion with Russia, and the White House is all lawyered up.
The House intel committee is investigating Clinton-FBI collusion to defeat Trump and break his presidency. FBI Inspector General
Michael Horowitz is looking into whether the fix was in to give Hillary a pass in the probe of her email server.
Comey has been fired, his deputy McCabe removed, his chief investigator Strzok ousted by Mueller for bigoted anti-Trump behavior,
alongside his FBI paramour, Page. Bruce Ohr has been demoted for colluding with Steele, who was caught lying to the FBI and fired,
and for his wife's role in Fusion GPS, which was being paid to dig up dirt on Trump for Clinton's campaign
If Americans are losing confidence in the FBI, whose fault is that? Is there not evidence that a hubristic cadre at the apex of
the FBI -- Comey, McCabe, Strzok foremost among them -- decided the Republic must be saved from Trump and, should Hillary fail, they
would step in and move to abort the Trump presidency at birth?
To the deep state, the higher interests of the American people almost always coincide with their own.
a hubristic cadre at the apex of the FBI -- Comey, McCabe, Strzok foremost among them -- decided the Republic must be saved
from Trump and, should Hillary fail, they would step in and move to abort the Trump presidency at birth?
Beautifully written article Mr. Buchanan
To the deep state, the higher interests of the American people almost always coincide with their own.
What it always looks like to me, is that the interests of the deep state never coincide with the actual interests of
the American people, and that indeed, they are mutually incompatible.
It seems to me that one of, if not the main motivation of the deep state is to dismantle the American people's Constitutional
rights, disarm then, and set about creating an Orwellian dystopia for the purpose of exerting total power over them.
Who doubts that Hillary's very grotesque existence is one big collective desire of a certain bent of people to wield total
power over others? Why else would she publically cackle at the torture/murder of a man she disliked unless she figured her audience
agreed that his murder was a good thing, and that once she came to power, that she's really get to the business of putting it
to those deplorables but good! Not for anything they ever did, but for what they were – irredeemable.
In fact, I see the deep state today as an exact incarnation of Orwell's Ingsoc, with it's total surveillance police state,
and all the other tyrannical state power abuses over every aspect of our lives. (Even with the ubiquitous televisions with the
microphones and cameras monitored by the Ministry of Love)
we have the Newspeak speech codes on our universities. The places where our young and brightest are supposed to be taught to
think, and they're doing the opposite- by creating mindless drones who parrot doubleplus good PC bromides.
we have the Eternal Wars
we have the ((inner party))
we have the two minute hate for the Hitler du jour, (Osama, Saddam, Gadhafi, Assad, now Putin )
we have the Ministry of Truth = msm fake news 24/7 lies and more lies
we have the Ministry of Love = Gitmo
we have the all pervasive fear that governs our conversations and alters our behavior. How many dare to discuss the
inner party at dinner parties or at work? How many dare to flout the speech codes?
1984 was the most prescient book ever written, with a nod to The Protocols, as runner up. And the deep state today is nothing
more than what Orwell was writing about. Men and women who seek power for its own sake. And have a deep-seated imperative to wield
that power over others.
That's what the memo is about. Power-crazed assholes hell bent on putting their boot on our collective faces. And mashing it
in.
who doubts, for one second, that John Brenan
(or Hillary or John McCain ) would relish the opportunity to put the metaphorical 'deplorable' in this chair?
for some reason, when I look at that photo, (a peek into the id of the deep state personality) I see Ron Paul in that chair,
with Rudy Giuliani standing there, but it could just as easily be Edward Snowden in the chair, with Dick Cheney presiding..
But the reason I'm belaboring this Orwellian theme is because it is quintessentially salient to this subject of the deep state.
George really laid it all out for us, with the motivations and methods and thoughtcrimes and doublethink and all the rest
"George really laid it all out for us, with the motivations and methods and thoughtcrimes and doublethink and all the rest
"
True enough, but it was Huxley who nailed the underlying theme that made it all possible; the people will trade all of their
other rights for complete sexual freedom.
Orwell's 1984 was an exposition of Totalitarianism, with the Inner Party using these mechanisms because they work. Like you
say, the whole package is now present in the US, although the Inner Party doesn't yet have sufficient power to use full state
violence against the public.
But at some point they'll have to , since the system is based on the implicit threat of violence against dissidents, and it
has to become explicit (social exclusion is not enough). So, realistically, the cabal needs a National Emergency with an official
suspension of Democracy, probably using the framework for emergency rule already in place under Reagan era COG (Continuity of
Government) legislation.
The 9/11 Coup was a failed attempt to activate a COG dictatorship under Cheney (halted by the events in Florida that morning),
but the same planners will inevitably try again. Their private security depends on public insecurity, allowing them to turn the
mechanisms of state power against the public, while paradoxically, they live by the integrity of this same hijacked state structure.
If the state should melt away in generalized anarchy, then the levers of power would no longer work, and they would face the
fate of Ceausescu or Gaddafi – hence the deceptive Doublespeak of the "Patriot Act" and "Homeland Security".
I'm not following this story much because it's boring but I will always be a fan of Nunes by the enemies he keeps. Ana Navarro,
the 'Latina' battle-axe who is a 'Never Trump' 'Republitard' was on TV and made sure to let everybody know that Nunes was not
an Hispanic. He's of Portugese decent, racial politics. LOL Devin Nunes is ok in my book. Hopefully he's not an Israeli firster.
Your information is wrong as always, Corvinky. The leftist "Russian collusion" narrative is collapsing and (((Seth))) and other
lefties are desperate to keep it alive with spin and fake facts. That's why it's quietly changed from claims of collusion to obstruction
of justice since there's no evidence of the former.
If there was other corroborating evidence then why absolutely no mention of it until now? If the (((lamestream media))) knew
and sat on it then they are colluding with the Democrat party on how and what to report which we already know they do. And it
proves that the (((media)) is hyper partisan and not independent but anyone with half a brain already knows that also.
If there was really any evidence of Trump collusion the NSA would have it, but they don't. In fact, it was the NSA that threatened
to spill the beans on the origins of the Steele dossier if the FBI and DOJ failed did not come clean to the FISA court.
San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore. "Science is our best witness in this case. It is not biased and it doesn't lie."
According to police, Zahau bound her own hands and feet with a thick red rope and hanged herself naked off the second-floor
balcony of a guest bedroom. She appeared to have secured one section of the rope to the footboard of the bed before she bound
her feet, wrapped the rope around her neck, tied her hands behind her back, walked to the balcony, and propelled herself over
the railing.
indeed, I suspect that it is because they so often get away with such things that this mega-wealthy Hollywood insider figured
he'd also get away with it.
"Well, then," he said to the police, "I guess you'll have to find out who did it."
Doesn't work that way in a criminal investigation. Man, you really have little clue how our legal system works.
Obviously, you don't either. As someone who was against the Clinton witch hunt that created a perjury trap when they couldn't
get him on real charges related to Whitewater, I can see perfectly well that this is similar – drag this on and on until they
can create some process crime.
There's now a mountain of evidence that shows that they are lying, and the only way for US society to stabilize, is to pull
every thread of the 9/11 shroud until the whole rotten enterprise is revealed, and the US public can see the plotters in daylight.
[Robert] Mueller took over the FBI one week before the 9/11 attacks
His protestations helped the Bush administration railroad the Patriot Act through Congress, vastly expanding the FBI's prerogatives
to vacuum up Americans' personal information
whoever pulls down the "Democratic" facade will be doing the US a favour.
not just the US. They'll be doing the whole planet a favor. 9/11 has been the pretext for serial wars of aggression against
nations that have done us no harm. It has been used as the pretext for the total police / surveillance state that has eviscerated
our constitution, and rendered it a worthless piece of toilet paper, all to the bovine cud-chewing apathy of the dumbed down Americanus
Bovinus. Who can't wait for the next Hollywood movie based on cartoon characters to come out on the big screen.
I was poised to leave this country if Hillary became potus, and still wonder if there's any hope at all.
These psychopaths are as bad as they get. These Straussian neocons and tribalist Jewish supremacists are bad news, man. Very,
very bad news. They're ideologically driven by a Satanic imperative to dominate, and they will never, ever stop. Until
they are stopped. And that would require a resolve that the Americanus Bovinus is endemically incapable of, because it necessitates
a spiritual mettle that's been systematically bred out of them.
They'd rather embrace their smart device chains, than suffer the egregious enormity of breaking a societal taboo or politically
correct norm. And this has all been very systematically constructed with schools that dumb them down, and universities that create
slavish fealty to virtue signaling uber alles.
It's all so very tragic, because for one thing, these people had it made! They're the most wealthy and powerful demographic
in the country. They enjoy assess and perks wildly out of proportion to their fellow Americans. But that is not enough! Then want
that boot on everyone's neck and they want it now, God damn it!
So the world is driven to the brink to sate an insatiable appetite for grandiose megalomaniacal power. And once they have the
power, what fun is that unless you use it?
George Soros doesn't want his son to see the fall of Europa and Western civilization, HE wants to see it! He wants to cackle
like Hillary was able to over the murder of Gadhafi, only he want the stake though the heart of Hungary in particular.
It's this psychotic need of these people to see everyone else suffer, while they laugh at the misery, knowing that they caused
it all. Whether it's in Palestine or Libya or Ferguson. Hate all day long, and with a bottomless pit of rancor and bile tossed
in for good measure.
Hell, when I contemplate them and their obsession to hate, all day, every day, I almost feel pity. Almost.
hatred of Trump is such that a huge slice of the country would support his removal by extralegal, unconstitutional means.
This is bigger than Watergate, a conspiracy at the highest levels, and before it's over, will decide the fate of the nation.
I just hope Trump is up to the task.
I very much agree.
I know of liberals who're despondent, and nearly catatonic over Trump. I've heard it said they're psychologically in the fetal
position, unable to cope with the ascendancy of Les Deplorables. Or, more precisely, the altering trajectory that doesn't have
a demographic dagger being plunged into the necks of 'the irredeemables' and their children as we speak.
They've been so rapturous over the looming evisceration of heritage America for so long, that having to wait a few more extra
years until that glorious day when the 'patriarchy' is dead and in its grave- is existential for them. Of course! they'd subvert
our 'democracy' and Constitution and all notions of decency in their butt-hurt quest, since they've never had a shred of integrity
to begin with. They don't even know what the word means, except as something to mock.
I wonder why when I replace Mueller with Starr in your post I seem to get the same conclusion?
However, I will give you this, Mueller is a POS protecting the Deep State against somebody he deems not worthy of a seat at
the table. Starr was a sanctimonious POS thinking he was leading a crusade to keep an uncouth lowbrow sleazeball out of an exalted
position.
However, I would suggest that some in the cabal have understood, all along, that in order for their dreams and plans to materialize,
there would have to be a Long March through the institutions and while they were conquering the institutions, the masses would
have to be given their breads and circuses.
A fellow traveler of our cause once said to me, words to the effect that, "they'll let you go on your football trips, and they'll
let the drunks enjoy their Budweiser, and of course they'll let people go to the movies and out to dinner."
"... The FBI was investigating Secretary Clinton personally for specific statutory crimes regarding the mishandling of highly classified national security information. ..."
"... As early as 2009, the National Archives contacted the State Department regarding Clinton's violation of record-keeping procedures. This was not disclosed to the public. ..."
"... It was discovered in early 2015 that Clinton had used this private server exclusively for State Department business. Further revelations reported in the press indicated it was an insecure server prone to hacks, and the State Department IG concluded that Clinton would never have been approved for such a setup had she requested it, and failed to follow all established security and record-keeping rules. ..."
"... I agree that the FBI was "investigating" Hillary Clinton in connection with her email (in continuation of an investigation that existed before she threw her hat into the ring). I haven't heard any evidence that they were wiretapping her campaign operatives or conducting surveillance on her campaign. ..."
"... It just doesn't work, even if we assume there was no actual evidence that she did naughty things with email, which we all know she did. ..."
"It was the Clinton investigation that was made public to the electorate right before the election, right?"
Wrong on this point. The FBI was investigating Secretary Clinton personally for specific statutory crimes regarding the
mishandling of highly classified national security information.
As early as 2009, the National Archives contacted the State Department regarding Clinton's violation of record-keeping
procedures. This was not disclosed to the public.
At the end of her tenure in 2012, a FOIA request was filed seeking access to Clinton's government email correspondence. In
2013, it was reported that no records pertaining to the request could be found.
In 2014, State Department lawyers first noticed emails from Clinton's private account, while reviewing documents for the Benghazi
investigation. By the end of the year, Clinton's lawyers had negotiated handing over about half of her total email correspondence
stored on her private server.
It was discovered in early 2015 that Clinton had used this private server exclusively for State Department business. Further
revelations reported in the press indicated it was an insecure server prone to hacks, and the State Department IG concluded that
Clinton would never have been approved for such a setup had she requested it, and failed to follow all established security and
record-keeping rules.
This was all in the news well before the election, and Clinton's team slow-walked and stone-walled the entire time. To say
they were asking for a criminal investigation is an understatement.
She really only had herself to blame for all this, you know?
I appreciate your comment. I agree that the FBI was "investigating" Hillary Clinton in connection with her email (in continuation
of an investigation that existed before she threw her hat into the ring). I haven't heard any evidence that they were wiretapping
her campaign operatives or conducting surveillance on her campaign.
It just doesn't work, even if we assume there was no actual evidence that she did naughty things with email, which we all
know she did.
The point is, if you're commitment to partisan baloney allows you to squint at the Democratic Party's Putinization of the FBI,
enjoy your police state. I'm sure you'll make the enemies list sooner or later.
[I recognize people really hate Trump, and there are many legitimate reasons why he is really hateful. But are you going to
embrace police state tactics just to bring down Trump?
I think people who do are damn fools.]
Wow, the fact that they are talking about talking points to Comey to brief Obama is the big cookie. Obama's legacy is destroyed
completely.
That implements Comey and Obama as traitors. Why does Comey keep tweeting shit? Dude should be lawyering up and perhaps thinking
about getting out of the country.
Hey, Dems? Do we have a Constitutional Crisis yet? LOL at these fuckers.
The best defense is a strong offense. For Comey this worked for a while but I think those days are over. If he was smart he
would lawyer up and shut the fuck up.
Clinton emails found on September 28 and Comey didn't know until October 28, who believes that load of crap.
As soon as I heard in 2007 that the NY Times couldn't find anyone at Columbia who knew Obama,I knew something was up.Columbia
seems to be the default college for frauds with Van Doren,"Dr."Bob Harris,and Meadow Soprano.
. . .yeah and I recall the professor of Political Science who said: never saw him and I knew EVERY student who studied Poli-sci.
It is impossible that I would not have known him. -- or words to that effect.
Lisa Page wrote her lover Peter Strzok about the Clinton probe: Obama 'wants to know everything we're doing'
Obama had said he could 'guarantee' he wouldn't interfere and there would be 'no political influence' in the FBI investigation
The September 2, 2016 text message was among more 50,000 texts the pair sent during a two-year extramarital affair
Page was an FBI lawyer, and Strzok was a leading investigator on both the Clinton probe and the more recent Trump-Russia investigation
Strzok, though expected to be nonpartisan, also called Trump 'a f***ing idiot' and texted Page about a cryptic 'insurance
policy' against a Trump presidency
'NEW FBI TEXTS ARE BOMBSHELLS!' President Trump tweeted on Wednesday
An FBI lawyer wrote in a text to her lover in late 2016 that then-president
Barack Obama wanted updates on the
Hillary Clinton email investigation.
Two months before the presidential election, Lisa Page wrote to fellow FBI official Peter Strzok that she was working on a memo
for then-FBI director James Comey because Obama 'wants to know everything we're doing.'
Obama had said five months earlier during a Fox News Channel interview that he could 'guarantee' he wouldn't interfere with that
investigation.
'I do not talk to the attorney general about pending investigations. I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations.
We have a strict line,' he said on April 10, 2016.
'I guarantee it. I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department or
the FBI, not just in this case but in any case. Full stop. Period,' he said.' --> --> -->
The September 2, 2016 text message was among more 50,000 texts the pair sent during a two-year extramarital affair.
Fox News was first to report on the latest batch, which is to be released by Republicans on the Senate Homeland Security Committee.
The committee members will soon publish a report titled 'The Clinton Email Scandal and the FBI's Investigation of it.'
President Donald Trump tweeted on Wednesday: 'NEW FBI TEXTS ARE BOMBSHELLS!'
Comey testified to Congress in June 2017: 'As FBI director I interacted with President Obama. I spoke only twice in three years,
and didn't document it.'
He didn't address possible memos or other written reports he may have sent to the Obama White House.
But Comey did document his 2017 meetings with President Donald Trump, he said, because he feared Trump would interfere with the
Russia probe.
Strzok was the lead investigator on the probe examining Clinton's illicit use of a private email server to handle her official
State Department messages while she was America's top diplomat.
He was later a member of special counsel Robert Mueller's team investigating alleged links betwen Donald Trump's presidential
campaign and Russia.
Comey was to give Obama an update on the Clinton email investigation before the 2016 election, according to Page; he testified
before Congress in 2017 that he only spoke to Obama twice as FBI director – but didn't mention whether he had sent him written reports
Comey announced in July 2016 that he had cleared Clinton of criminal wrongdoing in the email probe, saying that 'we did not find
clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information.'
On October 28, 2016, Comey said in a letter to Congress that the FBI was reviewing new emails related to Clinton's tenure as secretary
of State.
That revelation threw the presidential election into chaos.
On November 6, 2016, Comey told lawmakers that a review of those newly discovered emails had not altered the agency's view that
Clinton should not face criminal charges.
The text messages between Page and Strzok that emerged earlier showed their hatred for Donald Trump.
In August 2016 Strzok wrote to her that he wanted to believe 'that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take
that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40.' --> --> -->
It's unclear what that 'insurance policy' was, but the Justice Department was at the time debating an approach to a federal court
for a surveillance warrant against Trump adviser Carter Page.
Strzok was elevated to overseeing the Trump Russia probe a month earlier.
In a text sent on October 20, 2016, Strzok called the Republican presidential nominee a 'f***ing idiot.'
On Election Day, Page wrote to him: 'OMG THIS IS F***ING TERRIFYING.'
Strzok replied, 'Omg, I am so depressed.'
Five days later, Page texted him again: 'I bought all the president's men. Figure I need to brush up on watergate.'
New text messages between FBI lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page have now been made public, and,
as The
Duran's Alex Christoforou notes , the big reveal is that then-POTUS Barack Obama appears to be in the loop, on the whole 'destroy
Trump' insurance plan hatched by upper management at the FBI.
Page wrote to Strzok on Sept. 2, 2016 about prepping Comey because "potus wants to know everything we're doing." Senate investigators
told Fox News this text raises questions about Obama's personal involvement in the Clinton email investigation.
...Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., along with majority staff from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee,
is releasing the texts, along with a report titled, "The Clinton Email Scandal and the FBI's Investigation of it."
The newly uncovered texts reveal a bit more about the timing of the discovery of "hundreds of thousands" of emails on former
congressman Anthony Weiner's laptop, ultimately leading to Comey's infamous letter to Congress just days before the 2016 presidential
election.
On Sept. 28, 2016 Strzok wrote to Page, "Got called up to Andy's [McCabe] earlier.. hundreds of thousands of emails turned
over by Weiner's atty to sdny [Southern District of New York], includes a ton of material from spouse [Huma Abedin]. Sending team
up tomorrow to review this will never end." Senate investigators told Fox News this text message raises questions about when FBI
officials learned of emails relevant to the Hillary Clinton email investigation on the laptop belonging to Weiner, the husband
to Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
It was a full month later, on Oct. 28, 2016 when Comey informed Congress that, "Due to recent developments," the FBI was reopening
its Clinton email investigation.
"In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.
I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday " Comey said at the time.
The question becomes why Comey was only informed by his investigative team on Oct. 27, if the Clinton emails on Weiner's laptop
were discovered by Sept. 28, at the latest.
The point of this is IF phone numbers and addresses got leaked, can other contents, like some of the compromising emails not
find their way to the surface as well, or any other sensitive material stored there...? Was this leak a warning or a prelude to
something bigger coming...?
Hey stupid fuck...this is no longer about who did or did not win the election.
This is about the FBI knowingly using false evidence to try and take down a legally elected president...and now we are learning
that it was endorsed not just by the Hillary campaign but now Obama apparently wanted to be kept in the know.
If this does not literally make you shake with anger or fear that our democracy has been 100% compromised simply because its
the 'red team' being targeted, then please just hop a fucking boat now to some shithole country that the liberals love so much
and get that much needed dose of reality about what this means.
Actually shivura has a point. I have always wondered why did Comey make reopening HRC's investigation public even as they made
sure the investigations did not go anywhere. It is not as if they were driven to uphold propriety in all of their other actions.
Why break so many rules in trying to save her and get her elected, and then inform everyone just before the elections that Weiner's
laptop had HRC emails. It adds sleaze to the mix, and to HRC by association. You can argue that HRC needs no help in that department,
but I am sure some people had a visceral reaction of revulsion on hearing HRC emails were on the laptop with other stuff.
Clinton spent about 1.1 BILLION dollars, had FISA Title 1 surveillance on Trump, full deep sate, globalist, swamp, backing,
was given debate questions in advance, full support of entire main stream media, election rigging in her favor and she STILL LOST?
The first time I knew Obama was directly involved was when it was discovered, thanks to wikileaks, Obama was sending emails
through Clinton's home server USING AN ALIAS. They all knew she was breaking the law, yet they protected her from prosecution
and then colluded to get her elected, using scores of illegal activities to do it. This is so bad they might not be able to do
anything about it, as it encompasses so many deep state agencies and actors. There may not be enough loyal Americans in DC to
uphold the law.
They apparently don't. Hearing from William Binney about how the technical means works means it is a system nearly impossible
to prevent abuses. Mr. Trump: Tear down the Utah data center.
I had suspected that the tarmac meeting was Lynch unmasking Seth Rich to the Clinton's. This revelation about a SC nomination
doesn't preclude that she fingered Rich. Somebody did, and he was 'made an example of'.
Looks like the trap has snapped shut and many conspirators are caught including Obama. Is there now any doubt that the elimination
of 4th amendment protections after 9/11 has been a disaster?
"It was set up by the FBI and when they realized how totally illegal it was they just handed it over to Clapper and Brennan.
.. Barry Oked The scam transfer, I suspect so that he could use it too.
It was/is used for one thing. .. To build blackmail 'Control Files' on thousands if not millions of Americans. ... An Extortion
Tool. .. NOTHING legal about it."
You've just explained in two sentences the entire Criminal, Treasonous, Seditious Intelligence Operation of our lifetime. Same
spying tactics used decades by MI6 / British Intelligence. Only difference being, it's the first of its kind "Information Highway"
Spy Ring utilizing an expanded Surveillance Infrastructure.
This entire Criminal Deep State Intelligence Operation was data mining formuling the first of its kind Parallel Construction
Case consisting of a Criminal Deep State CIA, FBI, DOJ Scripted False Narrative / PsyOp With the objective ousting a sitting President
via a soft coup.
Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Psychopath at Large George Bush Jr. instituted the Criminal Surveillance infrastructure.
Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath at Large Barack Obama expanded it exponentially.
However, Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths Obama, Clinton, their minions Brennan & Clapper along with
GCHQ used the intelligence apparatus to go after their political enemies.
Well, we're getting some transparency with the release of the new batch of texts. We weren't supposed to, but we have. "Transparency"
advocates will take our small victories when/where we get them.
Key point to me: Some people at least are circling around the bigger bombshell story - the effort to protect Hillary from the
"email server story." The story (for me) is NOT that the Russian government somehow "colluded" with the Trump campaign to get
Trump elected. It is instead that members of the "Deep State" colluded with one another to make sure Hillary got elected.
I think the MSM has been pushing the "Russiagate" angle to keep attention off the real story. That is, the press "colluded"
with those who worked so hard to get Hillary elected.
Now, we'll the press belatedly do its job and give the "Watergate treatment" to this real story? Eight ball says, "No way,
Jose."
" House Republicans are demanding to know why Justice Department officials entered into a
pair of "side agreement" with Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson -- two of Hillary Clinton's
top former aides who went on to become her personal attorneys during the FBI's email
investigation -- that allowed law enforcement agents to destroy their laptops after searching
their hard drives for evidence. "
In a letter from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte to Attorney General
Loretta Lynch on Monday, Goodlatte questioned why the destruction of the laptops used to sort
Clinton's emails was included in immunity deals that already protected Mills and Samuelson
from prosecution based on the records recovered from their computers.
it shoudl be apparent that female libtard socialist demoNrat lawyers think that they can
gain immunity from any FBI probe - dildo shaped or otherwise.
Jesus Christ. You Trumptard circus clowns just won't give up.
Go on, indulge me. Tell who and when these plotters are going to prison?
The comedy value listening to you retards giving so many wrong predictions is worth
reading ZH, just by itself.
Obummer, Killary et al are never going to see judgment. Never. Stop the fucking delusions
and projection. It's gone past being funny, worthy of ridicule. It's becoming obsessive to
the point of sounding foolish.
The big players won't go down. I do suspect that Strzok just may be indicted for
conspiracy. Could even rise a little higher. There's almost no doubt that the Obama "legacy"
will definitely get a good shellacking.
I agree we are at war with a 5th column. This much as been clear since 1913 and I would
argue going back before the Napoleonic wars.
The problem as is usually in these dire times is the chronic inability for so many people
to identify the real enemy.
Cunt's like Obummer are merely conduits and facilitators for the 5th column to work
through.
My anger is way past Obummer and Trump. These cunts have senior managers they report to.
It is the rooting out of that upper management and above that needs to take place.
"It was the Clinton investigation that was made public to the electorate right before the
election, right?"
Wrong on this point. The FBI was investigating Secretary Clinton personally for specific
statutory crimes regarding the mishandling of highly classified national security
information.
As early as 2009, the National Archives contacted the State Department regarding Clinton's
violation of record-keeping procedures. This was not disclosed to the public.
At the end of her tenure in 2012, a FOIA request was filed seeking access to Clinton's
government email correspondence. In 2013, it was reported that no records pertaining to the
request could be found.
In 2014, State Department lawyers first noticed emails from Clinton's private account,
while reviewing documents for the Benghazi investigation. By the end of the year, Clinton's
lawyers had negotiated handing over about half of her total email correspondence stored on
her private server.
It was discovered in early 2015 that Clinton had used this private server exclusively for
State Department business. Further revelations reported in the press indicated it was an
insecure server prone to hacks, and the State Department IG concluded that Clinton would
never have been approved for such a setup had she requested it, and failed to follow all
established security and record-keeping rules.
This was all in the news well before the election, and Clinton's team slow-walked and
stone-walled the entire time. To say they were asking for a criminal investigation is an
understatement.
She really only had herself to blame for all this, you know?
"... I think the MSM has been pushing the "Russiagate" angle to keep attention off the real story. That is, the press "colluded" with those who worked so hard to get Hillary elected. ..."
"... Yes, makes sense. When pressed against the wall the best tactic is to create chaos. Create friction between two polarized sides and keep driving that wedge into the middle to drive them further apart. ..."
"... Chaos is the ultimate distraction. War is the ultimate chaos. We are at war. However they want you to believe that the enemy is a left or right ideology. It is not. The enemy is lawlessness, and those who seem to be above the law. The Deep State is the enemy. ..."
Well, we're getting some transparency with the release of the new batch of texts. We weren't supposed to, but we have. "Transparency"
advocates will take our small victories when/where we get them.
Key point to me: Some people at least are circling around the bigger bombshell story - the effort to protect Hillary from the
"email server story." The story (for me) is NOT that the Russian government somehow "colluded" with the Trump campaign to get
Trump elected. It is instead that members of the "Deep State" colluded with one another to make sure Hillary got elected.
I think the MSM has been pushing the "Russiagate" angle to keep attention off the real story. That is, the press "colluded"
with those who worked so hard to get Hillary elected.
Now, we'll the press belatedly do its job and give the "Watergate treatment" to this real story? Eight ball says, "No way,
Jose."
Yes, makes sense. When pressed against the wall the best tactic
is to create chaos. Create friction between two polarized sides and
keep driving that wedge into the middle to drive them further apart.
Chaos is the ultimate distraction. War is the ultimate chaos. We
are at war. However they want you to believe that the enemy is a
left or right ideology. It is not. The enemy is lawlessness, and
those who seem to be above the law. The Deep State is the enemy.
Don't fall for the left or right fight. We all have much more in
common than that which might set us apart.
It is chaos they want. In order to reset things under a new
order.
Centralization is the real issue and problem. Centralized
organizations are fragile and easy to co-opt. Distributed systems
are very difficult to take over. The U.S. constitution was
originally set up as a distributed system of systems with each
contributing to the larger system as a whole. The system as a
whole was only supposed to serve those that were part of the
system, not directing them. However it no longer functions in
this manner as the Federal system has long since been co-oped and
has taken over via. a command control / director function of the
whole. Originally it was set up to be only a check in the balance
of the whole feedback loop system, and a small but important one
at that. The Federal entity was originally set up only to ensure
that each state followed the U.S. constitution that they agreed
upon. Each state in the U.S. still has it's own constitution.
Each state can still choose at any point to secede from the U.S.
if the people within that state choose to do so.
If you want to take something over, the most efficient way is
to centralize the power structure then co-opt the exec. functions.
The CIA has long since perfected the subversion tactics to do
just this.
It is not uncommon for secret societies to have higher orders
within those societies. The masonic order has served as a
template for many other secret societies to include most
college fraternities. Every mason is a member of the blue
lodge, but every mason is not a York Rite or Scottish Rite Shriner.
Within the CIA there may very well be another
organization that none of us have ever heard of that runs the
show. Like any other organization, it must have a mechanism
for pulling in new members to replace the elders when they die
off.
Are we going to get a smoking memo on the FBI's investigation of Hillary's email?
Remember,
none of this would be happening without her private server and mishandled classified info.
Her candidacy should have been ended early on. The FBI's investigation seemed nonstandard to
say the least.
Much of what followed may be doubling down on and covering up earlier crimes.
p-brane
1 year ago
It
sounds like they are conversing with a computer generated voice program like Satnav. I keep expecting her to say
"OVERLOAD.... OVERLOAD... NEED TO REBOOT... MAKE A LEFT AT THE NEXT STREET... MAKE A RIGHT AT THE NEXT CORNER... and then a
bunch of smoke comes out of her ears and she shuts down...
51
Woyam Chny
1 year ago
Loretta Lynch dwells in the deepest part of the swamp where the water is most stagnant and foul!
149
Mylan Miller
1 year ago
This woman just makes her self look stupid, she cant even answer the simplest question. She is making her self
look real guilty or dumb! She didn't get the job for her intelligence she is there because she is a willing sheep.
President Trump has called for the release of the FISA abuse memo which reportedly lists
abuses by the DoJ/FBI,
The Washington Post reported Saturday. The DoJ warned against its release until they have
had a chance to look it over. This is the same DoJ/FBI that is stonewalling and withholding
information from Congress.
Trump reportedly told Attorney General Jeff Sessions through Chief of Staff John Kelly that
he wants to see the memo released, believing that it will shed light on the special counsel
investigation.
The decision rests with the House Intelligence Committee overseen by Chair Devin Nunes who
has said he wants to release them as early as Monday.
Consider what is now known of how Comey and the FBI set about ensuring Hillary Clinton would
not be indicted for using a private email server to transmit national security secrets. The
first draft of Comey's statement calling for no indictment was prepared before 17 witnesses,
and Hillary, were even interviewed. Comey's initial draft charged Clinton with "gross
negligence," the requirement for indictment. But his team softened that charge in subsequent
drafts to read, "extreme carelessness."
Attorney General Loretta Lynch, among others, appears to have known in advance an
exoneration of Clinton was baked in the cake. Yet Comey testified otherwise.
Also edited out of Comey's statement was that Hillary, while abroad, communicated with
then-President Obama, who had to see that her message came through a private server. Yet Obama
told the nation he only learned Hillary had been using a private server at the same time the
public did.
A trial of Hillary would have meant Obama in the witness chair being asked, "What did you
know, sir, and when did you know it?"
"... This is HUGE. And it shows that the FBI and DOJ cannot be trusted to return documents. They cannot be trusted to redact properly. In fact, I hate to say this, but they simply cannot be trusted. The top ends – anybody involved with this stuff – needs to be replaced with people who actually follow rules. And that doesn't even get to "spirit of the law", which has to be a really difficult concept for these people. ..."
"... The more i see these texts, the more I think the "insurance policy" is a cya program designed to protect Strozk from being the fall guy in the e-mail investigation. ..."
"... Peter Strozk is President of AFGRO, a CIA front National Security non profit Agency To Facilitate The Growth Of Rural Organizations, Afgro 410 Sugar Pine Drive, Pinehurst, NC 28374 NC 1986-06 $0 http://www.nonprofitfacts.com/VA/Agency-To-Facilitate-The-Growth-Of-Rural-Organizations.html#similarList_a ..."
"... How do the bad guys react to that? Panic, increase texts, comms with each other. Do you think they are being surveilled at this point? The memo serves the purpose of beating the bushes to move the prey into the open. We will get there. ..."
"... I'm sure Jim, Trisha, Dave and Mike all appreciate you mentioning them in this text, and how they are conspiring to hide themselves and their evil deeds from the light. Thanks, Peter! ..."
"... "The 302's are the specific FBI forms used to document interviews/interrogations. They detail questions asked and answers given as well as who was present during the interview." ..."
What FBI Agent Peter Strzok is admitting in the September 10th text message, is that there are details within the interview of
Hillary Clinton that he (and others) intentionally withheld from the September 2nd, 2016, release.
Specifically, evidence withheld in the 302's would be some of the FBI questions and some of the Hillary Clinton answers to those
questions. In essence, the FBI held back actually releasing the full account of the interview.
According to the Strzok text message, the reason for withholding some of the details of the Hillary Clinton interview is because
there are "very INFLAMMATORY things" within it; and once congress finds out what was withheld the details will "absolutely
inflame" them.
Peter Strzok then goes on to say when/if the full FOIA is released, presumably post-election, Jim, Trisha, Dave and Mike are going
to have to figure out how to deal with the discrepancy:
"I'm sure Jim and Trisha and Dave and Mike are all considering how things like that will play out as they talk among themselves."
"Jim" is likely James Baker , the Chief Legal Counsel for FBI Director James Comey .
"Trish" is likely Trisha Beth Anderson , Office of Legal Counsel for the FBI. [Anderson was hired for the DOJ, by AG Eric Holder,
from Eric Holder's law firm.]
"Dave" and "Mike" currently remain unknown.
So it would appear, James Baker and Trisha Anderson, the legal advisers at the top of the FBI leadership apparatus, were both
aware the September 2nd, 2016, FOIA release was manipulated to conceal part of Hillary Clinton's questions and answers.
Perhaps now we can better understand the importance of this specific text message as it
was released by House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte.
This message by Strzok shows a team of FBI officials intentionally conspiring to withhold "inflammatory" Clinton investigation
evidence, from congress. And the decision-making goes directly to the very top leadership within the FBI.
... ... ...
Peter Strzok justifies his knowledge of the intentionally withheld 302 interview material by claiming: "because they weren't relevant
to understanding the focus of the investigation". However, to evaluate the filter this investigative team are applying we only need
to look at the wording of
their public release which accompanied the material:
Today the FBI is releasing a summary of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's July 2, 2016 interview with the FBI concerning
allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal e-mail server she used during her tenure.
(
link )
They felt obligated only to release information about "classified" or "improperly stored or transmitted" information. That's a
rather disingenuous investigation.
There's no mention of any FBI intent to investigate action or conduct undertaken by Hillary Clinton or her team to hide the use
of classified or improperly stored information; or any intent to look at a cover-up, scrubbing, or conduct that happened AFTER it
was discovered that she unlawfully used a personal e-mail server during her tenure.
We can see from the wording of the FBI public release, and the overlay of the text message from interviewer Peter Strzok, a deliberate
effort to inquire into only the surface issues of classified information transmission and storage. There was no investigative intent
to go beyond that, and no information released, intentionally, that might disclose any larger issues.
If the FBI was legitimately conducting an investigation, and providing the subsequent evidence from within that investigation,
the FOIA would include all material relevant to the investigation, which would include all 302 (essentially Q&A) pages. However,
the set of questions and answers the FBI released on Sept. 2nd 2016 was not the full set of Questions and Answers. They withheld
something, likely "inflammatory", per FBI Agent Strzok. FBI Agent Peter Strzok is outlining in this text message a deliberate intent
to shape the Clinton interview, and then a deliberative process of filtering out only those aspects of the interview that would support
their pre-determined outcome, delivered only days later.
Additionally, FBI Agent Strzok is admitting that a group of FBI officials including himself, James Baker, Trisha Anderson, Lisa
Page, and likely others (McCabe, Comey) conspired together to intentionally withhold information -derived from this interview- from
congress and the American people.
Being briefed on how to handle classified material
How many times she used her authority to designate items classified
Any briefing on how to handle very top-secret "Special Access Program" material
How to select a target for a drone strike
How the data from her mobile devices was destroyed when she switched devices
The number of times her staff was given a secure phone
Why she didn't get a secure Blackberry
Receiving any emails she thought should not be on the private system
Did not remember giving staff direction to create private email account
Getting guidance from state on email policy
Who had access to her Blackberry account
The process for deleting her emails
Ever getting a message that her storage was almost full
Anyone besides Huma Abedin being offered an account on the private server
Being sent information on state government private emails being hacked
Receiving cable on State Dept personnel securing personal email accounts
Receiving cable on Bryan Pagliano upgrading her server
Using an iPad mini
An Oct. 13, 2012, email on Egypt with Clinton pal Sidney Blumenthal
Jacob Sullivan using personal email
State Department protocol for confirming classified information in media reports
Every briefing she received after suffering concussions
Being notified of a FOIA request on Dec. 11, 2012
Being read out of her clearance
Any further access to her private email account from her State Department tenure after switching to her HRC office.com account.
Secretary Clinton could not recall when she received her security clearance or whether it was carried over from her time in the
Senate. She also could not recall any briefing or training by the State Department "related to the retention of federal records or
the handling of classified information."
Secretary Clinton said she was briefed on Special Access Programs -- the top-level classification of U.S. intelligence -- but
could not recall the specific training or briefings on how to handle that information. Additional discoveries from September 2016:
DISCOVERY ONE : Clinton Deleted Her Private Email Archive "A Few Weeks After The New York Times Disclosed" The
Private Server. Viser Tweet: "A few weeks after the NYT disclosed that Hillary Clinton had a private email account, her archive inbox
was deleted." ( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY TWO : Clinton Did Not Know The (C) Mark Meant Classified And Did Not "Pay Attention To Diff Classification Levels."
Seitz-Wald Tweet: "Clinton said she didn't know what (c) mark meant, didn't pay attn to diff classification levels, treated all srsly."
( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY THREE : "There Were 17,448 Work-Related Emails That Clinton Didn't Turn Over To The State Inspector General."
( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY FOUR : As Secretary Of State Clinton "Had 13 Mobile Devices And 5 iPads" With Her Private Email. Viser Tweet:
"Hillary Clinton, who said she had her private email for convenience, had 13 mobile devices and 5 iPads, according to FBI." (
Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY FIVE : Clinton's Lawyers Could Not Locate The Mobile Devices With Her Email Address.. Viser Tweet: 'FBI found
13 total mobile devices associated with Clinton's 2 phone numbers. Her lawyers couldn't locate the devices" (
Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY SIX : "The FBI Determined That Clinton Brought Her Blackberry Into A Secure Area At State, Which Is Prohibited."
( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY SEVEN : Clinton's Email Archive Was Transferred Onto A Personal Gmail Address To Help Archive The Records. Zapotosky
Tweet: "In 2014, in an effort to transfer an archive of Clinton emails from a laptop onto a server, someone used a personal Gmail
address to help" ( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY EIGHT : Clinton Deleted Her Emails Because She Thought "She Didn't Need Them Anymore." Cilizza Tweet: 'Clinton
told the FBI she deleted her emails because she didn't need them anymore not to avoid FOIA"(
Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY NINE : Someone Tried To Hack Into Clinton's iCloud Account. Viser Tweet: "The FBI found that someone was trying
to hack into Hillary Clinton's iCloud account. They were unsuccessful." (
Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY TEN : "Hillary Clinton Sent Out An Email To All State Employees Warning Them Against Using Personal Email Addresses."
( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
BONUS DISCOVERY : "The Phrase 'Could Not Recall' Or 'Did Not Recall' Appears 27 Times In Hillary Clinton FBI Interview
Transcript." ( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
Sundance broke the case. This is it. They FORMED the response to hide ALL THAT WAS NEEDED TO BE HIDDEN. And they didn't just wheedle
around the edge of responsiveness (which is utterly repellent but "legal") – they actually over-specified their response (a form
of weaponized bullsh*tting) to NOT RETURN RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS.
This is HUGE. And it shows that the FBI and DOJ cannot be trusted to return documents. They cannot be trusted to redact
properly. In fact, I hate to say this, but they simply cannot be trusted. The top ends – anybody involved with this stuff – needs
to be replaced with people who actually follow rules. And that doesn't even get to "spirit of the law", which has to be a really
difficult concept for these people.
The Clinton email investigation in my mind is far more important than even the Foundation because it ties it right back to BHO
and the 20 emails he has held onto because he claimed Executive Privilege. The fact that his POS Library will not have any paper
archives tells me they cannot ever have them seen by the public. The problem for both POS is that the case has been reopened with
a review occurring by the current head of the DOJ and FBI and if any charges are brought forward, Barry's Executive Privilege
goes out the window. Love the fact Don Jr. is pushing it!
"Wow. This is all so evil and corrupt. I am afraid that normal people who have not been following this closely as we all have
will just not believe it because it is so so bad."
__________________
They won't have a choice, it will be a paradigm-shifting event (like DJT winning the election was).
They will not be able to 'avoid' the 'reality' because that reality will impact and influence everything going forward. The
only way to remain in denial will be to hide on an island, like a Japanese soldier from WWII apparently did for quite a while
after the war ended.
Very, very few people will be able to take that route
For those who desperately don't want to believe the plain truth about these horrifically evil people they have looked up to
for so long, it may seem like the therapy treatment in A Clockwork Orange (sans Ludwig Von Bethoven's Ninth symphony),
but believe it they will!
This is exactly right. And this is just the FBI. We also know the State Department was corrupt and intertwined in protecting Clinton
and the assets of the Clinton Foundation. These employees are repugnant, and so are the media who covered for all of this mess.
Maybe, though, this is now breaking through -- between the online diligence of Sundance, WikiLeaks, the never-give-up heroes
at Judicial Watch, President Trump and his Cabinet, and every patriotic commenter/blogger/reporter, certain folks in Congress
now seem to be getting this message.
HRC is clearly not as ignorant as her I-don't-remember responses indicate. She knew nearly everything that needed to be destroyed,
and she was clearly able to remember a comprehensive attorney provided list of items not to remember during her interview.
I just realized something today. We see the bizarre hypocrisy in the CIC Forum meltdown that Hillary had, where Matt Lauer
says "So judgment is key." and Hillary responds "Temperament and judgment." – POINTEDLY – but THEN she goes into a jaw-dropping
rant about Lauer behind the scenes, even calling Donna Brazile a "buffalo". The absolute opposite of a "good" temperament.
However, that hypocrisy is FULLY intended. She is FIXING stuff with lies. It's what she does. Do what she wants, toward a hidden
goal, and fix it with lies.
She is NOT ignorant – EVEN of her own faults, flaws, and dangers. She KNOWS she is everything she accuses Trump of falsely.
Think how evil that is. It is EYES WIDE OPEN evil. Not delusional. She knows exactly what she's doing.
Cookstoves again, but this revelation is interesting. Cookstoves initiative wasn't even launched yet! So, what was she up to in
Jakarta? "One former Diplomatic Security agent, for example, told FBI investigators that Clinton "blatantly" disregarded State
Department security protocols while she was secretary of state. The former agent alleged that Clinton would ride to foreign diplomatic
functions with top aide Huma Abedin, instead of the local ambassador, which the agent said violated normal procedure and embarrassed
and insulted the ambassadors.
The former agent also said that on an early 2009 trip to Jakarta, Indonesia, Clinton insisted on visiting a troubled area to
promote a clean-cookstoves initiative, despite a request from Diplomatic Security that the visit be scrapped for safety concerns.
The agent said Diplomatic Security officials thought the trip placed staff, security and even reporters in danger, all for a photo
opportunity "for her election campaign." https://www.pressherald.com/2016/10/17/fbi-pressured-to-change-classification-of-about-email/
But a case case can even be made for intent- strong enough it should have been brought before a grand jury. Hillary was told she
shouldn't have a classified blackberry like Obama, emails about just remove the headers, destroying emails, not following state
dept policy and procedures, having the maid go in the scif all sorts of evidence of intent.
The FBI narrowed the investigation such that the handling classified material was never investigated. That's a favorite trick
of investigators – narrow what is being investigated to particular issues.
Katica's stuff was the beginning of sunlight on what the FBI was intentionally missing, with "Stonetear". This showed that the
Clinton people were engaged in altering evidence, which is SUPPOSED to be a big deal. Then add ALL the likely culprits getting
immunity, but NOTHING that would be worth immunity coming out. The whole thing is a beautiful logic exercise in letting her off.
It's designed opaqueness. If they basically make it impossible for any straight line to make it through all their small wickets
of "allowed" evidence, in the end NOTHING GETS THROUGH.
The rules about "no public charges near an election" is clearly a weaponized fallacy. THAT must end. It's very, very obvious
how the subverting forces used that one. Again – they fight the sunlight. Darkness is their primary weapon.
Latest over on Yo Who is that state dept (and perhaps other) employees are in "career purgatory" in positions they aren't suited
for. I commented that is definitely an interesting way of putting it. Like Bruce, Nellie, Peter (how's that HR working for you?).
I think you raised the idea in an earlier post that maybe these two were not having an affair. Maybe, maybe not. But, thinking
about these I suspect some of these on Strozk. He knew this was an FBI phone and these would be archived. These messages were part
of his insurance policy. I suspect he planted information in various spots implicating higher ups. Why else would he send a text
like this. If he was having an affair, why wouldn't he just tell Lisa Page this when they get together. Digging in to this text alone
develops a trail to very specific information and actions. He is saying they intentionally withheld information, establishing intent
for the parties involved.
The more i see these texts, the more I think the "insurance policy" is a cya program designed to protect Strozk from being the
fall guy in the e-mail investigation. If trump wins, he knows that all the info about how they manipulated the e-mail investigation
is going to come out. I dont know if this insurance policy was just a set of passive crumbs, or involved the active use of the dossier.
The dossier could just be the leverage used against trump to get him to overlook all the illegal surveillance and drop everything.
Interesting. Even if he just did it subconsciously, I think you're right. If Hillary wins, the "inflammatory" text doesn't matter.
If Trump wins, it shows "redeeming consciousness of guilt", where he is essentially proving it wasn't his idea.
That's why I keep going back to this being the possible reason they are still on the payroll. The government white hats
have much more leverage over current employees than they do over former employees.
Niagra Frontier: But Page and Strzok (why couldn't his name be Smith so I don't have to keep looking it up) .would know
that it is easier to control them if they stay employed and would want out unless they were given something, immunity,
perhaps. Right? As far as covering your a.. in the emails, absolutely. Most white collar career people know how to cover
themselves in emails and especially lawyers-those in the public arena and in politics. It's a given.
Last Night if I read you right you were picking up on something I think you described it as the Texts almost having a Psy-Ops
feel to it (please correct me if i misinterpret). Perhaps No Ones premise is what you were picking up on the bread crumb feel
of it.
One other possibility that plays in to that theory is Strzok reassuring Page that no one can get the text messages, thereby
giving the breadcrumbs more value.
Another possibility since I believe we have only seen her listed as outbox is that he took defensive measures and she did
not or screwed it up
I hope for once the Clinton "patsies" 1. remain alive and 2. roll over on the Queen.
Seth Richards deserved better, but should have also known better than to work for the Clinton Cartel.
Thank you. I'm glad I saw your comment. I thought the style and wording of Strozk's text is unnatural, as if he's deliberately
leaving clues/evidence or, as you said, cya.
I' m wondering why only the texts between Deep Strozk and Page are being released. What triggered that investigation into them
in the first place? You don't blindly look at FBI agents phones.
"FISA" is a JOKE employed to pacify the sheeples. All that is needed is access to a NSA "inquiry" terminal. Contractors, like
Snowden, and Feral Gov. employees can then retrieve any digital data ever transmitted by whatever mean on anyone, no warrant,
no Fisa, no nothing. Over 100,000 people have this access. Welcome to the USSA, Comrades. ( No disrespect to Russia intended)
Here's a snippet from the text messages that I haven't seen addressed anywhere. Strzok was instructed by Bill to send 2 of his best
agents to work on the Hillary/email investigation. Strozk is worried that the DOJ will have more power and that no one will be there
to guide the investigation in a desired direction. He doesn't like the idea of Laufman (DOJ) "inserting himself" into the investigation.
He tells Page that "..he [BillPreistap?] didn't mean "best" in terms of agents "but what the best outcome" will be.
To me, Strozk
is saying here that Bill Priestap wanted Strzok to work toward the exoneration of HRC. To do this, Strzok thinks he needs to be there,
too, either as one of the two agents or alongside the 2 agents representing the FBI. But that would mean 3 agents, instead of the
usual 2. Page says that they shouldn't go full bore and tells Strzok to insist on having only 2 agents.
She then reminds him that
a future President HRC won't remember or care which side was more heavily stacked. In other words, all that mattered to any of these
people-including HRC -- was bringing a desired outcome.
From reading these texts several times, it is obvious to me that Peter Strzok had been tasked with making sure that HRC skated.
I think someone offered him some kind of future reward -- probably a career promotion on top of the promotion/position his wife received
at SEC.
He expressed a desire to Page to receive credit and recognition for various things. While discussing the option of joining
Mueller's team, he expressed dismay that he wouldn't be receiving any promotions from "Dad" -- whoever that is/was.
In other words, there
was nothing in it for HIM and besides, there was "no there, there." In 2016, he knew his superiors (Priestap, McCabe, and probably
Comey) also wanted to exonerate Clinton.
He was frustrated because they weren't letting him in on their decisions and yet they expected
him to do the dirty work behind the scenes. He knew as early as February 2016 that he was the one who stood to lose the most if their
shenanigans didn't work out-if HRC wasn't exonerated. But it didn't stop with her exoneration because in order to claim his (or their)
promised reward and keep their corruption hidden, they then had to make sure she won the election.
They had to destroy Donald Trump.
When that didn't work, they used their insurance policy (the dossier). The Russia investigation and Sessions' recusal has provided
cover and bought them time to destroy evidence, etc. I am encouraged by the fact that neither of them were enthusiastic about working
for Mueller. It implies that Mueller might not be a black hat. So far, nothing in the texts tells me that Strzok and Page considered
Mueller to be a member of "their team."
The fate and direction of our whole country was subjected to the selfish goals of a few unelected, ambitious bureaucrats. That's
just scary. It was God's hand that brought the election of POTUS Trump in spite of all of their tricks.
I hope Peter Strzok is indicted and that he squeals to high heaven. He can be depended on to serve his own best interests -- in all
situations. That's why they chose him. They saw he was willing to do anything for power and prestige. And he would have gotten it,
too, if it hadn't been for those damn Trump supporters.
He's more like a key anchor point to a very large evil web. He was a precisely placed anchor long ago!!
He has always manipulated every situation or events, to what he wanted. He became a true narcissist that thought he was untouchable.
Texting openly for years with no issues.
Truthfilter said. "From reading these texts several times, it is obvious to me that Peter Strzok had been tasked with making sure
that HRC skated. "
IMO, the plan from the beginning was to keep this firewalled within the FBI, giving distance from DOJ (Lynch), and thus Obama.
Strzok's angst about DOJ interlopers is probably due to his fears about them being straight shooters, and not part of the Hillary
exonerators.
From the start, I've opined that Strzok was Hillary's embed who had great intimidating influence over Priestap and Comey, both
of which seem to be regular career climbers rather than hot-to-trot pusshats or lackeys of the Clintons. I think that some posters
are reading the texts, but misreading Strzok's actual mentality.
I'm not convinced that Strzok is a driver, but it's an interesting angle, and I'll take that under consideration. I see him
more from my old role – a tool to be used. A tool with a will of its own, and a bit too much awareness, and thus a bit of a
danger.
I agree that they're trying to make it LOOK like DOJ isn't fixing it, but they are – we know.
I've seen how this works in my own end of the swamp – FAKE INDEPENDENCE. Basically create a group tasked with a choice where
the outcome is pre-determined, then pass off the result as even-handed, fair, open-minded, independent, etc. In those scenarios
the pattern of individuals and layers is the same – signal cooperation up and in to the core, but signal fairness, party line,
and fake independence downward and outward. Then rig the process in every way you can, using individuals who have LEARNED and
been TRAINED to play the game.
I agree that Strzok is probably a Canklebot, but the place is so highly politicized, that real and fake political leanings
are hard to tell apart. He will also signal differently to different people – maze of mirrors.
I think the bottom line is that they all have their agendas, they all "feel" their independence, but it is the masterful
rigging of social processes which insures the outcome. They are FISH IN A NET. They see bits and pieces of the net and other
disturbances of their world, and act in predictable manners to insure an outcome.
One HAS to look BIG to see the operation. Small details matter to SPOT the bigger unseen things.
DOJ will look innocent outward, but there will be games to insure the outcome. SOME people will sense those games, some
will not, and the latter are fairly useless, to they tend to be task-fulfillers and not deciders. Some will signal the games
openly, but they're risky and better those who will "read between the lines" upward and take part in the games without the
need to speak of them, or who can speak in deflections which are mutually intelligible. CODE. There will be lots of autonomously
arranged code, just like AI creates (since there is no AI, basically – just "I").
This is why they have Trisha B. in the mix. She will be a sharpie who plays the games without a word and without even breaking
her smile, and will not get caught. You can bet that she is keeping DOJ in the loop on how this is going, and they are making
sure that the net leads to the desired catch.
Somebody has to be keeping Hillary aware, however – I think you're absolutely right about that. And I am betting on a woman.
At the bottom of Obama scandals is always racial loyalty and trust. At the bottom of Hillary scandals is sex loyalty and trust.
Just the way it is. Hillary pays men with money, women with power.
These two are my absolutely, positively "MUST HAVES" in terms of perp walks/prison sentences. #1 and #2, respectively,
on my list of people I want to see publicly humiliated and wearing orange jumpsuits.
You KNOW they're controlling this. Holder was very, very artful in having TWO "can we talk?" minions running this show.
And the media KNEW how critical it was to get Crooked Loretta in power. The bigs at Chicago Tribune were the ones sitting
on the Loretta story and broke it to scoop Taitz (under surveillance, surely) when she found it. Then later they hid
the Chicago connections by saying it was USA Today that broke it. ALL those little lies point right back to the truth.
Rigging the AG has been the most masterful yet ESSENTIAL things the other side has done – the greatest flaw in our governmental
system, and the one the bads go for EVERY TIME. But they also know how to weaponize it against the goods, as they did
with Nixon. Br'er Sessions was BRILLIANT to recuse. He spotted the GREATER outside game they were playing. Not recusing
would lead to a Watergate. Now THEY'RE holding the Watergate.
"Strzok's angst about DOJ interlopers is probably due to his fears about them being straight shooters, and not part of the
Hillary exonerators. "
This article on hildabeast in Sept /16 indicates the opposite, the DOJ set the tone of the investigation. The FBI followed
them off the cliff .. Zero is the maestro.
What I meant was that the top dogs in the DOJ were corrupt, but that Strzok was not confident about the cooperation of the
layers below them.
Read my post again. My assumption is that the Lynch was evil, but that the FBI had to guarantee that Lynch was walled
off from any further investigation. Thus, Comey's explanation about having the buck stop in his shop.
Strzok changed the language that Comey originally had, however. That reflects on the relative mindsets and influence
they had in this mind-blowing scandal.
FOX is beginning to sound like they doing some protection work and yeah that text didn't really mean that kinda stuff. We are watching
the Gowdy principle beginning at the only media that has covered any of this. Then again Lachlan Murdoch takes over ..
The implications here are staggering. It means these people completely misled Congress, quite possibly for YEARS. There was
no oversight. And it got so bad, they actually neutered the OIG. So THAT means all the documents – all the redactions – all
the stuff Congress got – it can't be trusted. Anything turned over by either the Clinton or Obama administrations is potentially
BOGUS and/or INCOMPLETE.
It is ONLY because we have gotten the "Stupid Party" FULLY in control of both the White House (with competent anti-Establishment
leadership) and Congress, that we can now see how much bamboozling went on.
Now you know why the smirking Sally Yates spewed out 58 PAGES on why her division had NO oversight from anyone. An entity
unto themselves -- I want to see her and Farkas in dirty orange jumpsuits and shower sandals -- -
All of the criminals are still in positions to remove evidence. I would like to think Wray and Sessions have a handle on everything
but i will believe it when i see it. Strzok would have been fired on the spot at any job. Surely government employees can be fired
for less than making a non politically correct comment.
Even with Sessions and Wray in charge Congress is still having a hard time getting documents from the them. Why is that? Im frustrated
about it and im watching cable news. Makes it worse.
Wray and Sessions (swamp dwellers for most of their careers) are in complete denial about the rampant corruption in their organizations.
This denial is paralyzing them. Sessions yesterday said he'd do everything possible to eliminate the bias in DOJ. Bias Jeff,
seriously? How about the criminality? He just doesn't get it.
Yes. I read this morning that the FBI still has Obama's guy in charge of handling FOIA's. No wonder the FBI is still stonewalling.
I've been on the fence about Wray, but that news pops the black hat on him for me. Maybe future events will have me swapping
it out for a white hat, but I can only judge the evidence I can see.
Do you know where you found that? We were researching a PDF folder the other night that was found in an FBI site. It was
a search for Trump. They were mostly compiled within the time frame that Rogers had announced the shenanigans to the FISC
and when Nellie Ohr got her HAM radio.
I still wonder if these played cover for legal FOIA's but illegal searches?
I believe you are wrong. All critical evidence was already obtained by the OIG investigations. That's why the "missing" texts
were "found" so quickly. They live in a padded room now.
He is also a lawyer who once had his own law firm working with defendants.
"Just prior to re-joining the Justice Department, Laufman operated his own white collar defense law firm and was a
partner at the New York City-based law firm, Kelley Drye."
Why would Strzok outline his and others criminal activity in texts to Lisa Page? Why would he write into a permanent record such
self-incriminating evidence? Is he stupid? This makes no sense to me.
You need to read Sundance more. This is a staged roll out of information leading up to the IG report. With each leak, bad guys
respond and move revealing even more. We need to be patient which is hard to say as I am one of CTH's resident pessimists.
We will get there.
Plus we don't want to step all over PT's big speech.
I am not trying to keep up anymore. The U.S.Gov't is corrupt from top to bottom. Line the 100,000 or so Obama appointees and shoot
them all yesterday. This proves that elections do not matter. If any one here thinks that Sundance will change the way the criminals
do business then you are sadly mistaken. There will never be a trial for anyone above PFC or Cpl.
Peter Strzok is probably being paid at least $164,200.00 + while assigned to HR. What is he doing to earn this? Reporting to the
office daily? Sweeping the floor? What could he be trusted to do? The list must be really short.
Classified documents apparently can be declassified by Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden .. Or subcontractors
with names like Rainbow Sparkles, Sunshine Crackers.
DNC emails can be hacked by ???? and published by Julian Assange. The public reads them only if they are stolen by unknown(s)
and released on the Internet. All murky and elusive without details again. But hey, at least we got to read them!
The classified documents by Obama on his PDB that were sent to 30 people and then shared with the press. We can't see them
..Because, muh CLASSIFIED, unless they are stolen by ?????(someone or something) and distributed by whatever means happen to
be available
Yet, WE, the American people have to beg to see a memorandum written by a Congressman ..because of the sensitivity of the
matter ..classified ..mumble, mumble, mumble.
The American people (the ones that pick up the tab) must go thru several processes (because CLASSIFIED) and years of waiting,
just to be allowed to see the sh*t these morons have pulled.
Due to "the sensitivity of the matter" appears to be subjective, eh?
The memo will eventually come out. It served a purpose to say we have this memo that reveals all. You know how bad the info
is because only a handful of dems actually went to read it. They need deniability.
How do the bad guys react to that? Panic, increase texts, comms with each other. Do you think they are being surveilled
at this point? The memo serves the purpose of beating the bushes to move the prey into the open. We will get there.
Nixon resigned because of an attempt to cover up something he didn't command or know about.
Hillary has been corrupt since '70. She's been doing and covering up since '70. The term "arkancide" was coined to describe
what happens to people who cross the Clintons.
In a fair world, Nixon would have not resigned and Hillary would have fried in an electric chair for the death of Vince
Foster.
Strzok: "I'm sure Jim and Trisha and Dave and Mike are all considering how things like that play out as they talk amongst themselves."
________________
I'm sure Jim, Trisha, Dave and Mike all appreciate you mentioning them in this text, and how they are conspiring to hide
themselves and their evil deeds from the light. Thanks, Peter!
Is Peter purposefully fingering all around him that have involvement, leading up to Barry? This is a strange example of an
office relationship. More like business passion, planned.
"The 302's are the specific FBI forms used to document interviews/interrogations. They detail questions asked and answers given
as well as who was present during the interview."
___________________
We have had tape recorders for what, nearly a hundred years now?
And we have had commercial videotape recorders for nearly 60 years (since 1959).
So what is the point of a "302", except for the FIB to misrepresent, to their own benefit, what transpired in an interview
with a suspect?
Important
to forward Sundance's work product within your own circle of influence, along with all other forums in which you're tuned in.
Grow new branches and spread the fruit of CTH labors.
DETESTATION: Obama, Jarrett, Brennan -- pure evil and the masterminds of spying on their opponents. From the outside, Hillary
had a parallel operation going in concert. All of them satanic without a shred of morals whatsoever.
HATRED: Lynch for being a willing tool and knowledgable about most of it. McCabe, a lowlife bribe taker. Strzok, one that
didn't need bribes to fix every Hillary problem that arose; was quite willing to let a private outfit call the shots on the
hacks, and had his finger in everything else. Page was his eager co-conspirator and also a pusshat cultist who couldn't wait
for the glass-ceiling to break. Fie on all of them.
DISGUST: Comey and Priestap. Ultimate civil service careerists, wormy or weaselly enough to drift with whichever the political
winds blew. Deferred to the blacker of the black hats, even though their instincts about Hillary's criminality had a solid
legal basis. In the end, they caved and groveled for the benefit of their own bureaucratic futures. Not that bright, either.
"Additionally, FBI Agent Strzok is admitting that a group of FBI officials including himself, James Baker, Trisha Anderson,
Lisa Page, and likely others (McCabe, Comey) conspired together to intentionally withhold information -derived from this interview-
from congress and the American people."
_____________________
I'm beginning to suspect that maybe these people aren't exactly on the up-and-up
"Since Thursday night we've been combing the FBI files to figure out exactly what FBI Agent Peter Strzok was referencing in
one of the most recently released text messages."
IMO the inflammatory thing that they weren't releasing on September 2, 2016 I think comes down to what was released in the
9/23/2016 release (the Huma Abedin interview the Obama pseudonym) where Abedin was shown the June 28, 2012 email from the pseudonymous
sender. Hilary Clinton arrived in St. Petersburg on June 28, 2012.
How secure was that email chain? Were the blackberries left on the plane? That kind of thing. Even though it seems Abedin
couldn't figure out the pseudonymous sender was based on the content, I'm sure those with intelligence backgrounds could based
on content of the "Re: Congratulations" if the devices weren't secure.
"... Many Americans do not seem to understand what is at stake. What America is confronted with is a coup conspiracy organized by top officials of the Obama Justice Department, FBI, CIA, the Hillary DNC, and the presstitute media to overturn the result of a democratic election and remove the president from office. The basis of the coup is a fake dossier purchased for money that consists of unsupported allegations against Trump and that was used to obtain warrants from the FISA count to spy on Trump and various associates hoping to find something that can be used against Trump. Regardless, the false allegations could be fed to the CIA's media assets and used to create a scandal requiring a special prosecutor to investigate Russiagate. ..."
"... If the highest reaches of the police state agencies can get away with an attempted or successful coup against the president of the United States, then that is the complete end of democracy and all accountability in government. The House, Senate, and judiciary will become as powerless as the Roman senate under the caesars. We will live under a dictatorship ruled by police state agencies. ..."
"... This is not minor stuff. This goes to the heart of whether any form of liberty will exist. We all know that the ability of the people to hold government accountable is not assured by democracy. However, there is no prospect of holding government accountable if it is a police state, a road that the US has been going down for some time. The audacious coup attempt against President Trump is our opportunity to stop the momentum to a police state. ..."
"... When Admiral Rodgers, director of the National Security Agency, discovered that the FBI and DOJ were misusing the spy system for partisan political reasons, he let it be known that he was going to inform the FISA court. This caused the FBI and DOJ to rush to the court in advance and confess to "mistakes" and to promise to tighten up procedures so as not to make mistakes in the future. It is these "mistakes" and corrections that the FISA court document reveals. ..."
"... In other words, the information already exists in the pubic domain that proves that Russiagate was a conspiracy organized for the purpose of bringing down the elected president of the United States ..."
"... A case can be made that it would be just as well if the coup succeeds as it would bring an end to Washington's cover as the government of a great democracy with liberty and justice for all. Most other governments, and one would hope certainly the Russian and Chinese governments, would see the coup as America's final transition into a police state and give up their utopian ideas of reaching accommodation with Washington. The constraints on Washington's ability to bully the world would be greatly strengthened by the universal perception that the government of the United States had devolved into a police state. ..."
The Republicans' delay in releasing the summary of the House Intelligence Committee's Russiagate investigation is giving weight
to the presstitutes' claim that the report is not being released, because it is a hack attempt at a Trump cover-up that is not believable.
Only Republicans are stupid enough to put themselves in such a situation.
Readers ask me why the summary memo is not released if it is real. There must be some reasons besides the stupidity of Republicans.
Yes, that is so. Among the many reasons that might be blocking release are:
1) Republicans are very national security conscious. They don't want to provide precedents for the release of classified information.
2) Many Republican congressional districts host installations of the military/security complex. Upsetting a large employer
and directing campaign financing to a challenger is a big consideration.
3) The George W. Bush/Dick Cheney regime was a neoconservative regime. One consequence is that Republicans are influenced by
neoconservatives who stress the alleged "Russian threat."
4) The Israel Lobby can unseat any member of the House and Senate. The Israel Lobby is allied with the neoconservatives and
this alliance intends to keep the US militarily active against perceived threats to Israel's hegemony in the Middle East and against
Russia, which supports Syria and Iran, countries perceived as threats by Israel.
5) Many Republicans are themselves invested in false Russiagate allegations against Trump and would like to replace him with
Pence. Other Republicans believe that Trump is undermining Washington's expensively-purchased foreign alliances and, thereby,
undermining US power.
Many Americans do not seem to understand what is at stake. What America is confronted with is a coup conspiracy organized by top
officials of the Obama Justice Department, FBI, CIA, the Hillary DNC, and the presstitute media to overturn the result of a democratic
election and remove the president from office. The basis of the coup is a fake dossier purchased for money that consists of unsupported
allegations against Trump and that was used to obtain warrants from the FISA count to spy on Trump and various associates hoping
to find something that can be used against Trump. Regardless, the false allegations could be fed to the CIA's media assets and used
to create a scandal requiring a special prosecutor to investigate Russiagate.
Once the investigation was under way, the presstitutes kept the scandal alive hoping to convince enough Americans that Trump must
have done something -- "where there is smoke, there is fire" -- that justifies his removal. It worked against Richard Nixon, but
not against Ronald Reagan, and Trump is no Reagan. If the highest reaches of the police state agencies can get away with an attempted
or successful coup against the president of the United States, then that is the complete end of democracy and all accountability
in government. The House, Senate, and judiciary will become as powerless as the Roman senate under the caesars. We will live under
a dictatorship ruled by police state agencies.
Many Americans say they don't need the House Intelligence Report, because they don't believe the Russiagate BS in the first place.
They miss the point. They need the report, because those responsible for this attempt at a coup must be identified, charged, and
prosecuted for their act of high treason.
This is not minor stuff. This goes to the heart of whether any form of liberty will exist. We all know that the ability of the
people to hold government accountable is not assured by democracy. However, there is no prospect of holding government accountable
if it is a police state, a road that the US has been going down for some time. The audacious coup attempt against President Trump
is our opportunity to stop the momentum to a police state.
Despite my recent postings, many people do not understand that the somewhat redacted FISA court document that has been declassified
and released and explained
by myself, William Binney, and former US Attorney Joe di Genova contains admissions by the FBI and DOJ that they improperly spied
and obtained warrants from the court under false pretenses. In other words, we have it on the authority of the FISA court itself
that the FBI and DOJ have admitted to the court their transgressions. When Department of Justice (sic) congressional liaison Stephen
Boyd says the DOJ is "unaware of any wrongdoing," he is lying through his teeth. The DOJ has already confessed its wrongdoing to
the FISA court.
(See
Lendman
on Boyd's claim that releasing the memo would harm national security and ongoing investigations. This is always the claim made when
government has to cover up its crimes. )
When Admiral Rodgers, director of the National Security Agency, discovered that the FBI and DOJ were misusing the spy system for
partisan political reasons, he let it be known that he was going to inform the FISA court. This caused the FBI and DOJ to rush to
the court in advance and confess to "mistakes" and to promise to tighten up procedures so as not to make mistakes in the future.
It is these "mistakes" and corrections that the FISA court document reveals.
In other words, the information already exists in the pubic domain that proves that Russiagate was a conspiracy organized for
the purpose of bringing down the elected president of the United States.
A case can be made that it would be just as well if the coup succeeds as it would bring an end to Washington's cover as the government
of a great democracy with liberty and justice for all. Most other governments, and one would hope certainly the Russian and Chinese
governments, would see the coup as America's final transition into a police state and give up their utopian ideas of reaching accommodation
with Washington. The constraints on Washington's ability to bully the world would be greatly strengthened by the universal perception
that the government of the United States had devolved into a police state.
"... It's one giant incestuous circle of corruption. And we have even more proof; James Comey testified that he gave his classified memos To Robert Mueller. ..."
"... Mueller's main focus is, has been, and continues to be carrying out a witch-hunt to unseat a duly elected President of the Untied States - President Trump. It's ridiculous and it's an abomination to our constitution and the rule of law . ..."
The Fox News anchor also notes that former FBI Director James Comey may be in hot water over
leaking a memo he says he wrote containing his concerns over President Trump pressuring him to
go easy on former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn.
Also brand new tonight we have new revelations about one of the lawyers that is now
representing disgraced former FBI director, soon to be probably investigated, national
embarrassment James Comey. According to Buzzfeed, one of Comey's attorneys turns out as his
Columbia law professor buddy - the guy he leaked the memo to to the New York Times because he
wanted a special counsel appointed, which turned out to be "oh, Comey's other BFF Robert
Mueller" You can't make this up in a spy novel!
It's one giant incestuous circle of corruption. And we have even more proof; James Comey
testified that he gave his classified memos To Robert Mueller. And according to the reports,
special counsel interviewed Comey about his memos last year. By the way, they also
collaborated before he testified. Those memos contain classified information. They were
created on government computers, so Comey broke the law by removing them from the FBI, but
it's clear that Mueller didn't care about any of that.
Mueller's main focus is, has been, and continues to be carrying out a witch-hunt to unseat
a duly elected President of the Untied States - President Trump. It's ridiculous and it's an
abomination to our constitution and the rule of law .
To recap: right before the election, Strzok and Page texted about an "
insurance policy " against Donald Trump becoming President.
"... On Monday night, Reps. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) and Trey Gowdy (R-SC) told Fox News of the "secret society" texts between FBI investigators Peter Strzok and Lisa Page - contained within a 384-page batch of text messages delivered to Congress from the DOJ last Friday. Of note Ratcliffe says that Strzok and Page were included in the clandestine anti-Trump cabal at the highest levels of the American intelligence community . ..."
"... I'm waiting to see when Mueller is implicated in the secret society. Mueller HAD to know. He's best friends with Comey and his appointment was a set up from the beginning. ..."
"... Also need to keep eye out on Bill Priestap, Strzok's immediate boss, and Baker, BFF and legal counsel to Comey and also the guy who was Chief of Staff to Comey. And don't forget all the WAGS of all of them. Wife of Priestap is Goldman Sachs heiress and runs biggest detective agency in DC. ..."
"... Mueller's gravy train ends if he can't find anything. So he's setting perjury traps like IEDs in the Sunni Triangle. ..."
"... Mueller trying to put the onus back on Trump instead of FBI corruption covering up Obama's treason ..."
"... The Dossier scam was supposed to be a flimsy reason they could point to as one of the reasons Trump lost. With Hillary in the WH, the dossier would never be examined...just alluded to in passing. They'd have said Trump had a good start but got hoist on his own uncontrollable personality. ..."
"... Why did Trump sign 702 without hesitation? The same 702 that enabled them to illegally spy on Trump? Moreover, the 702 Trump signed is said to have been modified to make the process of spying easier and with no added safe guards to prevent what happened with the Trump dossier from ever happening again. Does anyone not find it suspicious that no one in the press has questioned Trump directly for an explanation. Someone needs to ask Trump point blank why he signed the re authorization of 702. We need to hear his answer, especially since we are led to believe he has been victimized by it. ..."
"... Andrew McCabe and James Comey had a long time to work on the personnel of the FBI, who rose, who fell, who went to what offices. You can't trust any of the FBI until they prove themselves by tracking down the bad guys in their own ranks. ..."
"... I think that untangling the webs of corruption and compromise is decades, not years. Look at Italy, they still haven't gotten rid of the various mafias. I don't follow Italian politics, but did the issue of Mafia corruption ever die? Or just keep building? Did some areas get clean? ..."
"... Does anyone find it strange that Americans are not allowed to know if their government is corrupt because of national security? Government crimes and violations of the constitution are classified and top secret. That is what you have folks. All of government is a secret society. ..."
"... I know this site is all in on Trump, but did it occur to you that generally people who work in intelligence or have any intelligence would not discuss their illegal ,treasonous, secret society in writing using AGENCY-ISSUED PHONES. ..."
"... You're assumptions are wrong. Arrogance breeds contempt, and they were arrogant, just like Hillary arrogantly put her emails on an unprotected server in contradiction to well established and seriously enforced federal law. No one could be that stupid, but they can be that arrogant - as they were! ..."
"... The disappearance of the txts leaves a presumption of guilt - not innocence . Otherwise culpable parties would wipe the slate clean all day long, as has obviously happened here, and walk away scot free. ..."
"... You overlook the hubris of outsized egos. These people saw themselves as untouchables like Eliot Ness. They thought they could walk people to the edge and push them over and nobody could touch them. ..."
A whistleblower has revealed to Congress that clandestine, offsite meetings between high ranking FBI and DOJ took place in which
officials discussed ways to undermine President Trump after the 2016 election, Rep. Ron Johnson (R-WI) told Fox News on Tuesday.
The bombshell revelation all but confirms a "
secret society " alluded to in text messages released last Friday between two anti-Trump FBI employees tasked with investigating
both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
" The secret society -- we have an informant talking about a group holding secret meetings off-site ," Johnson said.
"We have to continue to dig into it," he added. " This is not a distraction. This is biased, potentially corruption at the
highest levels of the FB I." - The Hill
On Monday night, Reps. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) and Trey Gowdy (R-SC) told Fox News of the "secret society" texts between FBI
investigators Peter Strzok and Lisa Page - contained within a 384-page batch of text messages delivered to Congress from the DOJ
last Friday. Of note Ratcliffe says that Strzok and Page were included in the clandestine anti-Trump cabal at the highest levels
of the American intelligence community .
What we learned today in the thousands of text messages that we've reviewed that perhaps they may not have done that (checked
their bias at the door). There's certainly a factual basis to question whether or not they acted on that bias. We know about this
insurance policy that was referenced in trying to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president.
We learned today from information that in the immediate aftermath of his election that there may have been a secret society
of folks within the Department of Justice and the FBI to include Page and Strzok to be working against him .
As part of the 384 page document delivery, the Department of Justice notified Congressional investigators that five months of
text messages from December 14, 2016 to May 17, 2017 have gone missing (ironically there is a text message about "not keeping texts"
from last Friday's release).
And while Strzok and Page's communications for five months after the election apparently won't see the light of day, what we do
know is that right before the election, Strzok and Page texted about an "
insurance policy " against Donald Trump becoming President.
" I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office - that there's no way he [Trump] gets elected -
but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." writes FBI counterintelligence officer Peter Strzok to FBI lawyer Lisa Page, with whom he
was having an extramarital affair while spearheading both the Clinton email inquiry and the early Trump-Russia probe, adding " It's
like a life insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40 ."
To recap: we now have text messages between Strzok and Page referencing an "insurance policy" and a "secret society" of people
within the DOJ and FBI who came together in the "immediate aftermath" of the 2016 election to undermine President Trump... and a
whistleblower who has now told Congress that's exactly what happened in the form of secret, offsite meetings between officials at
the two agencies.
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing
or destroying the government of the
United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political
subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates,
sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity,
desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the
United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of
persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes
or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of
persons , knowing the purposes thereof --
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by
the
United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more
persons conspire to commit any
offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and
shall be ineligible for employment by the
United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms "organizes" and "organize", with respect to any society, group, or assembly of
persons , include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs,
classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of
persons .
I'm waiting to see when Mueller is implicated in the secret society. Mueller HAD to know. He's best friends with Comey and
his appointment was a set up from the beginning.
Also need to keep eye out on Bill Priestap, Strzok's immediate boss, and Baker, BFF and legal counsel to Comey and also the
guy who was Chief of Staff to Comey. And don't forget all the WAGS of all of them. Wife of Priestap is Goldman Sachs heiress and
runs biggest detective agency in DC.
the CIA clean'd-up the evidence while Mueller was in California to introduce himself to the nations top FBI personnel. thus,
unable to fly back to NYC.
coincidence? why the fuck wasn't the meeting held in NYC!?!
Imagine if the text messages between these "Secret Society" members talks about killing Trump if the Russia-Russia-Russian
Collusion Farce fails. And further imagine if McCabe, Rosenstein, J. Edgar Comey or even some Obama people like Susan Rice and
Valerie Jarrett are included in those very text messages. Imagine further if Obama and/or Huma or Hillary are included in any
of them...........these people are arrogant enough and so full of themselves and their ability to "fix" the world around them
that it is all entirely possible.........
How about this scenario: Hillary and the rest of the Deep State expected her to win via fractional voting. She had a mortal
lock, so they thought except Trump snagged 20 to 30 million more votes than Hillary did, overriding the fractional voting scheme
they had in place.
The Dossier scam was supposed to be a flimsy reason they could point to as one of the reasons Trump lost. With Hillary in the
WH, the dossier would never be examined...just alluded to in passing. They'd have said Trump had a good start but got hoist on
his own uncontrollable personality.
With Hillary at the top of all the levers of the government, Trump would have gotten bitch slapped repeatedly with little recourse.
This isn't just a couple of rogue individuals, this is an organized conspiracy at the very top, using all the power of the
FBI and DOJ to destroy a sitting president up to and including harming him.
"Mueller probe accidentally exposes FBI COVER-UP of Saudi role in 911"
1/24/18 ***oops?!? This is what happens when the Saudi's let China offer the 'Public Offering' of Saudi Aramco' on the Shanghai
INE Exchange beginning mid-Feb/2018 if all is finalized. Perhaps this why the opening was delayed?
Why did Trump sign 702 without hesitation? The same 702 that enabled them to illegally spy on Trump? Moreover, the 702 Trump
signed is said to have been modified to make the process of spying easier and with no added safe guards to prevent what happened
with the Trump dossier from ever happening again. Does anyone not find it suspicious that no one in the press has questioned Trump
directly for an explanation. Someone needs to ask Trump point blank why he signed the re authorization of 702. We need to hear
his answer, especially since we are led to believe he has been victimized by it.
Simple game thinking, I thought. You can't give up the tools they have until you have won.
The good guys have to assume that the bad guys can go on using covert means, likely they have back-doored their own agencies'
info systems. If not, they have their people scattered through the organization. Or both.
Andrew McCabe and James Comey had a long time to work on the personnel of the FBI, who rose, who fell, who went to what offices.
You can't trust any of the FBI until they prove themselves by tracking down the bad guys in their own ranks.
Great, now we have a 'he said, she said' situation, complete with files that can prove anything, how hard is that to arrange?
For all sides?
I think that untangling the webs of corruption and compromise is decades, not years. Look at Italy, they still haven't gotten
rid of the various mafias. I don't follow Italian politics, but did the issue of Mafia corruption ever die? Or just keep building?
Did some areas get clean?
Problem with all this social stuff is that there isn't a clean in/out test for any group. We are going to find that many of
our leading people throughout society have ties in shades from bright white social innocence to partners in crime black, into
the blackest of the crimes. everyone has lots of connections. The more prominent you are, the wider the variety of people you
have mingled with.
There are political careers in the investigations. Trump and his successors can ride this for 2 decades.
Of course, they will become the issue when in some far distant future the last possible bad guy has died and fortune has dispersed
beyond recall, but the surveillance capabilities are greater than ever and the successors of the current good guys refuse to end
the situation.
The compromise will be immediately ending all surveillance, everyone owns their data in return for amnesty for confessions,
files and loss of 90% of fortunes. Ae open all files to everyone and run a public investigation to understand it all.
Does anyone find it strange that Americans are not allowed to know if their government is corrupt because of national security?
Government crimes and violations of the constitution are classified and top secret. That is what you have folks. All of government
is a secret society.
If one loves words and their meanings take note that freedom is the antithesis of government. If you don't understand the
concepts of the words you use, don't complain when you get what you ask for.
I know this site is all in on Trump, but did it occur to you that generally people who work in intelligence or have any intelligence
would not discuss their illegal ,treasonous, secret society in writing using AGENCY-ISSUED PHONES. Also someone once said that
any anonymous informant should be considered made-up. I'm not denying the agency is anti-Trump. There are all kinds of legitimate
reasons to be anti-Trump. I just wish you and Mr. Johnson would bother getting some slightly less flimsy conspiracy theories before
you go blaring them on the banners. It makes you look pathetic and desperate.
You're assumptions are wrong. Arrogance breeds contempt, and they were arrogant, just like Hillary arrogantly put her emails
on an unprotected server in contradiction to well established and seriously enforced federal law. No one could be that stupid,
but they can be that arrogant - as they were!
The disappearance of the txts leaves a presumption of guilt - not innocence . Otherwise culpable parties would wipe the slate
clean all day long, as has obviously happened here, and walk away scot free.
You say Johnson looks pathetic while you spew out terms like "flimsy conspiracy theories" as your 'evidence.' Juggalo, you
look like a dumb f***ing clown with your head so far up your a$$ you think it's nighttime.
You overlook the hubris of outsized egos. These people saw themselves as untouchables like Eliot Ness. They thought they could
walk people to the edge and push them over and nobody could touch them.
No kidding, right? Watched Tucker Carlson last night interviewing Richard Goodstein (former Hillary Campaign Advisor, obviously
unemployed) Great segment asking Goodstein to answer a "Revulsion Test"!
It was unreal! The damn ignorant libtard just would not, could not bring himself to say that anything bothered him about the
corruption going on in the FBI.
Tucker: Does it bother you that the FBI decided not to bring criminal charges against Hillary BEFORE conducting an investigation
of her, or interviewing her.
Goodstein: No
Tucker: Does it bother you that Strozk said he couldn't take the chance that Trump got elected and had an insurance policy
in mind to prevent it, while he was on the committee investigating Trump?
Goodstein: No
Listen to the rest here...its hilarious and shows how Diseased Liberals are mentally!!
Democrats are the spit and image of the Bolsheviks in 1917 Russia. Democrats in America today despise everything and everyone
that is not Democrat in policy, propaganda, attitude, opinion & belief. If the Democrat Party is allowed to continue as it is
there will be blood and lots of it.
"You must understand, the leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians.
Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. It cannot be overstated.
Bolshevism committed the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about
this enormous crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of the perpetrators."
~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Ok congress critters. If all this is true and a lot of it probably is, can someone enlighten me as to why the delay. I really
see no advantage in holding back on this. It gives every advantage to the Blue team to organize a response and create more smoke
screens. The longer this goes on the more likely this will never see the light of day. Especially when one considers the Red teams
past performance. Release it or shut the fuck up.
Remember these are the same "group thinkers/actors" who voted something like 415-5 to impose harsh sanctions on Russia to punish
Russia for "meddling" in our Democratic processes.
I wonder if any of these critters would take back this vote now?
Maybe they should now vote on imposing "sanctions" on the DOJ and HRC's campaign staffers (Hillary included), as well as the
DNC and the MSM organizations/ "journalists" who spread a bogus story-line for nefarious/unpatriotic reasons.
P.S. I also wonder how many stories/posts on Facebook and Twitter advanced this faux story. Probably about 1 billion more than
Russian bots managed to sneak into the national dialogue. I understand the owner of Facebook has deep pockets. Give him the "Saudi
treatment" - pay up or go to jail, buddy.
Both parties are part of the cabal, including Trump. Arming the neonazis in the Ukraine that wants war on Russia, as well as
US and NATO troops on RUSSIA'S borders. Signing off on the FISA spy ring upon Americans, expanding US WARS, in Syria and Afghanistan
and Africa. Wanting war on N. Korea.
If people would just get that the cabal are addicted to WAR and the enrichment that comes from it as well as it's all ZIONIST
wars, for which Trump is now owned by Netanyahu, as is our Congressional dual Israeli citizens, we might be able to organize under
one banner that never changes witj both parties utterly submissive to the military and security complex. No more WAR .
If this is as reported, and if there was a convening of a meeting in secret outside of the professional roles of law enforcement,
for the purposes of a focused prosecution of a duly elected president, then that is at a minimum an offense that would disbar
employment in the federal government. It would also be grounds for disbarring any attorney.
But what I'm finding equally as troubling is the very casual manner in which somebody from say nation A, can hire person in
Nation B, to provide paid hearsay evidence from Nation C to initiate an investigation that circumvents Nation A's laws of privacy
upon a targeted individual.
That makes the NSA the tool of anyone with money to initiate this type of investigation as described above to harass and intimidate
an individual using tax dollar funded services.
I'm not Ok with Republicans or Democrats doing this.
So someone with means initiates NSL's against a person soliciting banking, building, employment, relationships, all designed
to use the institutional credibility of the NSA or even the FBI to tarnish the standing of a targeted individual.
The bank isn't going to disclose, but they might not offer a loan!
The zoning bard will not disclose, but will withhold permits.
And the zeal and the bias that there groups exercise in their zeal to assist their government in an investigation cumulatively
is damaging. Loan delayed is loan denied. Permit delayed is permit denied.
You want to support legitimate law enforcement activities and investigations, but not this fucking circus.
It is as if you are witnessing the prosecutor receiving cash from a private party, then the prosecutor hand the bailiff cash,
who then passes it onto a paid witness prior to testifying and not swearing in, or being available for cross examination. And
that folks is bullshit. Meanwhile the judge, jury, prosecutor, and defense all met in private during recess and agreed that facts
weren't relevant and to not allow facts to stand in the way of their "convictions!"
John Perkins said that to get in the CIA, you have to pass a personality test that shows you are less than morally sound. Just
imagine the test tube of explosive back-stabbing sociopaths that place must be today.
Maybe. I just think these people "self select" their career paths. A certain type of personality type is driven to government
bureaucracies and/or political office and/or capitalist positions that reward "cronies" to government. A certain ambitious type
learns how to "play the game" and rises up the ranks. The culture in these places rewards corruption (or turning a blind eye to
same). These people like the power, prestige and money-making opportunities. They "scratch backs" so their own back can be scratched.
Whatever the psychology or personality type, these people work to preserve and protect the Status Quo.
i don't agree with you on your general premise of immorality. But if things are as reported and as I describe above, then the
NSA is nothing more than the errand chasers of those with cash and connection, and that that service is paid for by the US taxpayer
to be abused by those whom would misuse it as I described. And if that is the way the system is being misused then there is a
problem.
I don't do the hate America first bullshit but I do call em like I see em..
A line pushed repeatedly by Hillary. That was a lie of course. Only a few (hand-picked) "analysts" from three or four of these
agencies signed off on that important "conclusion."
I also think of all the "intelligence experts" who immediately knew that Assad bombed his own people with banned chemicals.
Whatever they say, you know the opposite must be the truth.
How can General Flynn be charged with lying to the FBI when the FBI agent he lied to is plotting to over throw the president?
Who were the coup leaders? It was McCabe's office that set up the meeting with Flynn. Flynn didn't know the meeting was about
Flynn talking with the Russian Ambassador. Which is normal for an incoming National Security Advisor. There were no witnesses
to the meeting except two FBI agents, one of which is the disgraced FBI agent. Flynn thought like a former Intel General, he was
protecting national security information on a need to know basis.(standard military SOP).
It looks like Flynn was set up to frame Trump. Flynn's charges need to be dropped.
Oh, my! It looks like things are beginning to clarify! Dear American public has it ever occured to you that this whole Trump
colluding with Russia as well as the Russia meddling in the election narrative is just a one big lie. Too big to swallow?
If "Russia" wanted to swing or rig an election, they couldn't. The whole premise is preposterous. "Russia" convinced millions
of voters in a dozen swing states to change their votes? With a few Facebook entries? Good God.
I think it was clear to most of us. It was those who couldn't accept Hillary's defeat who wanted the narrative to keep them
sane. They were the same as Strock, et. al. - too stupid to see the train coming straight down the tracks. When they realized
they would lose their lifetime of job safety and corruption, they panicked.
Who in the US didn't know Hillary was the most corrupt politician and ruthless sub-human animal ever to run for office? They
were the ones profiting either directly or indirectly from all the criminality.
You know who has/had Hillary and Bill pegged better than anyone else? Linda Tripp. I wish I had the link to a recent feature
on her. Her main take-away: The rules of society and laws do not apply to her. She (and her husband) can and had gotten away with
everything. But the scary part is how seemingly everyone in D.C. and the Establishment is allied with them and has/had no issue
with their MO. The Swamp is full of the same type of people and their defenders. These are the type people who are attracted to
"government service" and move up the ranks once embedded. Not just in government, but the press corps and the worlds of finance
as well.
I'll say again. If Trump had been sincere in draining the swamp - and had did it - he would have gone down as the greatest
president in U.S. history.
That he is not committed to this mission - or quickly abandoned it - is a tragic disappointment.
(For those who say he is still trying to drain the swamp, explain why he never made an effort to investigate and expose "Crooked
Hillary," has no interest at all in auditing the Fed, signed legislation imposing severe sanctions on Russia for "meddling" and
filled his administration with Goldman Sachs alums, among other swamp-protecting activities).
There are very senior members of the Intelligence Community who risk exposure, ignominy, and possibly even death if their treason
is exposed to the light of day.
These people are the artists who create false flag events and change foreign Governments at the drop of a hat.
If the Intelligence Community needs to start a war to escape the consequences of their treason; that is what they will do;
without the slightest hesitation.
The rest of the world needs to be extremely sceptical regarding "Intelligence" from the U.S., and wide awake to the risk.
Get everything out in the open before it's too late for the human race.
"This is the fundamental game of the Secret Team. They have this power because they control secrecy and secret intelligence
and because they have the ability to take advantage of the most modern communications system in the world, of global transportation
systems, of quantities of weapons of all kinds, and when needed, the full support of a world-wide U.S. military supporting base
structure. They can use the finest intelligence system in the world, and most importantly, they have been able to operate under
the canopy of an assumed, ever-present enemy called "Communism." It will be interesting to see what "enemy" develops in the years
ahead. " [L. Fletcher Prouty, Alexandria, VA 1997]
"... Anyway, the FBI agent texting about deleting texts? These people had "a secret society." They call it that. But it was a group of people that was hell-bent on denying Donald Trump the presidency, and I Look, just to put it on the record here again for I don't know how many umpteenth time: I don't have any doubt in my mind that that phony dossier was used to secure a FISA warrant. I have In fact, let me say it exactly as it is. I have no doubt that they perpetrated a fraud on a judge at the FISA court. ..."
"... I mean, that's really what it is. If they used the dossier to get a FISA warrant to spy on Trump, that means they lied to a judge, unless the judge was in on it -- and when you're talking about the establishment, I mean, who the heck knows? The FISA court is super-secret anyway. But regardless, it's a giant stink bomb. It is dirty as it can be. Trump is tweeting on it, and the more we learn about this, the more easily understandable it is and the more easily believable it is. ..."
"... RUSH: The wheels are coming off the deep state's efforts to deny Trump the presidency, and -- once he won the presidency -- to get him kicked out and removed. Now we've got stories of the missing texts between Peter Strzok and his paramour, Lisa Page. "House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) on Monday raised concerns that the two FBI agents mentioned a 'secret society' shortly after [Trump] won the election. ..."
"... And he's probably trying to impress her like nothing. He's married. I don't know if she's married or not, but he's just full-fledged headlong into this affair, and she's probably got her interested in it as well. But it sounds like Strzok was the guy. You know, in a relationship, there's always somebody who loves somebody more than the other. Would you agree with that? ..."
"... GOWDY: What Johnny and I saw today was a text about not keeping texts. We saw more manifest bias against President Trump all the way through the election into the transition. And I saw an interesting text that Director Comey was going to update the president of the United States about an investigation. I don't know if it was the Hillary Clinton investigation -- because, remember, that had been reopened in the fall 2016 -- or whether it was the Trump administration. I just find it interesting that the head of the FBI was gonna update the president of the United States who, at that point, would have been President Obama. ..."
"... RUSH: Okay. So this is -- hang on, now -- June 8th, 2017. "As FBI director, I interacted with President Obama. I spoke only twice in three years and didn't document it." It's unstated: "Because I didn't think Obama needed to be documented! He's the impeccable example of integrity, honesty," which is a crock. But here's the next bite. June 8th. Question: This is from Senator Martin Heinrich, Democrat, New Mexico. "Prior to January 27th of this year," meaning 2017, "have you ever had a one-on-one meeting or a private dinner with a president of the United States?" ..."
"... RUSH: Okay. Here's what MSNBC reported, that Mueller interviewed Comey and that Comey gave Mueller his memos on meetings with Trump. You know, Comey said he had to keep notes 'cause Trump lies. He didn't have to record what Obama said 'cause Obama was the impeccable example of honesty and integrity (and all that rot). But with Trump? What a lying sack of you know what! So, anyway, the New York Times says that Comey gave Mueller his memos on his meetings with Trump, and the "jaw-dropping" nature of the text from Strzok. ..."
"... That's why Trey Gowdy is describing this as "jaw-dropping" with Ratcliffe, 'cause Strzok is writing to Lisa Page, "You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I'd be there no question," meaning on the investigating team. "I hesitate " He eventually did join it, obviously. He said, "I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there's no big 'there' there," meaning any collusion. But that didn't stop them from trying to create the illusion that there was, and they spent over a year doing so. But that's why the Strzok text is considering "jaw-dropping," not because of its audacity but because he's talking to somebody close. He doesn't think anybody's ever gonna see it. ..."
Hillary Clinton losing threw the biggest wrench in these people's plans, and they had the fear. They were aware she could lose.
But now we've got a secret society -- DOJ, FBI, intelligence community -- some of it directly in touch with the Obama White House.
No doubt in my mind. "Missing" texts that are not really missing. They are somewhere, just like Hillary's 30,000 emails are somewhere.
They're backed up on servers. They're backed up on devices. They are somewhere. The FBI claims they don't have them, but they are
somewhere.
Just like Hillary's missing 30,000 emails are somewhere. The mystery of the missing text messages between Strzok and the paramour,
Lisa Page, continues to widen and deepen at the same time. It's all too pat. It's too easily understandable. This is easy to understand
as the House Bank Scandal was back in 1988 and '89. An FBI agent even texted about deleting the texts, warning everybody, "You know
what? We might want to get rid of these."
I had a suggestion. Ali on our staff -- not my cat, but Ali on our staff -- suggested, "You know what'd be fun one day?" I'm not
gonna do it today. But I'm thinking about it. "It might be fun one day to take calls from people 30 and under -- you know, Millennials."
The problem with that is that anybody can call and claim they're under 30. So we would have to be really discriminatory and aware
of voices. You know, it's not fair to start judging people by their voices, their gender, their sexual orientation, their race, their
anything.
I mean, even though you can do it, you make a mistake in doing it. You're not supposed to do it. But we would have to raise our
vigilance if we're gonna do that. (interruption) "Profiling!" Yeah, that's exactly right. We would have to profile. If we're gonna
have calls from 30 (maybe even 28, I don't know) and under, then the whole thing's blown if a bunch of 80-year-olds start calling
or 75-year-olds trying to pass themselves off as young whippersnappers.
Anyway, the FBI agent texting about deleting texts? These people had "a secret society." They call it that. But it was a group
of people that was hell-bent on denying Donald Trump the presidency, and I Look, just to put it on the record here again for I don't
know how many umpteenth time: I don't have any doubt in my mind that that phony dossier was used to secure a FISA warrant. I have
In fact, let me say it exactly as it is. I have no doubt that they perpetrated a fraud on a judge at the FISA court.
I mean, that's really what it is. If they used the dossier to get a FISA warrant to spy on Trump, that means they lied to a judge,
unless the judge was in on it -- and when you're talking about the establishment, I mean, who the heck knows? The FISA court is super-secret
anyway. But regardless, it's a giant stink bomb. It is dirty as it can be. Trump is tweeting on it, and the more we learn about this,
the more easily understandable it is and the more easily believable it is.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: The wheels are coming off the deep state's efforts to deny Trump the presidency, and -- once he won the presidency -- to
get him kicked out and removed. Now we've got stories of the missing texts between Peter Strzok and his paramour, Lisa Page. "House
Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) on Monday raised concerns that the two FBI agents mentioned a 'secret society' shortly
after [Trump] won the election.
"'The day after the election there is a text exchange between these two FBI agents [Strzok and Page], these supposed to be fact-centric
FBI agents saying, 'Perhaps this is the first meeting of the secret society,' Gowdy said 'So I'm going to want to know what secret
society you are talking about, because you're supposed to be investigating objectively the person who just won the Electoral College.'"
Trump "resistance,""secret society." These people probably gave themselves that name. I can see I really can. I can see where these
two Strzok In the first place, you got hormones raging 'cause they're having an affair.
And he's probably trying to impress her like nothing. He's married. I don't know if she's married or not, but he's just
full-fledged headlong into this affair, and she's probably got her interested in it as well. But it sounds like Strzok was the
guy. You know, in a relationship, there's always somebody who loves somebody more than the other. Would you agree with that?
Can I say that without getting beat up by people? (interruption) I can't? Okay, then forget it. I didn't say that. This guy And I
think probably their connections and their contacts as FBI agents
I think they probably really went to their head. They thought they were really doing something important and cool, but they knew
it's on the edge of legality, probably not legal. But they felt protected. They knew that the Obama DOJ was behind 'em, they knew
Obama was behind 'em. Comey, everybody in the deep state knew that they were probably on the edge here, but all aligned -- and I'm
sure it got very heady. This is a very august group, a very small group of people, a very important project: Getting rid of Trump,
defending the Washington establishment.
And I wouldn't be a bit surprised if these people got totally lost and caught up in how important they were and how cool they
were and how exciting what they were doing was and how important it was. And it was clear from the texts of theirs that we've seen
that they knew that they were on the edge and that they had to keep this under wraps and they had to keep it secret. So they probably
name themselves this "secret society," and who knows, folks! I wouldn't doubt if this whole group decided to name themselves that.
I think we're dealing with a degree, a level of arrogance and superiority. I'm talking about psychological superiority. "We are
better than everybody else! We're the defenders. We're the protectors." You combine that with their opinion of Trump, which is nothing
more than he's human debris. "This guy is sewer-level scum." You couple that with the fact that he's won, he's an outsider, he's
outsmarted them, and now the lid's blowing. Now we know that Hillary hired the people that wrote the fake Trump dossier.
And now we're getting closer and closer to confirming that Obama and the DOJ lied to a FISA judge to get a warrant to surveil.
So they're panicking, and that's why a bunch of texts from the five-month period of real activity on this are now missing. But, my
friends, they aren't missing. The FBI claims they can't find 'em, that there's a glitch and something's happened, but they are somewhere.
They are on the original device. I read that the FBI was using Samsung 5s, Samsung Galaxy 5s. Is that right? (interruption) Well,
those are old devices.
Those are very, very old devices. But we're talking about the FBI here! There are servers, there are backups, there is redundancy.
We're being told that this stuff's gone just like Lois Lerner's stuff just miraculously disappeared, just like Hillary's 30,000 emails
just disappeared. They didn't. They're somewhere. Somebody can get them. Somebody has them. Like you. If you use IDrive here, if
you pick up on the idea of backing up your phones and your computer to IDrive, okay. So you may have a glitch on your phone or your
computer and you lose 'em.
But they're there.
They're on that server, they're on the IDrive server, and they may be elsewhere. So Strzok and Page, their two devices are being
used and their computers. Whatever server side backups are happening, whatever the FBI's backups are. These text messages are somewhere.
And somebody could find them if they wanted to. Now, let's go to the audio sound bites. Let's listen. This is, first off, last night
on Fox News, Representative John Ratcliffe, a Texas Republican, along with Trey Gowdy, talking about this "secret society" at the
FBI. This is interesting because they have learned that these two people are talking about an investigation.
Obama was briefed on an investigation, but they don't know which investigation, Trump or Clinton. Let's get started
RATCLIFFE: We learned today about information that in the immediate aftermath of his election that there may have been a "secret
society" of folks within the Department of Justice and the FBI to include Page and Strzok that would be working against him.
RUSH: "We learn today about " This is above and beyond what is in the four-page memo about the FISA warrant. This is additional.
"We learned today about information that in the immediate aftermath of his election that there may have been a 'secret society' of
folks within the Department of Justice and the FBI to include Page and Strzok," meaning others, "that would be working against" Trump.
Here's Trey Gowdy weighing in.
GOWDY: What Johnny and I saw today was a text about not keeping texts. We saw more manifest bias against President Trump all the
way through the election into the transition. And I saw an interesting text that Director Comey was going to update the president
of the United States about an investigation. I don't know if it was the Hillary Clinton investigation -- because, remember, that
had been reopened in the fall 2016 -- or whether it was the Trump administration. I just find it interesting that the head of the
FBI was gonna update the president of the United States who, at that point, would have been President Obama.
RUSH: So that means Obama's in the loop. The "secret society," Strzok, whatever they're doing, Comey knows. He's FBI director,
Strzok and Page are FBI. She's a lawyer; he's an agent. There are other people involved here. They've got this "secret society" going,
and the texts they saw referred to an investigation that Director Comey was gonna update Obama on. But they don't know which, 'cause
he's right: Hillary was being investigated. They reopened this like a weekend before the election, the email server thing -- which
Hillary never forgot.
Or the Trump dossier investigation. Let's go to June 8th, 2017. "If these texts are accurately, it may not look good for Jim Comey.
On June 8th of 2017, Comey testified before a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Russian interference in the presidential election.
And during the Q&A, Mark Warner, Democrat, Virginia, said, 'In all your experience, Director Comey, President Trump was the only
president you felt like in every meeting you needed to document because at some point -- using your words -- "he might put out a
non-truthful representation of the meeting"'?"
COMEY: As FBI director, I interacted with President Obama. I spoke only twice in three years and didn't document it.
RUSH: Okay. So this is -- hang on, now -- June 8th, 2017. "As FBI director, I interacted with President Obama. I spoke only twice
in three years and didn't document it." It's unstated: "Because I didn't think Obama needed to be documented! He's the impeccable
example of integrity, honesty," which is a crock. But here's the next bite. June 8th. Question: This is from Senator Martin Heinrich,
Democrat, New Mexico. "Prior to January 27th of this year," meaning 2017, "have you ever had a one-on-one meeting or a private dinner
with a president of the United States?"
COMEY: No! I met Dinner, no. I had two one on ones with President Obama that I laid out in my testimony, once to talk about law
enforcement issues -- law enforcement ERASE -- which was an important topic throughout for me and for the president. And then once,
very briefly, to him to say good-bye.
RUSH: Okay. So he tells Mark Warner that as FBI director he interacted with Obama, spoke only twice in three years, didn't document
it. And then he tells Martin Heinrich, Democrat, New Mexico (summarized), "No! Dinner? No. I had two one on ones with Obama that
I laid out in my testimony, one to talk about law enforcement issues, law enforcement ERASE, which was," blah, blah, blah. This was
all about the fact that Comey had to document everything he heard Trump say 'cause Trump's such a liar. Now, if these texts are accurate,
the texts say that Comey was "updating [Obama] on an investigation."
They don't know which, and these are texts that Trey Gowdy and John Ratcliffe read, and the texts detailed Comey updating Obama
on an investigation. Comey under oath doesn't say a word here about updating Obama on anything. All he did was talking about law
enforcement issues and ERASE. So people are thinking Comey may have not have been forthcoming under oath while testifying before
the committees. Based on what we've learned with the texts saying he was actively updating Obama on an investigation. Now, the odds
are he's updating Obama on the Trump investigation, because the only thing about the Hillary investigation is how to cover it up
and make it amount to nothing.
There wouldn't be really be a need for an update of that.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: In jaw dropping (unintelligible) Peter Strzok Strzok expressed concern about joining the Mueller team. My friends, look.
If it looks like a witch hunt and it sounds like a witch hunt and it reads like witch hunt, then it is a witch hunt. You know, stop
and think. The Republicans wasted most of the first year of the Trump the presidency because they thought that the media narrative
on Trump-Putin collusion was true, or they thought it was close enough that they couldn't take any chances about going all in with
Trump in case it turned out to be true and he was eventually to be impeached. They believed it.
Look, they're creatures of the swamp themselves. And there was so much of it. And remember, Washington is Washington. And if the
deep state, if the intelligence agencies are saying this over and over and over and over again, if they're flooding the zone, if
every newspaper, every cable network is reporting these leaks, you can almost see how they would have no choice but than to believe
it. And so they kept their distance from Trump. And that whole year, you know, we're talking here.
We're each saying to ourselves, if they would just get on board for three months, if they'd just get on board the Trump agenda,
there'd be no stopping them. And we thought they weren't getting on board because they didn't like Trump or because they rented Trump,
either one of those things. It wasn't that. It was they fell for the narrative. Enough of them thought there might be something to
it that they couldn't risk not buying into it. Speaking of the intelligence agencies, I'm sure some of you have already thought of
this, but it just hit me a few seconds.
For some reason. I was thinking about the war in Iraq. You remember what the intelligence agencies were telling us about the war
in Iraq? You remember what they were telling us? There was detail, there were photos, there was conclusive evidence Saddam Hussein
had weapons of mass destruction. And it wasn't just U.S. intel. It was MI5, MI6. It was intelligence agencies all over the world.
George W. Bush kept quoting them. George W. Bush kept citing them.
George W. Bush sent Colin Powell to the UN with the so-called evidence, and Colin Powell had to present it to the Security Council.
There were photos and all of these bits of proof that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell now says that's the most
embarrassing period in his life, because it turns out none of it was true. And remember the immediate aftermath, everybody said,
"Wow, man. How could they have gotten it so wrong, man?" And the story we got that Saddam himself was to blame because he was leading
everybody on.
He wanted the world to think that he was the biggest Arab in the Middle East. He was the giant that was gonna slay the United
States. So he furthered the belief. He helped it along. Sorry. That doesn't wash with me. Okay, so the guy says he's got 'em. That's
your basis for believing it? What if ? Just what if ? Remember, they all thought Gore had won that election, until the Supreme Court
came along and stole it for Bush. This is what they thought.
The Democrat Party is the Washington establishment, and the Washington establishment believes that Gore won the presidency and
the Florida recount math was bogus and rigged, that James Baker did a better job than the Democrat people did in finding votes, the
hanging chads. What if the intel on the war in Iraq was another disinformation campaign to damage another Republican president? And,
boy, did that work. Ever since there were no weapons of mass destruction, look at what we did?
Bush spent 2-1/2 years traveling the country building support for the war in Iraq. We had the massive opening day of Shock and
Awe, and we had the pictures of Saddam's statue coming down, Saddam eventually being captured, hiding out in a hole in the ground
somewhere. But there were no weapons of mass destruction. After that "No, yes, there were, Rush, yes, there were, they've been moved
to Syria, we have pictures of the trucks, they got 'em out of there, they got 'em out. We know he had this."
Well, we know he used nerve gas on the Kurds at one time, which is weapons of mass destruction. But just what if? The, quote,
unquote, intelligence community misrepresented on purpose the degree to which Hussein had WMDs, cause, I'll tell you, it was a very,
very embarrassing moment for the Bush administration. I mean, two years of ontological certitude. This guy posed a bigger threat
than Al-Qaeda. This guy -- they even showed us photos where Al-Qaeda may have trained outside Baghdad.
Now, we know the Republicans are not the favored party in Washington amongst swamp dwellers. Even though many of the CIA apparatus
were, of course, aligned with Bush. But I was just thinking about this the other day. And that was a glaring example where, if it
was legitimate, look how wrong they were, I mean, they couldn't have been more wrong, and it was not just one intelligence agency.
It was the entire intel community in this country and in the U.K. and all of our allies.
There was supposedly unanimous agreement on Saddam having weapons of mass destruction. Now, what if -- this is hindsight, which
is always 20/20 -- what if, based on what we know now -- we know how the deep state has been trying to undermine Donald Trump from
the days he was a candidate to during his transition to even it's ongoing now as president. We're learning of Strzok and the FBI
and the Hillary opposition research dossier that the ends up becoming fodder for a warrant at the FISA court to spy on Trump.
So we know the deep state can mobilize if they want to, and they can create false narratives that everybody in the media believes.
Even had the Republican Party for a year believing that Trump had conspired with Russia maybe to steal the election. What if Saddam
weapons of mass destruction was also a false narrative designed to ? Did it ultimately embarrass Bush? Did it weaken the U.S. military?
Whatever it did, I mean, it opened the doors for the Democrats to literally destroy his presidency in the second term. Which is what
they did.
They launched every salvo they had. They did everything they could to get John Kerry elected in 2014, as the Democrat nominee.
So I just wonder. And then I remember Chuck Schumer telling Donald Trump after he had criticized the intelligence community one day,
Chuck You said, "You better be careful, 'cause those guys can make your life hell, Mr. President." So I don't know. It's all deep
state. It's all stuff happening way beyond wherever our eyes can see and our ears can hear. PMSNBC is reporting that the
It is the New York Times says that Comey shared memos about Trump's meeting. I'm getting this word by word as it's hunt and pecked
on the New York Times: "Comey Shared Memos About Trump's Meeting with the Special Counsel Team." I don't know what that is. I don't
know. This is dangerous to get headlines off TV. So, anyway, we'll track that down and get to it in due course. I just This whole
deep state intelligence community, all of these errors That weapons of mass destruction, that was just huge, and Bush bought it,
totally trusted it.
We all did. Mind-boggling. Now this? What we're learning about Strzok and Comey and there's no question here that there was a
mighty collusion effort between the Democrats, the Hillary campaign, the FBI, the Department of Justice -- that's the Obama administration
-- to spy on the Trump campaign and then the Trump transition team. And slowly but surely we're getting to the bottom of it, despite
a whole lot of efforts to cover it up.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Okay. Here's what MSNBC reported, that Mueller interviewed Comey and that Comey gave Mueller his memos on meetings with
Trump. You know, Comey said he had to keep notes 'cause Trump lies. He didn't have to record what Obama said 'cause Obama was the
impeccable example of honesty and integrity (and all that rot). But with Trump? What a lying sack of you know what! So, anyway, the
New York Times says that Comey gave Mueller his memos on his meetings with Trump, and the "jaw-dropping" nature of the text from
Strzok.
I was remiss here in not finishing/closing the loop on this. Here's what Strzok Strzok wrote to his paramour, Lisa Page: "You
and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I'd be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut
sense and concern there's no big 'there' there." What this means is Strzok was writing to Page about his lack of desire to be on
the Mueller team 'cause he didn't think there was any collusion!
That's why Trey Gowdy is describing this as "jaw-dropping" with Ratcliffe, 'cause Strzok is writing to Lisa Page, "You and I both
know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I'd be there no question," meaning on the investigating team. "I hesitate
" He eventually did join it, obviously. He said, "I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there's no big 'there' there,"
meaning any collusion. But that didn't stop them from trying to create the illusion that there was, and they spent over a year doing
so. But that's why the Strzok text is considering "jaw-dropping," not because of its audacity but because he's talking to somebody
close. He doesn't think anybody's ever gonna see it.
FBI Comey testifies again as a result of the recent document releases from the FBI. He
appears much more defensive than I have ever seen him before. Ratcliffe is brutal. Issa catches
Comey in a lie about the immunity agreements.
Jordan, Chaffetz, and Gowdy once again just can't
believe how an indictment wasn't warranted.
Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch knew well in advance of FBI Director James Comey's
2016 press conference that he would recommend against charging Hillary Clinton, according to
information turned over to the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Friday.
The revelation was included in 384 pages of text messages exchanged between FBI officials
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and it significantly diminishes the credibility of Lynch's earlier
commitment to accept Comey's recommendation -- a commitment she made under the pretense that
the two were not coordinating with each other.
And it gets worse. Comey and Lynch reportedly knew that Clinton would never face charges
even before the FBI conducted its three-hour interview with Clinton, which was supposedly meant
to gather more information into her mishandling of classified information.
So much for the director of CIA personal email security ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... A schoolboy hacker impersonated a CIA director to gain access to top secret military reports, a court heard yesterday. Kane Gamble was just 15 when he posed as CIA chief John Brennan from his Leicestershire home, even taking control of his wife's iPad. The teenager gained access to passwords, personal information, security details, contacts lists and sensitive documents about operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. ..."
"... Mr Lloyd-Jones said: 'He told a journalist, "It all started by me getting more and more annoyed at how corrupt and cold-blooded the US government are. So I decided to do something about it".' ..."
A schoolboy hacker impersonated a CIA director to gain access to top secret military
reports, a court heard yesterday. Kane Gamble was just 15 when he posed as CIA chief John Brennan from his Leicestershire
home, even taking control of his wife's iPad. The teenager gained access to passwords, personal information, security details, contacts
lists and sensitive documents about operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Gamble, who founded the pro-Palestinian group 'Crackas With Attitude', taunted the security
service on Twitter about his successes.
During the attacks, which spanned from June 2015 to February 2016, he made hoax calls to Mr
Brennan's family home and took control of his wife's iPad.
His other targets included former deputy director of the FBI Mark Giuliano, secretary of
Homeland Security Jeh Johnson and James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence under
Obama.
He used the phone numbers he obtained to call and taunt his victims and their families, and
take control of their devices.
Gamble, who is autistic, boasted about targeting Mr Clapper's email account and said:
'That's where the juicy s*** is'.
He also pretended to be Mr Clapper to phone communications company Verizon and set up
call-forwarding to divert calls to the Free Palestine movement.
Gamble used Clapper's email to message other officials.
While speaking to an accomplice, he said: 'This email of Clapper's is very useful to fool
these r****d into thinking I'm him. I can't wait lmao [sic].'
He also boasted about carrying out 'the best breach ever' after accessing an FBI database to
get the names of 1,000 staff, including the officer responsible for the controversial shooting
of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.
The information Gamble collected was later used to carry out a 'swatting' attack on John
Holdren, a science and technology adviser to President Barack Obama.
Gamble made a hoax call to Massachusetts police, resulting in armed officers being sent to
the aide's family home.
The information Gamble collected was later used to carry out a 'swatting' attack on John
Holdren, a science and technology adviser to President Barack Obama
+3
The information Gamble collected was later used to carry out a 'swatting' attack on John
Holdren, a science and technology adviser to President Barack Obama
In the days before his arrest Gamble accessed the Department of Justice network using
compromised details he gained from a former employee.
He gathered documents and information relating to offshore drilling rig Deepwater Horizon
and details of more than 9,000 DHA officers and 20,000 FBI members of staff.
These details were posted online with the messages 'This is Free Palestine' and 'Long live
Palestine.'
The Department of Homeland Security spent 40,000 dollars to resolve the problem and suffered
'substantial reputational damage', the court heard.
Gamble was arrested in February 2016 at his council home in Coalville, near Leicester, at
the request of the FBI after he hacked into the Department of Justice network.
Last October, Gamble, of Linford Crescent, Coalville, pleaded guilty at Leicester Crown
Court to eight charges of performing a function with intent to secure unauthorised access to
computers and two charges of unauthorised modification of computer material.
Prosecutor John Lloyd-Jones QC told a sentencing hearing at the Old Bailey: 'Kane Gamble
gained access to the communications accounts of some very high-ranking US intelligence
officials and government employees.
'The group incorrectly have been referred to as hackers. The group in fact used something
known as social engineering, which involves socially manipulating people - call centres or help
desks - into performing acts or divulging confidential information.'
'The group frequently bragged on social media and subjected the victims to online harassment
and abuse.'
The court heard Gamble 'felt particularly strongly' about US backed Israeli violence on
Palestinians, the shooting of black people by US police, racist violence by the KKK and the
bombing of civilians in Iraq and Syria.
Mr Justice Haddon-Cave described Gamble's activity as 'torture in the general sense - he got
these people in control and played with them to make their lives difficult'.
Gamble was allowed to sit next to his mother behind his barrister rather than the dock when
he appeared at the Old Bailey dressed in a dark blue coat.
Gamble also used an anonymous Twitter profile to talk to journalists.
Mr Lloyd-Jones said: 'He told a journalist, "It all started by me getting more and more
annoyed at how corrupt and cold-blooded the US government are. So I decided to do something
about it".'
He is due to be sentenced at the Old Bailey at a later date.
Pargolfer, Billericay, United Kingdom, 2 days ago
Does this not show, that the higher up you are the more you think you are too important to
be hacked? If a 15 year old could do this, how safe is American security? I think you had
better hire him.
oscartheone, London, United Kingdom, 2 days ago
In fact what he actually did was to gain access to the CIA directors hotmail account and
ex po se d the fact the director of the CIA was using hotmail to email top secret documents.
The travesty being it should be the director of the CIA on trial, not Gamble
steviewunda, Warrington, United Kingdom, 2 days ago
Some state he should be given a job, but then others would do outrageous things to put on
their CV for a job in intelligence. We can't be seen to encourage this despicable behaviour,
for any reason.
Villain1874, Villain Park, United Kingdom, 2 days ago
This will either ruin him or make him, if hes smart (which looks that way) he will use his
talents for the better if hes arrogant and tries this again U.S and U.K authorities will
destroy him before he knows whats hit him...
stc6, Stratford upon Avon, United Kingdom, 2 days ago
A talented kid! We should put him to good use but keep him on a tight leash!
CallMeDave, Bury, United Kingdom, 2 days ago
And right this minute the CIA are trying to link him to Russia.
Del, AEglesburgh, United Kingdom, 2 days ago
A lot of suggestions here to employ him. Yes appears to be a clever chap and probably
could do a good job, but he has acted in a criminal manner with intent to cause harm. He's
done this from his house, what damage could he do if employed by a Gov't agency? Temptation
would be too great.
erict, ipswich, United Kingdom, 2 days ago
Well this goes to show intelligent the US homeland security the NSA and the FBI are I'am
surprised the haven't put sanction's on Liestershire Iexpect those who work at HCHQ are
laughing their head's off,
That's a really fishy development. Like a mafia running inside FBI ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Intel points to top FBI and DOJ officials communicating via: ..."
"... Burner or disposable smart phones purchased with cash and charged with cash or money order ..."
"... Encrypted phone and web apps, including SIGNAL employed for anonymous texting ..."
"... Phones issued in the name of a spouse or family member, conceivably out of reach of federal subpoenas ..."
"... Use of such telecom devices as part of official government business violates a host of federal laws, insiders said. ..."
"... With many key personnel in the FBI currently under the microscope of the Inspector General -- for potential criminal violations -- top FBI and DOJ officials are communicating on disposable phones via text, voice and internet access to encrypted texting apps, FBI insiders confirm. ..."
"... "The IG is aware of this," one FBI insider said. "They have been up on these guys for a long time." The FBI source's comments reflect the fact that the Inspector General has had court-approved wiretaps running on key members in the FBI and DOJ linked to an assortment of public scandals. ..."
"... "It is OK to publicize this now, because they have dug themselves a very big hole," the FBI source said. "They have switched to burners." ..."
"... The FBI "failed to preserve" five months worth of text messages exchanged between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the two FBI employees who made pro-Clinton and anti-Trump comments while working on the Clinton email and the Russia collusion investigations. ..."
Members of the FBI and Justice Department's top brass at their Washington D.C.headquarters
and other field offices are now using burner phones to stay under the radar of federal
investigators and lawmakers, according to FBI insiders.
The shocking revelations come on the heels of news that the FBI deleted thousands of text
messages between anti-Trump FBI agents before investigators could review their content.
While that is disturbing on one level, FBI and DOJ hierarchy employing the telecom habits of
drug cartel bosses reaches a new low for the once-heralded federal law enforcement agency and
the DOJ. And breaks federal laws as well.
Intel points to top FBI and DOJ officials communicating via:
Burner or disposable smart phones purchased with cash and charged with cash or money
order
Encrypted phone and web apps, including SIGNAL employed for anonymous
texting
Phones issued in the name of a spouse or family member, conceivably out of reach of
federal subpoenas
Use of such telecom devices as part of official government business violates a host of
federal laws, insiders said.
But that hasn't slowed their use by top law enforcement personnel in the United States.
With many key personnel in the FBI currently under the microscope of the Inspector
General -- for potential criminal violations -- top FBI and DOJ officials are communicating on
disposable phones via text, voice and internet access to encrypted texting apps, FBI insiders
confirm.
"The IG is aware of this," one FBI insider said. "They have been up on these guys for a long
time." The FBI source's comments reflect the fact that the Inspector General has had court-approved
wiretaps running on key members in the FBI and DOJ linked to an assortment of public
scandals.
One of the main reasons why the Inspector General's report of its investigation of the FBI
has been delayed is because investigators keep getting wiretap intelligence on the key players,
the FBI official said.
"It is OK to publicize this now, because they have dug themselves a very big hole," the
FBI source said. "They have switched to burners."
Multiple FBI and federal law enforcement sources disclosed earlier that the IG was running
wiretaps on FBI and DOJ officials to True Pundit but requested an embargo on publishing the
information which would interfere with the investigation. True Pundit agreed to withhold until
given the green light to publish.
The FBI "failed to preserve" five months worth of text messages exchanged between Peter
Strzok and Lisa Page, the two FBI employees who made pro-Clinton and anti-Trump comments while
working on the Clinton email and the Russia collusion investigations.
The disclosure was made Friday in a letter sent by the Justice Department to the Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC).
"The Department wants to bring to your attention that the FBI's technical system for
retaining text messages sent and received on FBI mobile devices failed to preserve text
messages for Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page," Stephen Boyd, the assistant attorney general for
legislative affairs at the Justice Department, wrote to Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, the
chairman of HSGAC.
He said that texts are missing for the period between Dec. 14, 2016 and May 17, 2017.
Boyd attributed the failure to "misconfiguration issues related to rollouts, provisioning,
and software upgrades that conflicted with the FBI's collection capabilities."
"The result was that data that should have been automatically collected and retained for
long-term storage and retrieval was not collected," Boyd wrote.
Former FBI Director James
Comey has landed a teaching gig at his alma mater, the College of William & Mary, and
will join the ranks of the school's teaching faculty this fall with a course on ethical
leadership.
The Washington Post reports that Comey has accepted a nontenured position as an executive
professor in education with the school, and will teach the course on ethical leadership in fall
2018, spring 2019 and summer 2019 semesters.
"... But, according to the letter, the FBI told the department that its system for retaining text messages sent and received on bureau phones had failed to preserve communications between Strzok and Page over a five-month period between Dec. 14, 2016, and May 7, 2017. The explanation for the gap was "misconfiguration issues related to rollouts, provisioning, and software upgrades that conflicted with the FBI's collection capabilities." ..."
"... Technical glitches obviously do happen but I can't help getting a bit of a Lois Lerner flashback upon hearing that five months of messages are missing from the time right after Trump was elected until 10 days before Robert Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel. So if you were hoping for any follow up on that comment about an insurance policy, it looks like you can forget it. That's a well-timed glitch. ..."
"... But it seems the DOJ did turn over some additional texts that are worth considering. One involves an early draft of the Comey memo clearing Hillary Clinton. Originally the draft pointed out that Clinton had exchanged emails with President Obama while she was "on the territory" of a hostile power. Eventually, Obama's name was scrubbed from the document and finally all reference to the incident was removed. So that's one more example of the statement being watered down over time. And finally there is this : ..."
"... In another exchange, the two express displeasure about the timing of Lynch's announcement that she would defer to the FBI's judgment on the Clinton investigation. That announcement came days after it was revealed that the attorney general and former President Bill Clinton had an impromptu meeting aboard her plane in Phoenix, though both sides said the email investigation was never discussed ..."
"... Strzok said in a July 1 text message that the timing of Lynch's announcement "looks like hell." And Page appears to mockingly refer to Lynch's decision to accept the FBI's conclusion in the case as a "real profile in courag(e) since she knows no charges will be brought ..."
"... Comey himself had suggested Lynch appeared biased in the email probe and that he felt the need to act independently from her. ..."
"... "And she said, 'Yes, but don't call it that, call it a matter,'" Mr. Comey continued. "And I said, 'Why would I do that?' And she said, 'Just call it a matter.'" ..."
"... Mr. Comey said the "conclusive" episode that persuaded him to make his own announcement in the Clinton investigation rather than leave it to Ms. Lynch came last June, when former President Bill Clinton spontaneously boarded her plane on a tarmac and sat down to talk with her. ..."
"... So the story was that Lynch was biased (she was) but that Comey acted to protect the independence of the investigation. In fact, Lynch knew what Comey was going to say days before he said it. ..."
The Associated Press is reporting that the Department of Justice has given congressional
investigators additional text messages between FBI investigator Peter Strzok and his girlfriend
Lisa Page. The FBI also told investigators that five months worth of text messages, between
December 2016 and May 2017, are unavailable because of
a technical glitch .
Looks like another false flag operation , now with the participation of Italian intelligence services.
Notable quotes:
"... Appears Prof. Mifsud of Maltese descent has close links to former Italian Minister of the Interior Vincenzo Scotti and the Italian Intelligence Agency. See more information from the Link Campus based in Rome. With links to a corrupt Saudi Prince, getting some sense now of a covert operation or a piggy-back Mossad act with knowledge of Intelligence gained from Five Eyes raw data ... ..."
"... "We are very excited to be partnering with the Link Campus Foundation to fund and enable important scholarship that looks to build bridges of mediation in conflict regions around the world," ..."
"... "We have respected the work of Link Campus for some time. The Centre hopes to play an important role in contributing to its efforts toward creating peace and good governance by strengthening the ability of researchers, media, and civil society to speak out and be informed on vital contemporary issues." ..."
"... "The Centre will take a very pragmatic approach to helping bring smarter and more relevant thinking to the area of conflict mediation." ..."
"... "Offering this research platform for experts is EDOF's way of trying to support those who are doing the heavy thinking as to how we can bring resolution to some of the more intractable conflicts in our world." ..."
"... Prince Turki Al Faisal said the evidence, disclosed by the United States late, was "overwhelming" and "clearly shows official Iranian responsibility". "Somebody in Iran will have to pay the price," said Prince Turki , who also served as his country's envoy to Britain and the US. ..."
"... ... Prince Turki al-Faisal , the chairman of the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, is a former director of Saudi Arabia's intelligence services and ambassador to the United States. ..."
Appears Prof. Mifsud of Maltese descent has close links to former Italian Minister of the Interior
Vincenzo Scotti and the Italian Intelligence
Agency. See more information from the
Link Campus
based in Rome. With links to a corrupt Saudi Prince, getting some sense now of a covert operation or a piggy-back Mossad act with
knowledge of Intelligence gained from Five Eyes raw data ...
The EDOF Centre will work closely with the various interdisciplinary academic departments at the Link Campus University as
well as with international governments and organizations in order to support experts, academics, researchers, diplomats, governments,
and civil society activists in their attempts to help countries in conflict, crisis and transition around the world. The Partnership
Agreement was signed in Rome on May 8, 2017.
"We are very excited to be partnering with the Link Campus Foundation to fund and enable important scholarship that looks
to build bridges of mediation in conflict regions around the world," said
EDOF's CEO, Dr. Nawaf Obaid . "We have respected
the work of Link Campus for some time. The Centre hopes to play an important role in contributing to its efforts toward creating
peace and good governance by strengthening the ability of researchers, media, and civil society to speak out and be informed on
vital contemporary issues."
Professor Joseph Mefsud will be appointed the Founding Director of the Centre for a period of three years. Scholarships
and bursaries will be allocated in the field of War and Peace studies. The Centre will also hold international seminars and conferences,
produce research publications, and appoint Senior Fellows in the field of War and Peace studies.
According to
Tarek Obaid (
1 ), Founder of EDOF, "The Centre will take a very pragmatic approach to helping bring
smarter and more relevant thinking to the area of conflict mediation." It will achieve this by having three areas of concentration:
training, mentoring, and providing platforms for professional and expert seminars; building up the capacity of institutions and
civic groups; and working with independent and official partners to remove barriers to free expression, robust public debate and
open citizen engagement. "Offering this research platform for experts is EDOF's way of trying to support those who are doing
the heavy thinking as to how we can bring resolution to some of the more intractable conflicts in our world."
Nawaf Obaid is the Visiting Fellow for Intelligence & Defense Projects at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
He is also a weekly columnist for the pan-Arab daily, Al Hayat Newspaper.
He is currently the CEO of the Essam and Dalal Obaid Foundation (EDOF).
From 2004 to 2007, he was Special Advisor for Strategic Communications to
Prince Turki Al Faisal , while Prince Turki was the Saudi Ambassador to the United Kingdom & Ireland, and then the United
States. And from 2007 to 2011, he worked with the Saudi Royal Court, where he was seconded as a Special Advisor to the Saudi Information
Minister. Most recently, he served as the Special Counselor to the Saudi Ambassador to the United Kingdom from 2011 to 2015.
Il 20 marzo alle ore 10:30 presso l'Università degli Studi Link Campus University, si è tenuto il convegno "Brexit: stepping
off a cliff or indipendence day?"
Il convegno determina il primo atto di una collaborazione italo-britannica post Brexit, ed è stato organizzato in occasione
della firma del Protocollo d'intesa tra l'Università degli Studi Link Campus University e la London School of Economics and Political
Science, tenutasi lo stesso giorno nella sede dell'università romana.
Sono intervenuti: Franco Frattini - Presidente del Corso in Studi Strategici e Scienze Diplomatiche e Presidente della SIOI,
Vincenzo Scotti - Presidente dell'Università
degli Studi Link Campus University, Michael Cox - Direttore della LSE IDEAS e Professore di Relazioni Internazionali presso la
LSE.
Prince
Turki Al Faisal said the evidence, disclosed by the United States late, was "overwhelming" and "clearly shows official Iranian
responsibility". "Somebody in Iran will have to pay the price," said
Prince Turki , who also served as his country's
envoy to Britain and the US.
... Prince Turki al-Faisal , the chairman of
the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, is a former director of Saudi Arabia's intelligence services and ambassador
to the United States.
Looks like Mueller has strong connections to CIA and according to Brennan is his personal friend. This glowing introduction by none
other then Brenner rises several questions. One is did CIA controlled Mueller during his tenure of FBI director.
The fact the Muller was in charge after 9/11 attacks rases additional questions.
Listening to this, I feel very confident that Mr. Mueller will be able to get to the very bottom of the Russian investigation.
I think he is probably three or more steps ahead of any tricks our "President" might try. This man is a head chess player.
Ash Pro
No wonder Trump and co are scared of this man. He is gonna take the whole thing down.
On Friday at the Aspen Security Forum former CIA director John Brennan said senior officials in the executive branch should refuse
the order if President Trump fires special counsel Robert Mueller
(VERO BEACH, FL) Speaking on a panel to CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer with former DNI chief James Clapper, John Brennan effectively
called for a coup against the president if he should give the order to fire the DOJ appointed investigator.
"I think it's the obligation of some executive branch officials to refuse to carry that out," Mr. Brennan
said . "I would just hope that this is not going to be
a partisan issue. That Republicans, Democrats are going to see that the future of this government is at stake and something needs
to be done for the good of the future.
"If he's fired by Mr. Trump, or is attempted to be fired by Mr. Trump, I hope, I really hope that our members of congress, our
elected representatives, will stand up and say enough is enough, and stop making apologies and excuses for things that are happening
that really flaunt, I think, our system of laws and government here," Mr. Brennan said.
The editorial staff of ZeroHedge, an influential global blog which covers politics, economics, and war from a libertarian perspective,
also concluded
that Mr. Brennan's statement was "effectively calling for a coup" should President Trump give the order to fire Mr. Mueller.
From May 17, 2017 through Sept. 30, 2017, Robert Mueller's Russia probe spent nearly $7 Million of taxpayers' dollars. In seven
months, no solid evidence has been produced to prove that Pres. Trump colluded with the Russians to impact the elections. The
budget for Mueller's investigation was approved by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. -- 12.5.17 –"Mueller's Russia probe
spent nearly $7M in four months – May 17, 2017 through Sept. 30, 2017" – Fox News --
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/05/muellers-russia-probe-spent-nearly-7m-in-first-few-months.html
Now there's a face to go with the name of the biased FBI operative at the center of multiple probes and controversies dogging
the Trump administration.
Fox News has obtained a photo of Peter Strzok, the longtime FBI deputy fired by Special Counsel Robert Mueller over his bias against
President Trump. Strzok (pronounced "Struck"), was sacked by Mueller after electronic messages he reportedly sent to a colleague
emerged, but not before he played key roles in the probes swirling around Trump.
Strzok, a former deputy to the assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI, oversaw the bureau's interviews with ousted
National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, changed former FBI Director James Comey's early draft language about Hillary Clinton's actions
regarding her private email server from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless" and reportedly helped push the largely unverified
dossier on Trump that was initially prepared by Fusion GPS for the Clinton campaign's opposition research.
Strzok's messages were reportedly not only anti-Trump, but also pro-Hillary. That has raised the ire of critics because, prior
to joining Mueller's probe, he made edits to Comey's speech exonerating Hillary Clinton.
The language being edited was important because classified material that's been mishandled for "gross negligence" calls for criminal
consequences, analysts point out.
The wording change
came to light last month after newly reported memos to Congress showed that a May 2016 draft of Comey's statement closing out
the email investigation accused the former secretary of state of being "grossly negligent." A June 2016 draft stated Clinton had
been "extremely careless."
The modified language was final when Comey announced in July 2016 that Clinton wouldn't face any charges in the email investigation.
A source close to the matter told Fox News that the probe, which will examine Strzok's roles in a number of other politically
sensitive cases, should be completed by "very early next year."
EXCLUSIVE – Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that the department's Office of Inspector General
is reviewing the role played in the Hillary Clinton email investigation by Peter Strzok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence
at the FBI who was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this year, after Mueller learned that
Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague.
The task will be exceedingly complex, given Strzok's consequential portfolio. He participated in the FBI's fateful interview with
Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016 – just days before then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was declining to recommend prosecution
of Mrs. Clinton in connection with her use, as secretary of state, of a private email server.
As deputy FBI director for counterintelligence, Strzok also enjoyed liaison with various agencies in the intelligence community,
including the CIA, then led by Director John Brennan.
Key figure
House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Strzok as a key figure in the chain of events when the bureau, in 2016,
received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election
that ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate.
The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about then-candidate Trump and others around him
that was compiled by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed
that the project was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., has sought documents and witnesses from the Department of Justice
and FBI to determine what role, if any, the dossier played in the move to place a Trump campaign associate under foreign surveillance.
Strzok himself briefed the committee on Dec. 5, 2016, the sources said, but within months of that session House Intelligence Committee
investigators were contacted by an informant suggesting that there was "documentary evidence" that Strzok was purportedly obstructing
the House probe into the dossier.
In early October, Nunes personally asked Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein – who has overseen the Trump-Russia probe since
the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions – to make Strzok available to the committee for questioning, sources said.
While Strzok's removal from the Mueller team had been publicly reported in August, the Justice Department never disclosed the
anti-Trump texts to the House investigators
When a month had elapsed, House investigators – having issued three subpoenas for various witnesses and documents – formally recommended
to Nunes that DOJ and FBI be held in contempt of Congress.
Nunes continued pressing DOJ, including a conversation with Rosenstein as recently as last Wednesday
Contempt citations?
Responding to the revelations about Strzok's texts on Saturday, Nunes said he has now directed his staff to draft contempt-of-Congress
citations against Rosenstein and the new FBI director, Christopher Wray. Unless DOJ and FBI comply with all of his outstanding requests
for documents and witnesses by the close of business on Monday, Nunes said, he would seek a resolution on the contempt citations
before year's end.
"We now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us this explanation, and at least one reason why
they previously refused to make [FBI] Deputy Director [Andrew] McCabe available to the Committee for an interview," Nunes said in
a statement.
Those witnesses are FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and the FBI officer said to have handled Christopher Steele, the British
spy who used Russian sources to compile the dossier for Fusion GPS. The official said to be Steele's FBI handler has also appeared
already before the Senate panel.
In addition, Rosenstein is set to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Dec. 13.
Sources close to the various investigations agreed the discovery of Strzok's texts raised important questions about his work on
the Clinton email case, the Trump-Russia probe, and the dossier matter.
A top House investigator asked: "If Mueller knew about the texts, what did he know about the dossier?"
Carr declined to comment on the extent to which Mueller has examined the dossier and its relationship, if any, to the counterintelligence
investigation that Strzok launched during the height of the campaign season.
"Institutionally, the Democratic Party Is Not Democratic"
Very apt characterization "the Democratic Party is nothing more
than a layer of indirection between the donor class and the Democratic consultants and the
campaigns they run;" ... " after all, the Democratic Party -- in its current incarnation -- has important roles to play
in not expanding its "own" electorate through voter registration, in the care and feeding of the intelligence community, in
warmongering, in the continual buffing and polishing of neoliberal ideology, and in general keeping the Overton Window firmly
nailed in place against policies that would convey universal concrete material benefits, especially to the working class"
Notable quotes:
"... That said, the revivification of the DNC lawsuit serves as a story hook for me to try to advance the story on the nature of political parties as such, the Democratic Party as an institution, and the function that the Democratic Party serves. I will meander through those three topics, then, and conclude. ..."
"... What sort of legal entity is ..."
"... Political parties were purely private organizations from the 1790s until the Civil War. Thus, "it was no more illegal to commit fraud in the party caucus or primary than it would be to do so in the election of officers of a drinking club." However, due to the efforts of Robert La Follette and the Progressives, states began to treat political parties as "public agencies" during the early 1890s and 1900s; by the 1920s "most states had adopted a succession of mandatory statutes regulating every major aspect of the parties' structures and operations. ..."
"... While 1787 delegates disagreed on when corruption might occur, they brought a general shared understanding of what political corruption meant. To the delegates, political corruption referred to self-serving use of public power for private ends, including, without limitation, bribery, public decisions to serve private wealth made because of dependent relationships, public decisions to serve executive power made because of dependent relationships, and use by public officials of their positions of power to become wealthy. ..."
"... Two features of the definitional framework of corruption at the time deserve special attention, because they are not frequently articulated by all modern academics or judges. The first feature is that corruption was defined in terms of an attitude toward public service, not in relation to a set of criminal laws. The second feature is that citizenship was understood to be a public office. The delegates believed that non-elected citizens wielding or attempting to influence public power can be corrupt and that elite corruption is a serious threat to a polity. ..."
"... You can see how a political party -- a strange, amphibious creature, public one moment, private the next -- is virtually optimized to create a phishing equilibrium for corruption. However, I didn't really answer my question, did I? I still don't know what sort of legal entity the Democratic Party is. However, I can say what the Democratic Party is not ..."
"... So the purpose of superdelegates is to veto a popular choice, if they decide the popular choice "can't govern." But this is circular. Do you think for a moment that the Clintonites would have tried to make sure President Sanders couldn't have governed? You bet they would have, and from Day One. ..."
"... More importantly, you can bet that the number of superdelegates retained is enough for the superdelegates, as a class, to maintain their death grip on the party. ..."
"... could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. ..."
"... That's exactly ..."
"... Functionally, the Democratic Party Is a Money Trough for Self-Dealing Consultants. Here once again is Nomiki Konst's amazing video, before the DNC: https://www.youtube.com/embed/EAvblBnXV-w Those millions! That's real money! ..."
"... Today, it is openly acknowledged by many members that the DNC and the Clinton campaign were running an operation together. In fact, it doesn't take much research beyond FEC filings to see that six of the top major consulting firms had simultaneous contracts with the DNC and HRC -- collectively earning over $335 million since 2015 [this figure balloons in Konst's video because she got a look at the actual budget]. (This does not include SuperPACs.) ..."
"... One firm, GMMB earned $236.3 million from HFA and $5.3 from the DNC in 2016. Joel Benenson, a pollster and strategist who frequents cable news, collected $4.1m from HFA while simultaneously earning $3.3 million from the DNC. Perkins Coie law firm collected $3.8 million from the DNC, $481,979 from the Convention fund and $1.8 million from HFA in 2016. ..."
"... It gets worse. Not only do the DNC's favored consultants pick sides in the primaries, they serve on the DNC boards so they can give themselves donor money. ..."
"... These campaign consultants make a lot more money off of TV and mail than they do off of field efforts. Field efforts are long-term, labor-intensive, high overhead expenditures that do not have big margins from which the consultants can draw their payouts. They also don't allow the consultants to make money off of multiple campaigns all in the same cycle, while media and mail campaigns can be done from their DC office for dozens of clients all at the same time. They get paid whether campaigns win or lose, so effectiveness is irrelevant to them. ..."
"... the Democratic Party is nothing more than a layer of indirection between the donor class and the Democratic consultants and the campaigns they run; ..."
"... the Democratic Party -- in its current incarnation -- has important roles to play in not expanding its "own" electorate through voter registration, in the care and feeding of the intelligence community, in warmongering, in the continual buffing and polishing of neoliberal ideology, and in general keeping the Overton Window firmly nailed in place against policies that would convey universal concrete material benefits, especially to the working class. ..."
"... the bottom line is that if Democratic Party controls ballot access for the forseeable future, they have to be gone through ..."
"... In retrospect, despite Sanders evident appeal and the power of his list, I think it would have been best if their faction's pushback had been much stronger ..."
An alert reader who is a representative of the class that's suing the DNC Services
Corporation for fraud in the 2016 Democratic primary -- WILDING et al. v. DNC SERVICES
CORPORATION et al., a.k.a. the "DNC lawsuit" -- threw some interesting mail over the transom;
it's from Elizabeth Beck of Beck & Lee, the firm that brought the case on behalf of the
(putatively) defrauded class (and hence their lawyer). Beck's letter reads in relevant
part:
What a bombshell! Finally some truth about the "Justice system" in the US.
Following on from this should be the whole subsequent story of the DNC-Fusion-Steele dossier in detail, exposing the MSM too
for what it has been worth.
Perhaps then Trump dares to go against the deep state swamp and stop wars instead of following the dictates of CIA, Israel and
Military Industrialists. That would be a real POTUS PLUS result.
""It's troubling. It is shocking," North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows said. "Part of me wishes that I didn't read it because
I don't want to believe that those kinds of things could be happening in this country that I call home and love so much.""
***
Come on, child! Enough with that spectacle. Get real. Have the basic courage to know and to admit what everybody has known
about your country for ages!... The entire world already knows.
More proof, if any were needed, that the only threat to the people of the USA comes from their own government. The 'external
threat' is a fiction calculated to enslave the US population and enrich the Oligarchy.
Somebody's going to leak this in short order. Let's take a real look at what both Dems and Repubs just expanded, let's look
at the monster they are feeding in broad daylight.
It is exactly as I told you. Russiagate is a conspiracy between the FBI, the DOJ, and the
Hillary campaign to overturn Donald Trump's election. We have treason committed at the highest
levels of the FBI and Department of Justice and the Democratic National Committee.
If you believed one word of Russiagate, you now must laugh or cry at your incredible
gullibility.
This scandal should also bring down the presstitute media who have done the dirty work for
the conspiracy against Trump.
GOP Rep. Gaetz Calls on House to Release 'Important Intelligence Document' -- Goes to 'Very Foundations of Our
Democracy,' Involves FBI, DoJ and Trump
.
@mattgaetz
: "The
allegations contained in this important intelligence document go to the very foundations of our democracy and
they require an immediate release to the public in my opinion."
pic.twitter.com/kqjxp21GcA
18 Jan, 2018
18 Jan, 2018
Thursday on the Fox Business Network, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) teased an intelligence memo that he claimed went "to
the very foundations of democracy" and called on his colleagues in the House of Representatives to make the memo
public.
Gaetz told host Liz Claman the memo involved the FBI, the Department of Justice and President Donald Trump.
"The allegations contained in this important intelligence document go to the very foundations of our democracy,
and they require an immediate release to the public in my opinion," Gaetz said. "Unfortunately, I can not talk
about the specific facts contained within this memo. I can only share my observation -- that if the American people
knew what was happening if they saw the contents of this memo, a lot would become clear about the information that
I've been talking about the last several months. And so, I am calling on our leadership to hold a vote on the
floor of the House to make public the key contents of this intelligence memo regarding the FBI, the Department of
Justice and President Trump."
According to Gaetz, a vote could be held simultaneously with a continuing resolution vote that would make the
"critical allegations" in the document on the floor of the House of Representatives.
All hell is breaking loose in Washington D.C. tonight after a four-page memo detailing
extensive
FISA court abuse
was made available to the entire House of Representatives Thursday. The
contents of the memo are so explosive, says Journalist Sara Carter, that it could
lead to the
removal of senior officials in the FBI and the Department of Justice and the end of Robert Mueller's
special counsel investigation.
These sources say the report is "explosive," stating
they would not be surprised if it
leads to the end of Robert Mueller's Special Counsel investigation
into President Trump
and his associates. -
Sara
Carter
A source close to the matter tells
Fox
News
that "the memo details the Intelligence Committee's oversight work for
the FBI and Justice,
including the controversy over unmasking and FISA surveillance."
An
educated guess by anyone who's been paying attention for the last year leads to the obvious conclusion
that the report reveals
extensive abuse of power and highly illegal collusion between the
Obama administration, the FBI, the DOJ and the Clinton Campaign against Donald Trump and his team
during and after the 2016 presidential election.
Lawmakers who have seen the memo are calling for its immediate release, while the phrases
"explosive," "shocking," "troubling," and "alarming" have all been used in all sincerity. One
congressman even likened the report's details to KGB activity in Russia. "
It is so alarming
the American people have to see this,
" Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan told
Fox News
. "
It's
troubling. It is shocking
," North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows said. "
Part of me wishes
that I didn't read it because I don't want to believe that those kinds of things could be happening in
this country that I call home and love so much.
"
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., offered the motion on Thursday to make the Republican majority-authored
report available to the members.
"
The document shows a troubling course of conduct and we need to make the document
available, so the public can see it,
" said a senior government official, who spoke on
condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the document. "
Once the public sees it, we
can hold the people involved accountable in a number of ways
."
The government official said that after reading the document "
some of these people
should no longer be in the government.
" -
Sara Carter
Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz (R) echoed Sara Carter's sentiment
that people might lose their job
if the memo is released:
"
I believe the consequence of its release will
be major changes in people currently working at the FBI and the Department of Justice
," he
said, referencing DOJ officials
Rod Rosenstein and Bruce Ohr
.
Meanwhile, Rep. Matt Gatetz (R-FL) said
not only will the release of this memo result in
DOJ firing, but "people will go to jail."
Former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino says "
Take it to the bank, the FBI/FISA docs are
devastating for the Dems
."
The dossier was used in part as evidence for a warrant to surveil members of the Trump
campaign,
according to a
story
published this month
. Former British spy Christopher Steele, who compiled the dossier in 2016,
was hired by embattled research firm Fusion GPS. The firm's founder is Glenn Simpson, a former Wall
Street Journal reporter who has already testified before Congress in relation to the dossier. In
October, The Washington Post revealed for the first time that it was the Hillary Clinton campaign
and the DNC that financed Fusion GPS.
Congressional members are hopeful that the classified information will be declassified and
released to the public.
"
We probably will get this stuff released by the end of the month
," stated a
congressional member, who asked not to be named. -
Sara Carter
Releasing the memo to the public would require a committee vote, a source told
Fox
, adding
that if approved,
it could be released as long as there are no objections from the White House
within five days
.
Reactions from the citizenry have been on point:
... ... ....
Even WikiLeaks has joined the fray, offering a reward in Bitcoin to anyone who will share the memo:
Oddly, the Twitter account for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence - @HPSCI - has
been mysteriously suspended.
Of all the recent developments in the ongoing investigation(s), this one is on the cusp of turning
into a genuine happening.
"... Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, with almost four decades of membership in the House and Senate, openly warned incoming President Trump in January 2017 against criticizing the U.S. intelligence community because U.S. intelligence officials have "six ways from Sunday to get back at you" if you are "dumb" enough to take them on. ..."
"... Senate Judiciary Committee chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, says he will ask Strzok to explain the "insurance policy" when he calls him to testify. What seems already clear is that the celebrated "Steele Dossier" was part of the "insurance," as was the evidence-less legend that Russia hacked the DNC's and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta's emails and gave them to WikiLeaks . <img src="https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/fbiseal-291x300.jpg" alt="" width="291" height="300" srcset="https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/fbiseal-291x300.jpg 291w, https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/fbiseal.jpg 350w" sizes="(max-width: 291px) 100vw, 291px" /> ..."
"... There is a snowball's chance in hell that this is raw intelligence gathered by Steele; rather he seems to have drawn on a single 'trusted intermediary' to gather unsubstantiated rumor already in existence. ..."
"... "The fact that you do not control your sources frequently means that they will feed you what they think you want to hear. Since they are only doing it for money, the more lurid the details the better, as it increases the apparent value of the information. The private security firm in turn, which is also doing it for the money, will pass on the stories and even embroider them to keep the client happy and to encourage him to come back for more. When I read the Steele dossier it looked awfully familiar to me, like the scores of similar reports I had seen which combined bullshit with enough credible information to make the whole product look respectable." ..."
"... How, you might ask, could Strzok and associates undertake these extra-legal steps with such blithe disregard for the possible consequences should they be caught? The answer is easy; Mrs. Clinton was a shoo-in, remember? This was just extra insurance with no expectation of any "death benefit" ever coming into play -- save for Trump's electoral demise in November 2016. The attitude seemed to be that, if abuse of the FISA law should eventually be discovered -- there would be little interest in a serious investigation by the editors of The New York Times and other anti-Trump publications and whatever troubles remained could be handled by President Hillary Clinton. ..."
Special Report: In the Watergate era, liberals warned about U.S. intelligence agencies
manipulating U.S. politics, but now Trump-hatred has blinded many of them to this danger
becoming real, as ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern notes.
"... Rod Rosenstein, current Deputy Attorney General under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is also a member of the Mueller Gang, having worked directly under Robert Mueller at the Department of Justice as far back as 1990. When Comey was still working as the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division for the U.S. Attorney's office in New York, Mueller and Rosenstein were becoming thick as thieves. ..."
"... He supervised the investigation that found no basis for criminal prosecution of White House officials who had obtained classified FBI background reports. He did a great job covering for the Team Bill Clinton, including covering for Hillary, as she was one of the people who had access to the reports, and may have even requested them. Convenient for the Clintons, no indictments were filed. ..."
"... Having proven his loyalty to the powers that be, Rosenstein was appointed to work in the US Office of the Independent Counsel under Ken Starr on the Whitewater Investigation into then President Bill Clinton. By some miracle, or clever work by insiders, the Clintons escaped culpability once again. Rod wasn't alone, he had help from his co-worker James Comey, who was also making sure the Clintons were exonerated during the Whitewater affair. ..."
"... Who is surprised when three of the top lawman fixers for the Clinton/Bush cabal have axes in their eyes for President Donald J. Trump? ..."
There is a longtime and incestuous relationship between the fixers who have been tasked with taking down President Trump, under
the fake narrative of enforcing the law. James Comey worked in the DOJ directly under Mueller until 2005. Rod Rosenstein and Mueller
go even further back.
James Comey wasn't just some associate of Mueller back then, but rather his protégé. Under the George W. Bush presidency, when
Comey was serving as Deputy Attorney General under John Ashcroft, Robert Mueller was Comey's go-to guy when he needed help. The two
men, as it came to light years later, conspired to disobey potential White House orders to leave Ashcroft alone when he was incapacitated
in March of 2004. These two men, when together, will not obey orders if they think they know better. Being filled with hubris and
almost two decades of doing just about anything they want, they always think they know better.
Rod Rosenstein, current Deputy Attorney General under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is also a member of the Mueller Gang, having
worked directly under Robert Mueller at the Department of Justice as far back as 1990. When Comey was still working as the Deputy
Chief of the Criminal Division for the U.S. Attorney's office in New York, Mueller and Rosenstein were becoming thick as thieves.
We look back at Rod's loyal work for Hillary Clinton, when he became a clean-up man for the Clinton Administration as an Associate
Independent Counsel from 1995 until 1997. He supervised the investigation that found no basis for criminal prosecution of White House
officials who had obtained classified FBI background reports. He did a great job covering for the Team Bill Clinton, including covering
for Hillary, as she was one of the people who had access to the reports, and may have even requested them. Convenient for the Clintons,
no indictments were filed.
Having proven his loyalty to the powers that be, Rosenstein was appointed to work in the US Office of the Independent Counsel
under Ken Starr on the Whitewater Investigation into then President Bill Clinton. By some miracle, or clever work by insiders, the
Clintons escaped culpability once again. Rod wasn't alone, he had help from his co-worker James Comey, who was also making sure the
Clintons were exonerated during the Whitewater affair.
Here is Robert Mueller, sitting in the middle of his two wunderkinds, making sure the path before them is smooth and obstacle
free, and practically shepherding their careers along the way. Is it any wonder that once Jeff Sessions shamelessly recused himself
from the Russia Collusion Conspiracy investigation and turned it over to his deputy Rod Rosenstein, that Rosenstein would reach out
to his old mentor for help? Who is surprised when three of the top lawman fixers for the Clinton/Bush cabal have axes in their eyes
for President Donald J. Trump?
Enter Lisa Barsoomian, wife of Rod Rosenstein. Lisa is a high-powered attorney in Washington, DC, who specializes in opposing
Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the Deep State, err, I mean, the Intelligence Communities.
Same question I have asked before, why are all these Clinton supporters and Obama clones still part of the Trump White House?
Why have they not been removed. It almost seems as if Trump is handing these people the rope they plan to hang him with. You can
bet the farm if Obama was still in office there would be no supporters of a previous Republican administration in his White House.
They would all have been shoved out the back door long ago. Is there no way either Trump or Sessions can get rid of these people?
And if not, why not?
The Trump administration is more than overloaded with Obama holdovers and you can bet none of them is there to help him enact
his America First agenda. Those people have been working to make sure it's "America Last" for decades now.
One wonders how long they will be able to keep pushing that famous non-event, the Trump/Russian collusion theory before they realize
that people are just not buying it anymore.
Years ago, and some of you all may remember it, there was a hamburger commercial on where a little old lady stepped up to the
counter and asked "Where's the beef?" Today the public could just as easily step up and ask the Establishment "Where's the evidence?"
when it comes to Trump and the Russians because all we have heard from the Trump detractors is lots of political bloviation all dressed
up in legalese--but no real evidence to back it up.
Might I suggest that Mr. Trump and/or Mr. Sessions see about removing these people that are willfully preventing the Trump administration
from doing what we elected it to do?
Send your letter modified to be a formal complaint. I have just sent the following letter to Rosenstein by Certified Mail so
that "Someone" needs to sign for it. U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
Attention: Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Ron Rosenstein, Esq.
August 10, 2017
Subject: Mr. Robert Mueller, Esq. serving as Special Council, and calling for a Grand Jury
Dear Mr. Deputy Attorney General:
I am writing to you primarily as a way to establish a historical record of your endeavor to investigate any collusion between
President Donald J. Trump and the Russians, during the 2016 Federal Election process. Your temporary responsibilities as acting
Attorney General caused you to be attuned to the entire Department of Justice case load. And so, you would be fully aware of all
facets of the Trump-Russia 2016 Election collision, if any. No collusion was discovered. And so, it would behoove the present
Attorney General Mr. Jeffrey Sessions, Esq., to un-recuse himself now that there is no evidence of a Trump felony. You, however,
Mr. Deputy Attorney General, are complicit with Attorney Robert Mueller, Esq. in establishing a Special Council and appointed
Mr. Mueller to that position.
It is known in public circles that Mr. Mueller is a close friend of former Dir. FBI, James B. Comey. When the President of
the United States, Donald Trump fired Comey, Attorney. Robert Mueller can be seen as an extremely biased prosecutor. Mueller's
assignment, at the suggestion of Comey and its actual enactment, is, in my opinion illegal.
The Special Council began his investigation in May 2016, it has been noted in the Main Stream Media. We are now almost midway
into August and there has been no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
I am aware that a Special Council is triggered by ongoing or previous criminal activity and is based upon hard evidence that
can be used to prosecute a felon. Yet Atty. Robert Mueller was made Special Council without any criminal activity performed by
a felon and without any evidence. And then, to establish a Grand Jury for the prosecution, that is totally out of line with ethical
justice and the Rule of Law. The final partisan development is that Special Council Mueller has moved the Grand Jury from Virginia
to Washington D. C., wherein he is likely to load the Grand Jury with Democrats who, politically are biased against President
Trump.
How is that possible at such a high level in the DOJ to allow such misdeeds of justice? The complicit activity described in
the body of this letter is the criminal activity, in my opinion. No, the Mueller investigation and Grand Jury is not a witch hunt.
Rather it is a stronger term, a Vendetta.
Alan Dale Rhoads, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, Oreland, PA, 19075-1401
Lisa Barsoomian, Rod Rosenstein's wife was FBI FOiA Shot Blocker and
covert communication masking official. Did Rosenstein mention her FBI
oversight duties yesterday?
you don't think that maybe this is a honeypot? I think these over zealous criminals are creaming their pants and hanging themselves,
remember Rogers and the NSA be listening to err thing in the house
Deeply disturbing but not surprising. Rosenstein struck me immediately as another one just like Andrew McCabe, who supposedly
was investigating Hilary's infamous server -- he's married to a Virginia Democrat candidate
though this MSM once-over, like all the others, won't go anywhere near the curious fact that the FBI never actually examined
the server, it took the word of Google-funded puppet Crowdstrike, which just happens to be run by a famously anti-Russian activist
and Terry McAuliffe does seem to lead the charmed life doesn't he? His career seems to be a laundry list of grossly unethical
but just-not-quite-illegal behavior...I guess it helps to have friends in high places.
George Papadopoulos ... in 03/06//16, he joined the Trump campaign as a low-level foreign
policy adviser.
Between 03/15/16 and 09/15/16 he tried six times to to arrange meetings between the
Trump campaign and Russians, all of them rejected.
On 04/26/16 he met with a Russian contact in London and was "reportedly" offered "dirt" on
Hillary.
05/21/16. According to Mueller's investigation, a Trump campaign official refused
Papadopoulos's offer to broker meetings with Russian officials.
09/15/16. Papadopoulos emailed a Russian contact, Boris Epshteyn, trying to connect him
with Sergei Milliam, author of much of the Fusion GPS "dossier".
01/27/17. Papadopoulos was interviewed by the FBI, which resulted in his eventual
indictment for lying to the Bureau.
As Pat Buchanan discusses above, on 12/30/17, the NYT's Maggie Haberman (known to be
linked with the DNC), marketed a narrative that the FBI opened its Trump investigation due to
Papadopoulos, and not because of the "dossier".
These dated facts are taken, mostly verbatim, from a timeline compiled by Doug Ross
I recommend his: A TIMELINE OF TREASON: How the DNC and FBI Leadership Tried to Fix a
Presidential Election [Updated Saturday, December 30, 2017].
It's an excellent account of the key events, from 05/31/13 to the present, with dates and
links to key documents.
You can find it at his dougross timelineoftreason website.
Blast from the past. Now we know why Coney behaved this way and who was instrumental in exonerating Hillary. They wanted to
derail both sanders and Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... Comey called her "extremely careless." That was highly charitable. But even by that standard, Hillary was grossly negligent with classified material. Comey says Hillary had no intent to transmit information to foreign powers. But that's not what the statute requires. ..."
"... The FBI said in their statement that they found documents classified as Secret and Top Secret on her personal server. ..."
"... That means she gets off if the Defense lawyer can convince the Jury it's reasonable to believe a sixty-something policy wonk had no fucking clue that a server in her basement was less secure then a government email account because she was not consciously choosing to be less secure. ..."
"... So in this case the FBI chose not to charge her for something we all know she did and is a clear violation of the law as written. ..."
"... Lack of legitimacy hasn't hampered her at all. The same goes for lack of morality, lack of patriotism, lack of decency, lack of conscience. Really at this point we need 7 dwarfs and a prince to rid us of her. ..."
"... More than 2,000 of the 30,490 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department in December 2014 contained classified information, including 110 emails in 52 email chains that contained classified information at the time they were sent or received , Comey said. ..."
"... For Hillary the 110 emails have all been verified by the owning agency that the information was classified at the time Hillary included it in her emails. Thus felonies, except that she is a Clinton and is thus exempt from the laws we peons are subject to. ..."
"... She moved, or caused to be moved, classified material off of a secure system onto an un-secure system. It would still be a felony if she had simply moved one of the 110 found documents to a thumb drive! The FBI basically said she broke the law 110 times and we are recommending to not prosecute! ..."
"... "the FBI itself, less than a year ago, charged one Bryan H. Nishimura, 50, of Folsom, who pleaded guilty to "unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials" without malicious intent, in other words precisely what the FBI alleges Hillary did" http://theantimedia.org/this-m... [theantimedia.org] ..."
"... What she did was illegal, and what she did should disqualify her from having a clearance. Far less connected people have done much the same and gotten 2 years probation and $7500 fine. Petraeus did much the same and got 2 years probation and $100,000 fine. There is plenty of evidence of her breaking the law. The problem is that no one will prosecute it because Hillary is rich enough to afford lawyers that could get her off, and it would just make it look political. ..."
"... She flatly violated a statute that only requires gross negligence (aka, "extreme carelessness"), but Comey dodged and said he wouldn't recommend prosecution because he could not prove intent - even though intent is not required by the statute. ..."
"... But the key point is that under the Espionage act (18 USC 793) you don't get to be careless with national secrets. You request a clearance you promise to not be careless under punishment of Law. ..."
"... She instructed her staff to "remove markings and send non-secure." Her defense was "they weren't -marked- classified when I sent them." ..."
"... I would say that her instruction "send non-secure" makes it pretty clear she knew it isn't secure, and was actively thinking of that fact when she told them to do it. At the same time, she was also setting her up defense, having them (illegally?) remove the classification markings so that she could later testify "they weren't marked classified when I forwarded them." Sounds like she knew it was illegal. ..."
"... That's pretty darn specific. If it was just the confidential stuff, I think your implication that the government classifies everything and this isn't a big deal would be very strong. Multiple accidental Top Secret information leaks is a bit different, though. In the last 15 years, we have sent many government workers to jail for leaking information like this, or even just having it stored at their house. [washingtonpost.com] ..."
"... Posting as AC for obvious reasons. If I had done anything remotely like what Hillary did when I was in the intelligence community, I would have gone to jail and never ever seen daylight again. But then again, I wasn't one of the "elite" and laws actually applied to me. ..."
"... In January 2015, officials reported the FBI and Justice Department prosecutors had recommended bringing felony charges against Petraeus for allegedly providing classified information to his biographer, Paula Broadwell (with whom he was having an affair), while serving as the director of the CIA Eventually, Petraeus pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information... On April 23, 2015, a federal judge sentenced Petraeus to two years' probation plus a fine of $100,000. The fine was more than double the amount the Justice Department had requested. ..."
"... You are correct: what he confirmed was that Clinton lied under oath to Congress, not to the FBI. (He also confirmed that she lied to the American people.) ..."
"... She couldn't have lied under oath to the FBI because she wasn't put under oath, and her interviews were neither recorded nor transcripts prepared, which really makes the whole investigation a farce. ..."
"... Comey will now be tasked with a formal investigation of her lying to Congress. If we're lucky, they'll still get her. ..."
"... I think Clinton is unsuitable for the job of president because she is dishonest, corrupt, and, above all, incompetent. ..."
"... Are you living under a rock? Her private E-mail server, the hundreds of millions of dollars of donations to the Clinton Foundation while she was in office, her nepotism, her speaking fees, her corporate cronyism, her lies about her stance on gay marriage, and her revisionist AIDS history alone ought to be enough to consider her profoundly dishonest, corrupt, and incompetent, and we haven't even gotten to the real political stuff that the Republicans always harp on about. Really, what kind of gullible fool are you? ..."
This statute explicitly states that whoever, "entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document through
gross negligence permits the same to removed from its proper place of custody or having knowledge that the same has been illegally
removed from its proper place of custody.shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
Comey called her "extremely careless." That was highly charitable. But even by that standard, Hillary was grossly negligent
with classified material. Comey says Hillary had no intent to transmit information to foreign powers. But that's not what the
statute requires.
18 USC 1924.
This statute states that any employee of the United States who "knowingly removes [classified] documents or materials without
authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both." Hillary set up a private server explicitly to do this.
18 USC 798.
This statute states that anyone who "uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United Statesany classified
informationshall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." Hillary transmitted classified
information in a manner that harmed the United States; Comey says she may have been hacked.
18 USC 2071.
This statute says that anyone who has custody of classified material and "willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates,
obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years." Clearly,
Hillary meant to remove classified materials from government control.
Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @09:28PM (
#52467767 )
The FBI said in their statement that they found documents classified as Secret and Top Secret on her personal server.
A clear-case of hate-reading. Which always gets more complicated when you add in legal English. Especially since we're talking
about a defendant in a criminal case, and there's this "Reasonable Doubt" thing that means you can get off even if the Jury
is pretty sure you did it. To counter your specific points:
18 USC 793:
"Gross negligence" is an extremely specific legal term. The
definition [wikipedia.org] starts with extreme
carelessness, but specifies that the carelessness must "shows a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable
care, and likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm." Note all that shit about what's going on in the defendants head
("conscious and voluntary")?
That means she gets off if the Defense lawyer can convince the Jury it's reasonable to believe a sixty-something policy
wonk had no fucking clue that a server in her basement was less secure then a government email account because she was not
consciously choosing to be less secure.
18 USC 1924:
Good luck proving that beyond a reasonable doubt. She swore up and down she had no classified info on the server. Which
means to prove that interesting "knowingly" word you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was lying when she said
that.
Moreover there's an equally interesting "without authority" clause. She's an OCA, and if her President gets called
to the stand and asked "do you think she did something wrong?" he will say no. Moreover the fact that previous Secretaries
did it without being charged, and that John Kerry felt he had to explicitly ban the practice of keeping info on your own server,
strongly implies that it was authorized at the time.
18 USC 798:
Don't be ridiculous. You're seriously arguing that the Secretary of State, who serves at the pleasure of the person
who defines the national interest of the United States, emailing some foreign leader or another is "using classified info to
harm the United States?" Don't get me wrong I'm sure that in literal terms many cabinet officers have been fuck-ups who were
hurting the country (looking at you Rummy), but that's not illegal.
18 USC 2071:
You see that pronoun "same?" The antecedent is "any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed
or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or
public officer of the United States." The whole problem is that she failed to keep her emails in a governmental system, not
that she went into some US Clerk's office, ransacked the files for her emails, and then ran away laughing evilly.
Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @09:28AM (
#52462567 )
Comey didn't say that she leaked anything. He said that she didn't properly safeguard classified information.
However, there was no intent to leak information, nor is there evidence that anything was leaked. Comey searched high and low
for a precedent which would allow him to bring charges, and he concluded that if he indicted Clinton, he would probably have to
indict a significant portion of the federal bureaucracy.
Hard to bring criminal charges for utilizing a bad process. "Should have known better" isn't a criminal offense.
Actually, you are wrong, it is a criminal offense. Anyone given classified information is briefed on the proper use and handling
of said classified information. The law, under 18 USC 793 subsection (f) actually states that any form of information that through
gross negligence is removed from it's proper place of custody is subject to criminal fines or up to 10 years in prison.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
Information that the Secretary of State has that she transmits to her subordinates on an unsecured email server does meet the
requirement of "gross negligence".
So in this case the FBI chose not to charge her for something we all know she did and is a clear violation of the law as
written.
He asks the convention to vote that it is unwilling to select a person who has been shown to be 'careless about protecting
government secrets' etc etc.
The delegates would be free to pass such a motion, despite being bound to vote for Hilary when the actual roll call occurs.
If a large number of her delegates support the critical motion, her legitimacy is gone.
Lack of legitimacy hasn't hampered her at all. The same goes for lack of morality, lack of patriotism, lack of decency,
lack of conscience. Really at this point we need 7 dwarfs and a prince to rid us of her.
Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @06:36AM (
#52461905 )
Page 21: Secretary Powell did not employ a Department email account, even after OpenNet's introduction. He has publicly written:
"To complement the official State Department computer in my office, I installed a laptop computer on a private line. My personal
email account on the laptop allowed me direct access to anyone online. I started shooting emails to my principal assistants, to
individual ambassadors, and increasingly to my foreign -minister colleagues...."
Much of the Bush White House used email addresses on Bush's private
gwb43.com [wikipedia.org] server.
This was originally set up by Rove and Dubya to coordinate the perfectly legal (and thus, by definition, legitimate) firing of
eight Prosecutors who went after corrupt Republicans, and was designed to be FOIA and Records request immune. It auto-deleted
all emails after a period of time.
While it's hard to find direct evidence of the server Powell used, he
has admitted
[politico.com] that a) he used a private address and b) he has no copies of the emails. He claims he never used it to discuss
classified info, but that's more then a wee bit unlikely as much info is considered classified by somebody, and it's impossible
to verify because all of them are gone. Nonetheless
nonetheless [cnn.com] he did have some classified info sent to his email address. Many of the Hillary emails that were declared
Classified after the fact would be impossible to find for Powell or Rice because they were discussions with people who did not
have state.gov email addresses because at the time the whole state.gov email system was just being set up.
Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @07:05AM (
#52461955 )
"At a minimum, Secretary Powell should have surrendered all emails sent from or received in his personal account that related
to Department business. Because he did not do so at the time that he departed government service or at any time thereafter, Secretary
Powell did not comply with Department policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act. In an attempt
to address this deficiency, NARA requested that the Department inquire with Secretary Powell's "internet service or email provider"
to determine whether it is still possible to retrieve the email records that might remain on its servers.
The Under Secretary for Management subsequently informed NARA that the Department sent a letter to Secretary Powell's representative
conveying this request. As of May 2016, the Department had not received a response from Secretary Powell or his representative."
Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @02:10PM (
#52464787 )
A lot of people did the same thing and Colin Powell was one of them.
No. There's a difference here. From FBI director Comey and the State Department:
More than 2,000 of the 30,490 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department in December 2014 contained classified information,
including 110 emails in 52 email chains that contained classified information at the time they were sent or received , Comey said.
The State Department inquiry identified 10 messages sent to Rice's immediate staff that were classified and two sent to Powell,
according to Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the ranking member on the House Oversight and Benghazi committees.
The emails, Cummings said, appear to have no classification markings, and it is still unclear if the content of the emails
was or should have been considered classified when the emails were originally written and sent.
It appears that Clinton sent / received over 100 Emails clearly marked "secret" in some form or another; Powell had 2 Emails
retroactively classified. Seems like a very narrow distinction, but it's not. Clinton handled 110 messages (those that were found)
that were unambiguously marked as classified, Powell did not.
The external mail server is not the real problem. Her holding on to the email long after she was supposed to have turned it
over is a minor problem. The 110 Classified emails (those containing information that was classified at the time that she sent
the email) is the problem. Each of those emails is a felony. You don't put classified information on an unclassified network.
Regardless of where the server is hosted from.
A review of Colin Powell's email which was turned over as required upon his departure from the office, (rather than two years
later) found two emails that contained information the State Dept classified after he sent the information. That is not a crime.
It was unclassified when he sent the information. He reviewed the two emails and disagrees that it should have been classified.
And as the top Original Classifying Authority (an individual authorized to determine if information needs to be classified and
at what level) for all of the Dept. of State during his tenure it is his call.
For Sec Rice they found about a dozen emails classified after the fact on her email that was also turned over when required.
Again classified after the fact, so not a crime.
For Hillary the 110 emails have all been verified by the owning agency that the information was classified at the time
Hillary included it in her emails. Thus felonies, except that she is a Clinton and is thus exempt from the laws we peons are subject
to.
Are you seriously trying to make this about a FOIA compliance issue? This has nothing to do with FOIA.
She moved, or caused to be moved, classified material off of a secure system onto an un-secure system. It would still be a felony
if she had simply moved one of the 110 found documents to a thumb drive! The FBI basically said she broke the law 110 times and
we are recommending to not prosecute!
Powell did not have a private server, and while he did have a personal address there is no evidence that any material that
was classified at the time was ever sent to/from it. Politifact rates Clinton's statement that her predecessors did it as "Mostly
false"
"the FBI itself, less than a year ago, charged one Bryan H. Nishimura, 50, of Folsom, who pleaded guilty to "unauthorized
removal and retention of classified materials" without malicious intent, in other words precisely what the FBI alleges Hillary
did" http://theantimedia.org/this-m...
[theantimedia.org]
The Government Has Prosecuted Nearly Every Violator of Secrecy Rules Before Hillary Clinton. The Obama administration has filed
more charges against those who leak classified information than all previous presidential administrations combined, according
to a statement made by CNN's Jake Tapper that was marked "True" by Politifact.
http://usuncut.com/politics/cl...
[usuncut.com]
What she did was illegal, and what she did should disqualify her from having a clearance. Far less connected people have
done much the same and gotten 2 years probation and $7500 fine. Petraeus did much the same and got 2 years probation and $100,000
fine. There is plenty of evidence of her breaking the law. The problem is that no one will prosecute it because Hillary is rich
enough to afford lawyers that could get her off, and it would just make it look political.
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book,
sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating
to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered
to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same
has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen,
abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior
officer-
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
She flatly violated a statute that only requires gross negligence (aka, "extreme carelessness"), but Comey dodged and said
he wouldn't recommend prosecution because he could not prove intent - even though intent is not required by the statute.
Now, you can argue 18 U.S. Code 793 (a), which requires intent, could not be prosecuted, but 18 U.S. Code 793 (f) clearly was
violated.
Hillary is a criminal who the FBI declined to recommend prosecution for.
Handling classified information requires diligence. You don't get to be careless with it. Intent is not required because you
promise to not be careless with it.
If I allowed through omission, inattention, disregard for process or simple stupidity broke my employer's sensitive data policies
ten times a month I'd have made it around three days before being sacked.
through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody
Comey proved that. She was extremely careless (gross negligence), and she removed classified data from its proper place of
custody (secure networks) and placed it on her private server.
This is beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you assert that Hillary actually ordered the building of a private server, then she's actually guilty of more - that proves
intent :)
The words "extremely careless" were chosen carefully to avoid saying "negligent". To be careless is to be ignorant of the required
security procedures, while to be ignorant is to know what's proper and required, and choosing to not attempt to follow it. If
you're going to go down that road, you'll need to establish that the sysadmins responsible for that server were aware of the that
the system could hold classified information, and they knew the security requirements necessary to protect a system holding classified
information, and chose willingly to leave it unsecured.
What proof is there that the sysadmins were competent, beyond the faint hope that they should be?
What proof do you have that she personally put classified information on her server?
What proof is there that, at the time the server was built, it was intended to hold classified information?
There are an awful lot of bad things here... certainly enough to say the handling was careless. Unfortunately, without an absolutely
solid case for a particular and completely-provable allegation, a successful prosecution is extremely unlikely, and would not
serve the cause of justice in any meaningful way.
This is not about what the sys-admins knew. The server was not on a classified network. It should never have had any classified
on it.
You don't get to be careless with classified information.
The information was on her account that she held the password for. That means she put it on there, or is responsible for giving
an aid her password to put the information on the account. She is only responsible for information she sends, something someone
else sends to her would not be of interest but would result in charges against the other person. Where are those individuals?
This is about classified information put into emails sent from her personal account on her private server. That means she is
responsible, and carelessness is not a valid excuse.
The Server was not intended to hold classified information, it was on the internet, not one of the physically separate classified
networks.
But the key point is that under the Espionage act (18 USC 793) you don't get to be careless with national secrets. You
request a clearance you promise to not be careless under punishment of Law.
That email about the fax proves only that a particular message was requested to be transmitted in an insecure manner. That
does not mean the contents of the fax were sensitive or that removing the markings was improper. As I understand, the subject
of the fax was a set of talking points for a speech, which were sensitive only in that they were not yet publicly released. If
there was indeed a classified piece of information in the fax, it could have been sanitized prior to the insecure transmission.
Without seeing the classified version, it is impossible to tell.
It's not "moving the goal post" to point out that your kick fell far short. Again, consider that a prosecution would be arguing
before a court of law. Nothing is obvious, and nothing is beyond question. If you want to prove something, you have to show your
entire case.
You don't just remove markings. The only exception to this is if the markings were all (U) Unclassified. Then
and only then can they be removed without going through a formal declassification process.
Actually, yes, you can usually just remove markings from (or more precisely, rewrite without markings) unclassified material
that's on a secure system. The unclassified material doesn't need to be "declassified" because it was never classified to begin
with. That includes unclassified parts of a larger document that's marked as containing classified information, and by the same
extension it applies to unclassified data on computer systems that are marked as containing classified data.
What's important is that no classified information actually gets out of the secure environment. Nobody cares about other information,
with a few exceptions.
They are equal as that is the description found in the relevant statute. You don't get to be careless with classified information.
Being careless with classified information is Gross Negligence. This is because mishandled national secrets can cost lives.
Proving Gross negligence is easy. Did classified information get manually transcribed onto the unclassified system? (there
is no software link between the various classified networks and machines and an unclassified network or machine) Yes it did. Was
the intent to transfer to unauthorized persons to cause harm to the US? No, therefore we have Gross negligence.
She instructed her staff to "remove markings and send non-secure." Her defense was "they weren't -marked-
classified when I sent them."
I would say that her instruction "send non-secure" makes it pretty clear she knew it isn't secure, and was actively thinking
of that fact when she told them to do it. At the same time, she was also setting her up defense, having them (illegally?) remove
the classification markings so that she could later testify "they weren't marked classified when I forwarded them." Sounds like
she knew it was illegal.
She consciously refused a state.gov email account.
She voluntarily setup a private email server.
Even a technologically illiterate grandma, when told by her sysadmins at the state department that what she was doing was wrong,
makes is clear that it was likely to cause foreseeable harm.
tl;dr - a technophobic grandma doesn't know enough to ask for a private server, she just takes the state department blackberry
and lives with whatever email it's configured with.
I'm sure this is going to sound stupid, but I'm not sure it's appropriate to prosecute, even when the letter of the law has
been definitively broken. Obviously, this is how it should work, but in many cases laws regarding handling of protected information
are prosecuted with extreme discretion. In other words, charges are often not brought unless there is intent and/or aggravating
factors, even when the law has clearly been broken as written.
Really we need someone with substantial legal experience in this specific area to comment (I won't hold my breath for that).
Despite the fact that the above code is fairly straight forward, I don't feel qualified to assess the FBI's conclusion: "Although
there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable
prosecutor would bring such a case," (James Comey).
I'm not addressing whether or not it makes sense to use discretion in these cases. Personally, I don't think it's appropriate
and sets a double standard; it's not like someone selling drugs will not get prosecuted because there was no intent to cause addiction.
That said, I don't make the rules, and I really don't think most people in this forum are qualified to judge whether she is
getting preferential treatment by applying the letter of the law, combined with the way that other laws are prosecuted (and the
way laws should be prosecuted). The reality is that, right or wrong, this is not how laws regarding handling of sensitive information
are applied. For the record, I despise Hillary & the Clintons and will not vote for her, even though the alternative is at least
as terrible.
I understand discretion - but if anything, we should hold our government leaders to a higher level of accountability.
Letting Johnny get off with a warning after his first shoplifting attempt, or sending Judy on her way after she's caught speeding
with a warning, is discretion.
But if Johnny is a Congressman, or Judy is the president's daughter, you simply cannot afford to let them off the hook without
damaging the perception of fairness. When the rich and powerful get away with something that we regularly impose upon the poor
and weak, even if occasionally we let the poor and weak get by with just a warning, we destroy the sense of justice in the community.
No the crime is to mishandle or fail to protect classified information. To do so is to be grossly negligent. It does not require
intent, it does not require the act to be willful. Carelessness with classified information is Gross Negligence and is a felony.
Carelessness or willful, both are Gross negligence. Putting classified information into a vulnerable position is Gross Negligence.
When you are granted a Clearance and access, you sign what is basically a Non-disclosure agreement where you acknowledge that
if you have any role in the release or mishandling of classified information you are punishable under the law. She put 110 emails
containing classified information onto an unclassified network. Considering the handling and marking processes of working with
classified information, to describe her actions as careless is false, but that opinion aside, you don't get to be careless with
classified information. Being careless with classified information gets people killed and is illegal.
Anonymous Coward writes: on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @07:33PM (
#52459649 )
He said Clinton and her staff sent 110 emails in 52 chains containing information that was classified at the time. Eight
of those emails carried top secret information , eight contained classified information and 36 had secret info.
I don't think that's what the FBI statement is saying at all, and I think you're looking at something that's not the statement...
It's very clear that the FBI found that classified information was exposed, but not "in such a way as to support an inference
of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice." The FBI characterization
of what was done is "extremely careless." This is interesting wording because that is not a legal term associated with disclosure
of classified material; "grossly negligent" is the legal term associated with the threshold for felony mishandling of classified
information.
The FBI statement is also very clear on the security classification of what they found, which is why I think you're reading
something else.
110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they
were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains
contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.
That's pretty darn specific. If it was just the confidential stuff, I think your implication that the government classifies
everything and this isn't a big deal would be very strong. Multiple accidental Top Secret information leaks is a bit different,
though. In the last 15 years, we have sent many government workers to jail for leaking information like this, or even
just having it
stored at their house. [washingtonpost.com]
It was on an unclassified server on the internet. It was exposed. It doesn't matter if anyone found it or not.
It was exposed.
As to classified information there is Classified information marked Confidential, Secret and Top Secret (with additional caveats
and Special access designations). That is classified information. That is what was found on her emails. It is all marked very
clearly as to it's classification level. How is it marked? At the top and bottom of every page, the highest level of information
on the page is marked. At the beginning of every paragraph it is marked. And on the first and last page of the document the overall
(highest) level of classification is marked as well as who classified it and instructions as to when it is to be declassified.
There is also sensitive but unclassified information that, unless on a classified system will most likely not be well marked.
That is not what was found 110 emails containing classified information were found 8 instances had TOP SECRET info.
The Classification system for truly Classified information is not vague, it is clear, it is concise. There are specific and
strict rules for marking it as such, and for handling it. That such information ended up on her private unclassified server exposes
the information. Just being put onto an unclassified storage medium is a criminal act. It does not require intent, it does not
require someone without authorization to access it. That the information was in her emails on the unclassified server on the internet
is sufficient to meet the grounds for the Gross Negligence standard of 18, 793(f).
Anonymous Coward writes: on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @07:36PM (
#52459661 )
Posting as AC for obvious reasons. If I had done anything remotely like what Hillary did when I was in the intelligence
community, I would have gone to jail and never ever seen daylight again. But then again, I wasn't one of the "elite" and laws
actually applied to me.
I support the NSA and I also support Snowden. Snowden did a brave and terrifying thing that needed
to happen, that needed to be done, knowing the consequences he faced. The NSA is a good organization with many good people doing
what they need to do with love for their countrymen in their hearts and honor in their actions. Some people in the NSA made bad,
perhaps even evil decisions. Sometimes bad people get put in positions they shouldn't be, and sometimes people with power, even
good people, make decisions that are bad.
Supporting the NSA doesn't mean I support all the decisions or people that are a part of it. I believe the NSA did some bad
things, but that doesn't mean I think the organization is bad or comprised of bad people.
What Snowden did may have been illegal, but it was a choice to do what he believed was right. For what it's worth I believe
it was right too. I think it is a terrible thing to have to choose between following the law and doing what is right when the
two are mutually exclusive.
The US justice system was designed intentionally to have people determine not only whether the law was followed, but also whether
the law should apply. Snowden should be able to face a court of his peers and plead his case and that jury should be able to make
a judgement not based on the law, but on whether what he did was wrong or right. It disturbs and saddens me to realize I don't
trust that he could receive such a fair trial.
The Star Chamber was established to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against socially and politically prominent people so
powerful that ordinary courts would likely hesitate to convict them of their crimes.
The constitution would need to be modified, however.
The only times I've ever heard of an actual prosecution for mishandling has been when the person was suspected of actual spying,
or in Manning's case, whistleblowing
I'm surprised that you've not heard of the David Petraeus case.
In January 2015, officials reported the FBI and Justice Department prosecutors had recommended bringing felony charges
against Petraeus for allegedly providing classified information to his biographer, Paula Broadwell (with whom he was having an
affair), while serving as the director of the CIA Eventually, Petraeus pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor charge of mishandling
classified information... On April 23, 2015, a federal judge sentenced Petraeus to two years' probation plus a fine of $100,000.
The fine was more than double the amount the Justice Department had requested.
Petraeus's mistress was an Army Reserve intelligence officer with Top Secret clearance and had served in the
war zone. She used the information (much of which was Petraeus's notes/notbooks IIRC) to write his biography. I don't recall there
being any allegation of the information going further than that. (It was still wrong.)
As to intent - Hillary Clintons servers were created and operated by her order. Messages were bulk erased by her order. Her
intent of avoiding scrutiny is clear.
Where do you think Sid got the classified information? Why would he have it as an employee of the Clinton Foundation? Did he
have a clearance, and what was his need to know? Who sent it to him? There is little doubt it was all on purpose.
Petreaus doesn't come anywhere near comparing to Snowden. Petreaus gave 8 binders of his notes (some classified some not) to
his Mistress/biographer. She has a clearance, and referred to the notes in preparing the biography but no classified information
was included in her product.
Snowden stole thousands of classified documents and released them without regard to who got them.
The scale and scope are not comparable. Snowden's crime was far worse and far more damaging.
You are correct: what he confirmed was that Clinton lied under oath to Congress, not to the FBI. (He also confirmed that
she lied to the American people.)
She couldn't have lied under oath to the FBI because she wasn't put under oath, and her interviews were neither recorded
nor transcripts prepared, which really makes the whole investigation a farce.
Comey will now be tasked with a formal investigation of her lying to Congress. If we're lucky, they'll still get her.
She said that because nothing marked classified had been sent to her.
She has said that. She has also made the same statement without the word "marked".
I know this may be tough to believe, but a person can be wrong without actually lying.
The fact that she phrased her statement so carefully actually shows the opposite: even if literally true, that statement is
intended to deceive.
Even if the person is question is someone you disagree with politically.
I don't disagree much with Clinton politically as far as I know (it's hard to know what she really believes); I actually used
to be a registered Democrat until a few years ago.
I think Clinton is unsuitable for the job of president because she is dishonest, corrupt, and, above all, incompetent.
Are you living under a rock? Her private E-mail server, the hundreds of millions of dollars of donations to the Clinton
Foundation while she was in office, her nepotism, her speaking fees, her corporate cronyism, her lies about her stance on gay
marriage, and her revisionist AIDS history alone ought to be enough to consider her profoundly dishonest, corrupt, and incompetent,
and we haven't even gotten to the real political stuff that the Republicans always harp on about. Really, what kind of gullible
fool are you?
While Richman told CNN "No memo was given to me that was marked 'classified,' and James
Comey told Congressional investigators he tried to "write it in such a way that I don't include
anything that would trigger a classification," it appears the FBI's chief FOIA officer
disagrees .
While we
previously reported that Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said four of the 7 Comey memos he
reviewed were "marked classified" at the "Secret" or "Confidential" level - tonight we find out
that every single Comey memo was classified at the time, per Judicial Watch director of
investigations Chris Farrell - who has a signed declaration from the FBI's chief FOIA officer
to that effect:
We have a sworn declaration from David Hardy who is the chief FOIA officer of the FBI that
we obtained just in the last few days, and in that sworn declaration, Mr. Hardy says that all
of Comey's memos - all of them, were classified at the time they were written, and they
remain classified. - Chris Farrell, Judicial Watch
Therefore, Farrell points out, Comey mishandled national defense information when he
"knowingly and willfully" leaked them to his friend at Columbia University.
It's also mishandling of national defense information, which is a crime. So it's clear
that Mr. Comey not only authored those documents, but then knowingly and willfully leaked
them to persons unauthorized, which is in and of itself a national security crime. Mr. Comey
should have been read his rights back on June 8th when he testified before the Senate.
In closing, Farrell tells Dobbs "Recently retired and active duty FBI agents have told me -
and it's several of them, they consider Comey to be a dirty cop ."
Bad new for "Crooked" Hillary and her sidekick Huma Abedin, as it appears that the
Department of Justice has reopened the investigation into Clinton's use of a private
server.
This follows the release of new evidence showing that Abedin mishandled classified
information.
Fox News' Tucker Carlson details how Abedin could be in legal trouble as Judicial Watch
reveals at least 18 classified emails in the 798 documents recently produced by the State
Department in the Hillary Clinton email probe were found on estranged pedophile husband Anthony
Weiner's laptop.
Huma Abedin forwarded sensitive State Department emails, including passwords to government
systems, to her personal Yahoo email account before
every single Yahoo account was hacked, a Daily Caller News Foundation analysis of emails
released as part of a lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch shows.
Abedin, the top aide to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, used her insecure
personal email provider to conduct sensitive work. This guarantees that an account with
high-level correspondence in Clinton's State Department was impacted by one or more of a series
of breaches -- at least one of which was perpetrated by a "state-sponsored actor."
... ... ...
A separate hack in 2013 compromised three billion accounts across multiple
Yahoo properties, and the culprit is still unclear. "All Yahoo user accounts were affected by
the August 2013 theft," the company said in a statement.
Abedin, Clinton's deputy chief of staff,
regularly forwarded work emails to her personal [email protected] address. "She would
use these accounts if her (State) account was down or if she needed to print an email or
document. Abedin further explained that it was difficult to print from the DoS system so she
routinely forwarded emails to her non-DoS accounts so she could more easily print," an FBI
report says.
Abedin sent
passwords for her government laptop to her Yahoo account on Aug. 24, 2009, an email
released by the State Department in September 2017 shows.
Long-time Clinton confidante Sid
Blumenthal sent Clinton an email in July 2009 with the subject line: "Important. Not for
circulation.
You only . Sid." The message began "CONFIDENTIAL Re: Moscow Summit." Abedin forwarded the
email to her Yahoo address, potentially making it visible to hackers.
The email was deemed too sensitive to release to the public and was redacted before being
published pursuant to the Judicial Watch lawsuit. The released copy says "Classified by DAS/
A/GIS, DoS on 10/30/2015 Class: Confidential." The unredacted portion reads: "I have heard
authoritatively from Bill Drozdiak, who is in Berlin . We should expect that the Germans and
Russians will now cut their own separate deals on energy, regional security, etc."
The three email accounts Abedin used were [email protected], [email protected], and
[email protected]. Though the emails released by the State Department partially redact
personal email addresses, the Yahoo emails are displayed as humamabedin[redacted].
Clinton
forwarded Abedin an email titled "Ambassadors" in March 2009 from Denis McDonough, who served
as foreign policy adviser to former President Barack Obama's campaign and later as White House
chief of staff. The email was heavily redacted before being released to the public.
Stuart Delery, chief of staff to the deputy attorney general, sent a draft memo titled
"PA/PLO
Memo" in May 2009, seemingly referring to two Palestinian groups. The content was withheld
from the public with large letters spelling "Page Denied." Abedin forwarded it to her Yahoo
account.
Abedin routed sensitive information through Yahoo
multiple times, such as notes on a call with the U.N. secretary-general, according to
messages released under the lawsuit. Contemporaneous news reports documented the security
weaknesses of Yahoo while Abedin continued to use it. Credentials to 450,000 Yahoo accounts had
been posted online, a July 2012 CNN
article reported.
Five days later , Abedin forwarded sensitive information to her personal Yahoo email.
Abedin received an email "with the subject 'Re: your yahoo acct.' Abedin did not recall the
email and provided that despite the content of the email she was not sure that her email
account had ever been compromised," on Aug. 16, 2010, an
FBI report says.
The FBI also asked her about sending other sensitive information to Yahoo. "Abedin was shown
an email dated October 4, 2009 with the subject 'Fwd: US interest in Pak Paper 10-04' which
Abedin received from [redacted] and then forwarded to her Yahoo email account . At the time of
the email, [redacted] worked for Richard Holbrooke who was the Special Representative for
Afghanistan and Pakistan (SRAP). Abedin was unaware of the classification of the document and
stated that she did not make judgments on the classification of materials that she received,"
the report said.
The Justice Department has launched a new inquiry into whether the Clinton Foundation
engaged in any pay-to-play politics or other illegal activities while Hillary Clinton served as
Secretary of State, law enforcement officials and a witness tells The Hill.
FBI agents from Little Rock, Ark., where the Foundation was started, have taken the lead in
the investigation and have interviewed at least one witness in the last month, and law
enforcement officials said additional activities are expected in coming weeks.
The officials, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said the probe is examining whether
the Clintons promised or performed any policy favors in return for largesse to their charitable
efforts or whether donors made commitments of donations in hopes of securing government
outcomes.
The probe may also examine whether any tax-exempt assets were converted for personal or
political use and whether the Foundation complied with applicable tax laws, the officials
said.
... ... ...
One challenge for any Clinton-era investigation is that the statute of limitations on most
federal felonies is five years and Clinton left office in early 2013.
Wednesday on Fox News Channel's "Fox & Friends" former Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)
said the deep state was "very real."
Co-host Steve Doocy said, "Today is going to be a big day because Devin Nunes has subpoenaed
a bunch of records from the Department of Justice, We will find out exactly how many of them
show up and how many of them are blacked out. John Solomon has some good reporting over at The
Hill where they revealed yesterday that there is written evidence that apparently the FBI
believed that laws were broken regarding the Hillary Clinton email scandal. And it looks like
that the IT guy covered things up when he -- even though they were subpoenaing the email
records -- he went and BleachBit it or whatever he did to it to destroy the hard drive."
Chaffetz said, "There was hammers, there was BleachBit. When you listen to James Comey back
in July of 2016, you really thought that she was actually to get indicted. But this is a closed
case. So there no reason why the Department of Justice should hold back any documents from the
Congress."
Doocy asked, "Well, then why are they?"
Chaffetz answered, "Well, the key you that you need to listen for today is, I guarantee you,
the Department of Justice will tout how many documents they are turning over. The question that
Trey Gowdy always asked, which is the right one, is what percentage of the documents? Because,
if you want 100 percent of the truth on a closed case, then turn over all the documents. But I
don't think they're going to do it. They've been asking for these documents under subpoena
since August, and they still haven't gotten them."
Doocy asked, "Is it the deep state?"
Chaffetz said, "It is the deep state. I was a little skeptical of what does that mean, but
I'm telling you, having lived through it, it is very real."
"... Mr.Molyneux, You've really become the best journalist alive today, thank you for your commitment to courageous integrity in reporting the insane conditions of our society. ..."
It's great that The Deep State's attempted coup against Trump has (thus far) failed...
BUT, given all the serious crimes that The Left has been caught red-handed
involved in, and the complete lack of legal repercussions that have resulted, I'm losing
faith in our ability to mend the American justice OR political systems :/
All these witch hunts have done, is continue to exonerate Trump, and expose crimes, and
corruption from the deep stare, MSM, DNC, Clintons, and Obama. As well as further discredit
our intelligence agencies, and destroy what little faith the people had in them.
All this debacle, constantly demonizing Trump is the Dems way of hiding there own
corruption. Smoke & mirrors. The Dems remind me of an Ouroboros like creature eating its
own tail but destroying itself
Mr.Molyneux, You've really become the best journalist alive today, thank you for your
commitment to courageous integrity in reporting the insane conditions of our society.
Looks like this became high stake game bewrrn various faction in Intelligence agencies and
the Department of Defense again... It is unclear why NSA hiding this emails -- they definitely
intercepted them all.
Notable quotes:
"... Notably, lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee who attended a Dec. 21 closed-door briefing by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe say the bureau official confirmed that the investigation and charging decisions were controlled by a small group in Washington headquarters rather the normal process of allowing field offices to investigate possible criminality in their localities. ..."
"... A House GOP lawmaker told The Hill his staff also has identified at least a dozen interviews that were conducted after the drafting effort began , including of some figures who would have key information about intent or possible destruction of evidence. ..."
"... Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley's (R-Iowa) staff has a higher number: 17 witnesses including Clinton were interviewed after the decision was already made. ..."
"... "Making a conclusion before you interview key fact witnesses and the subject herself violates the very premise of good investigation. You don't lock into a theory until you have the facts. Here the evidence that isn't public yet shows they locked into the theory and then edited out the facts that contradicted it," the GOP lawmaker said, speaking only on condition of anonymity because the documents are not yet authorized for release. ..."
"... The deletion occurred on the same day Clinton's former chief of staff and her lawyer had a call with the computer firm that handled the erasure using an anti-recovery software called BleachBit, Grassley said. ..."
In what could be a major black eye for the deep state and yet another nail in the Clinton
legacy coffin,
The Hill's John Solomon reports that Republicans on key congressional committees say they
have uncovered new irregularities and contradictions inside the FBI's probe of Hillary
Clinton's email server.
"This was an effort to pre-bake the cake, pre-bake the outcome," said Rep. Matt Gaetz
(R-Fla.), a House Judiciary Committee member who attended the McCabe briefing before the
holidays.
"Hillary Clinton obviously benefited from people taking actions to ensure she wasn't held
accountable."
In what appears to be clear evidence confirming previous fears of favoritism and
prejudice within the FBI,
lawmakers and investigators told Solomon at The Hill that, for the first time,
investigators say they have secured written evidence that the FBI believed there was evidence
that some laws were broken when the former secretary of State and her top aides transmitted
classified information through her insecure private email server.
That evidence includes passages in FBI documents stating the "sheer volume" of classified
information that flowed through Clinton's insecure emails was proof of criminality as well as
an admission of false statements by one key witness in the case , the investigators said.
The name of the witness is redacted from the FBI documents but lawmakers said he was an
employee of a computer firm that helped maintain her personal server after she left office as
America's top diplomat and who belatedly admitted he had permanently erased an archive of her
messages in 2015 after they had been subpoenaed by Congress.
The investigators also confirmed that the FBI began drafting a statement exonerating
Clinton of any crimes while evidence responsive to subpoenas was still outstanding and before
agents had interviewed more than a dozen key witnesses.
Those witnesses included Clinton and the computer firm employee who permanently erased her
email archives just days after the emails were subpoenaed by Congress, the investigators
said.
Notably, lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee who attended a Dec. 21 closed-door
briefing by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe say the bureau official confirmed that the
investigation and charging decisions were controlled by a small group in Washington
headquarters rather the normal process of allowing field offices to investigate possible
criminality in their localities.
The top Democrat on the panel even acknowledged the FBI's handling of the case was unique,
but, of course, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y) argued Republicans are politicizing their own
panel's work.
Rep. Gaetz said he has growing questions about the role the Obama Justice Department played
in the case.
"I think we have more questions than answers based on what we've learned," Gaetz said.
A House GOP lawmaker
told The Hill his staff also has identified at least a dozen interviews that were conducted
after the drafting effort began , including of some figures who would have key information
about intent or possible destruction of evidence.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley's (R-Iowa) staff has a higher number: 17
witnesses including Clinton were interviewed after the decision was already made.
"Making a conclusion before you interview key fact witnesses and the subject herself
violates the very premise of good investigation. You don't lock into a theory until you have
the facts. Here the evidence that isn't public yet shows they locked into the theory and then
edited out the facts that contradicted it," the GOP lawmaker said, speaking only on condition
of anonymity because the documents are not yet authorized for release.
The longtime Senate chairman went to the Senate floor before the holidays to raise another
concern: the FBI did not pursue criminal charges when Clinton's email archives were permanently
deleted from her private server days after a subpoena for them was issued by a congressional
committee investigating the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi.
The deletion occurred on the same day Clinton's former chief of staff and her lawyer had a
call with the computer firm that handled the erasure using an anti-recovery software called
BleachBit, Grassley said.
"You have a conference call with Secretary Clinton's attorneys on March 31, 2015, and on
that very same day her emails are deleted by someone who was on that conference call using
special BleachBit software," Grassley said. "The emails were State Department records under
subpoena by Congress.
"What did the FBI do to investigate this apparent obstruction?" Grassley asked. "According
to affidavits filed in federal court -- absolutely nothing. The FBI focused only on the
handling of classified information."
As The Hill notes, both parties are likely to learn more in the first quarter of 2018 when
the Justice Department inspector general is expected to release initial findings in what has
become a wide-ranging probe into the FBI's handling of the Clinton email case as well as
whether agents and supervisors had political connections, ethical conflicts or biases that
affected their work.
While the resistance tries to switch the narrative to Papadopoulos, and away from Page and
the Trump Dossier, it is becoming clearer and clearer where the real corruption was all the
time.
The minimum requirement to be found guilty of mishandling of States Secrets is Gross
Negligence. It's why Criminals at Large Comey, Muellar &
Strzok changed the language in their report.
An earlier draft included tougher language describing Clinton as "grossly negligent."
Comey then used a softer tone, saying Clinton was "extremely careless" in her use of private
emails. According to federal law, "gross negligence" in handling the nation's intelligence is
a felony.
"If the government puts into your hand for safe keeping [the] state's secrets and you
failed to keep them safe by intentionally exposing them or grossly negligently exposing them,
you can be prosecuted," Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said during
an interview with FOX Business' Stuart Varney.
According to kimdotcom, and i think Snowden, all they have to do is open up a program
called xkeyscore and type in her email address. They will all be there.
Set aside for a moment that most/all of the suspect emails are on Weiner's infamous
laptop.
When Killary wrote those emails, she didn't write them to herself. She was writing them to
members of her staff and to others within the administration. The fact that she had her
private server wiped (with a cloth) doesn't mean they have been eliminated.
There's no need to ping the NSA. All of those emails are available on servers of her email
recipients, most of whom are government employees. Simply subpoena this evidence on State
Dept. servers, all of which are backed up. It's not that hard.
Weiner's laptop seems to be the only possible wildcard, or so it was thought. Otherwise,
we know HRC's people took steps to physically destroy all devices that may have possibly
recorded email traffic. I don't think we can expect any of the rest of HRC's people are as
reckless as Weiner. And none of those people would dare blackmail her or intentionally expose
her because they all know good and well that the Clintons kill their enemies.
I told you guys that federal investigations take time, and that you won't see any apparent
movement until they are ready to make arrests.
Happened to a friend of a friend. Ran a meat market that was fraudulently trading food
stamps for cash. One day they showed up to find the door had been kicked down and the place
had been raided. They got arrested. Turned out he had been under investigation for THREE
FUCKING YEARS. Had him so dead to rights he didn't bother with an attorney. Plead guilty and
they went easy on him.
"The investigators also confirmed that the FBI began drafting a statement exonerating
Clinton of any crimes while evidence responsive to subpoenas was still outstanding and before
agents had interviewed more than a dozen key witnesses."
Lock her up, fire Jeff Sessions, let justice be done tho' the heavens fall.
Hillary broke the law. Comey even knew it and said so until his "gross negligence"
(criminal charges warranted) was changed to "extremely careless" (no criminal charges
warranted) by Clinton supporter Strzok. So do something about it Red Team that controls both
Houses, the Presidency, and the DOJ.
One big fucking yawn. Yet another ZH story regarding Killary and FBI impropriety.
Killary is immune. Given the treasonous cunts residing on Capitol Hill and the
institutions tasked with bringing her to just being exposed as thoroughly corrupted.
I'd say drop the whining and make peace with this fact. Those at the top of the FBI are
also immune. The whole system is rotten.
those deleted emails (scrubbed, like, with a cloth) no doubt contaned details of
pornography/pedophilia, the wishes of the muslim brotherhood to pilfer tax payer money and
lump sum contributions to the CF/CGI in exchange for multiple repayments of US tax payer
funds via "executive orders" from Obama or DoS favors for a bunch of things.
dot.........dot.........dot
the clintons were running a racket at federal level - siphoning money to and from moslems
for arms/influence, coordinated by the activities of abedin and the awan brothers, protected
by obama's "equal opportunity" witches cabal of pink hat wearers, peple of color with lower
iq'spromoted way above their ability, capped off by concealing the activities of child sex
perverts on epsteins islands and weiners computers and the murders of people like Seth
Rich.
Most grow impatient with you sir. They do not consider that the entire Justice Dept and
FBI are stacked with what are called "our greatest legal minds" and "most highly experienced
investigators". Some of us understand that it takes a little time to build your case and
overcome such a deck stacked against you.
LOCK COMEY and McCabe and Peter STOKE?? What ever his name and OHR and Lisa Page and
CLINTON AND HUMA UP - along with Podesta brothers. Then add Frank Guistra and Ian Telfer -
the Canadian money men. ALL CORRUPT
Then go after Loretta Lynch and Susan Rice and LOCK them UP
Wow. FBI does a reverse autopsy, determining the cause of death prior to an investigation
of evidence. There ought to be one count of obstruction of justice for every missing email.
Gross negligence, dereliction of duty, espionage, treason, throw the book at it.
More and more evidence piles up. More and more statements from Republicans. Will there be
any charges? Will anything at all happen? No. And that, my friends, is what is actually baked
into the cake.
This article merely confirms what everybody already knew. Ok, so now it's time to turn the
tables and investigate all these bitchezz with interrogations under hot lights.
I'm positive Most realize the important thing is the continued delegitimization of the FBI
and Justice Department at the top and the obvious fact these are the exact people who started
the Russia collusion garbage. I don't care if Crooked,Huma,Comey.Lynch or the rest go to
jail, I do care that showing this blatant abuse of power is something many of us have wanted
to expose irrefutably once and for all. It goes on every day and every damn Way..Senator
Stevens of Alaska or Bundy ...every damn day
Benjamin Wittes, Comey's worshipful sycophant, wrote this back in May 2016 about candidate
Trump. The operation was already underway.
"The soft spot, the least tyrant-proof part of the government, is the U.S. Department of
Justice and the larger law enforcement and regulatory apparatus of the United States
government. The first reason you should fear a Donald Trump presidency is what he would do to
the ordinary enforcement functions of the federal government , not the most extraordinary
ones. . . .
"A prosecutor -- and by extension, a tyrant president who directs that prosecutor -- can
harass or target almost anyone, and he can often do so without violating any law. He doesn't
actually need to indict the person, though that can be fun. He needs only open an
investigation; that alone can be ruinous. The standards for doing so, criminal predication,
are not high. And the fabric of American federal law -- criminal and civil law alike -- is so
vast that a huge number of people and institutions of consequence are ripe for some sort of
meddling from authorities."
It you need to read a singe article analyzing current anti-Russian hysteria in the USA this in the one you should read. This is
an excellent article Simply great !!! And as of December 2017 it represents the perfect summary of Russiagate, Hillary defeat and, Neo-McCarthyism
campaign launched as a method of hiding the crisis of neoliberalism revealed by Presidential elections. It also suggest that growing
jingoism of both Parties (return to Madeleine Albright's 'indispensable nation' bulling. Both Trump and Albright assume that the
United States should be able to do as it pleases in the international arena) and loss of the confidence and paranoia of the US
neoliberal elite.
It contain many important observation which in my view perfectly catch the complexity of the current Us political landscape.
Bravo to Jackson Lears !!!
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberals celebrate market utility as the sole criterion of worth; interventionists exalt military adventure abroad as a means of fighting evil in order to secure global progress ..."
"... Sanders is a social democrat and Trump a demagogic mountebank, but their campaigns underscored a widespread repudiation of the Washington consensus. For about a week after the election, pundits discussed the possibility of a more capacious Democratic strategy. It appeared that the party might learn something from Clinton's defeat. Then everything changed. ..."
"... A story that had circulated during the campaign without much effect resurfaced: it involved the charge that Russian operatives had hacked into the servers of the Democratic National Committee, revealing embarrassing emails that damaged Clinton's chances. With stunning speed, a new centrist-liberal orthodoxy came into being, enveloping the major media and the bipartisan Washington establishment. This secular religion has attracted hordes of converts in the first year of the Trump presidency. In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other formation of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls a few dim childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s. ..."
"... The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. ..."
"... Like any orthodoxy worth its salt, the religion of the Russian hack depends not on evidence but on ex cathedra pronouncements on the part of authoritative institutions and their overlords. Its scriptural foundation is a confused and largely fact-free 'assessment' produced last January by a small number of 'hand-picked' analysts – as James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, described them – from the CIA, the FBI and the NSA. ..."
"... It is not the first time the intelligence agencies have played this role. When I hear the Intelligence Community Assessment cited as a reliable source, I always recall the part played by the New York Times in legitimating CIA reports of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's putative weapons of mass destruction, not to mention the long history of disinformation (a.k.a. 'fake news') as a tactic for advancing one administration or another's political agenda. Once again, the established press is legitimating pronouncements made by the Church Fathers of the national security state. Clapper is among the most vigorous of these. He perjured himself before Congress in 2013, when he denied that the NSA had 'wittingly' spied on Americans – a lie for which he has never been held to account. ..."
"... In May 2017, he told NBC's Chuck Todd that the Russians were highly likely to have colluded with Trump's campaign because they are 'almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favour, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique'. The current orthodoxy exempts the Church Fathers from standards imposed on ordinary people, and condemns Russians – above all Putin – as uniquely, 'almost genetically' diabolical. ..."
"... It's hard for me to understand how the Democratic Party, which once felt scepticism towards the intelligence agencies, can now embrace the CIA and the FBI as sources of incontrovertible truth. One possible explanation is that Trump's election has created a permanent emergency in the liberal imagination, based on the belief that the threat he poses is unique and unprecedented. It's true that Trump's menace is viscerally real. But the menace posed by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney was equally real. ..."
"... Trump is committed to continuing his predecessors' lavish funding of the already bloated Defence Department, and his Fortress America is a blustering, undisciplined version of Madeleine Albright's 'indispensable nation'. Both Trump and Albright assume that the United States should be able to do as it pleases in the international arena: Trump because it's the greatest country in the world, Albright because it's an exceptional force for global good. ..."
"... Besides Trump's supposed uniqueness, there are two other assumptions behind the furore in Washington: the first is that the Russian hack unquestionably occurred, and the second is that the Russians are our implacable enemies. ..."
"... So far, after months of 'bombshells' that turn out to be duds, there is still no actual evidence for the claim that the Kremlin ordered interference in the American election. Meanwhile serious doubts have surfaced about the technical basis for the hacking claims. Independent observers have argued it is more likely that the emails were leaked from inside, not hacked from outside. On this front, the most persuasive case was made by a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, former employees of the US intelligence agencies who distinguished themselves in 2003 by debunking Colin Powell's claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, hours after Powell had presented his pseudo-evidence at the UN. ..."
"... The crucial issue here and elsewhere is the exclusion from public discussion of any critical perspectives on the orthodox narrative, even the perspectives of people with professional credentials and a solid track record. ..."
"... Sceptical voices, such as those of the VIPS, have been drowned out by a din of disinformation. Flagrantly false stories, like the Washington Post report that the Russians had hacked into the Vermont electrical grid, are published, then retracted 24 hours later. Sometimes – like the stories about Russian interference in the French and German elections – they are not retracted even after they have been discredited. These stories have been thoroughly debunked by French and German intelligence services but continue to hover, poisoning the atmosphere, confusing debate. ..."
"... The consequence is a spreading confusion that envelops everything. Epistemological nihilism looms, but some people and institutions have more power than others to define what constitutes an agreed-on reality. ..."
"... More genuine insurgencies are in the making, which confront corporate power and connect domestic with foreign policy, but they face an uphill battle against the entrenched money and power of the Democratic leadership – the likes of Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons and the DNC. Russiagate offers Democratic elites a way to promote party unity against Trump-Putin, while the DNC purges Sanders's supporters. ..."
"... Fusion GPS eventually produced the trash, a lurid account written by the former British MI6 intelligence agent Christopher Steele, based on hearsay purchased from anonymous Russian sources. Amid prostitutes and golden showers, a story emerged: the Russian government had been blackmailing and bribing Donald Trump for years, on the assumption that he would become president some day and serve the Kremlin's interests. In this fantastic tale, Putin becomes a preternaturally prescient schemer. Like other accusations of collusion, this one has become vaguer over time, adding to the murky atmosphere without ever providing any evidence. ..."
"... Yet the FBI apparently took the Steele dossier seriously enough to include a summary of it in a secret appendix to the Intelligence Community Assessment. Two weeks before the inauguration, James Comey, the director of the FBI, described the dossier to Trump. After Comey's briefing was leaked to the press, the website Buzzfeed published the dossier in full, producing hilarity and hysteria in the Washington establishment. ..."
"... The Steele dossier inhabits a shadowy realm where ideology and intelligence, disinformation and revelation overlap. It is the antechamber to the wider system of epistemological nihilism created by various rival factions in the intelligence community: the 'tree of smoke' that, for the novelist Denis Johnson, symbolised CIA operations in Vietnam. ..."
"... Yet the Democratic Party has now embarked on a full-scale rehabilitation of the intelligence community – or at least the part of it that supports the notion of Russian hacking. (We can be sure there is disagreement behind the scenes.) And it is not only the Democratic establishment that is embracing the deep state. Some of the party's base, believing Trump and Putin to be joined at the hip, has taken to ranting about 'treason' like a reconstituted John Birch Society. ..."
"... The Democratic Party has now developed a new outlook on the world, a more ambitious partnership between liberal humanitarian interventionists and neoconservative militarists than existed under the cautious Obama. This may be the most disastrous consequence for the Democratic Party of the new anti-Russian orthodoxy: the loss of the opportunity to formulate a more humane and coherent foreign policy. The obsession with Putin has erased any possibility of complexity from the Democratic world picture, creating a void quickly filled by the monochrome fantasies of Hillary Clinton and her exceptionalist allies. ..."
"... For people like Max Boot and Robert Kagan, war is a desirable state of affairs, especially when viewed from the comfort of their keyboards, and the rest of the world – apart from a few bad guys – is filled with populations who want to build societies just like ours: pluralistic, democratic and open for business. This view is difficult to challenge when it cloaks itself in humanitarian sentiment. There is horrific suffering in the world; the US has abundant resources to help relieve it; the moral imperative is clear. There are endless forms of international engagement that do not involve military intervention. But it is the path taken by US policy often enough that one may suspect humanitarian rhetoric is nothing more than window-dressing for a more mundane geopolitics – one that defines the national interest as global and virtually limitless. ..."
"... The prospect of impeaching Trump and removing him from office by convicting him of collusion with Russia has created an atmosphere of almost giddy anticipation among leading Democrats, allowing them to forget that the rest of the Republican Party is composed of many politicians far more skilful in Washington's ways than their president will ever be. ..."
"... They are posing an overdue challenge to the long con of neoliberalism, and the technocratic arrogance that led to Clinton's defeat in Rust Belt states. Recognising that the current leadership will not bring about significant change, they are seeking funding from outside the DNC. ..."
"... Democrat leaders have persuaded themselves (and much of their base) that all the republic needs is a restoration of the status quo ante Trump. They remain oblivious to popular impatience with familiar formulas. ..."
"... Democratic insurgents are also developing a populist critique of the imperial hubris that has sponsored multiple failed crusades, extorted disproportionate sacrifice from the working class and provoked support for Trump, who presented himself (however misleadingly) as an opponent of open-ended interventionism. On foreign policy, the insurgents face an even more entrenched opposition than on domestic policy: a bipartisan consensus aflame with outrage at the threat to democracy supposedly posed by Russian hacking. Still, they may have found a tactical way forward, by focusing on the unequal burden borne by the poor and working class in the promotion and maintenance of American empire. ..."
"... This approach animates Autopsy: The Democratic Party in Crisis, a 33-page document whose authors include Norman Solomon, founder of the web-based insurgent lobby RootsAction.org. 'The Democratic Party's claims of fighting for "working families" have been undermined by its refusal to directly challenge corporate power, enabling Trump to masquerade as a champion of the people,' Autopsy announces. ..."
"... Clinton's record of uncritical commitment to military intervention allowed Trump to have it both ways, playing to jingoist resentment while posing as an opponent of protracted and pointless war. ..."
"... If the insurgent movements within the Democratic Party begin to formulate an intelligent foreign policy critique, a re-examination may finally occur. And the world may come into sharper focus as a place where American power, like American virtue, is limited. For this Democrat, that is an outcome devoutly to be wished. It's a long shot, but there is something happening out there. ..."
American politics have rarely presented a more disheartening spectacle. The repellent and dangerous antics of Donald Trump are
troubling enough, but so is the Democratic Party leadership's failure to take in the significance of the 2016 election campaign.
Bernie Sanders's challenge to Hillary Clinton, combined with Trump's triumph, revealed the breadth of popular anger at politics as
usual – the blend of neoliberal domestic policy and interventionist foreign policy that constitutes consensus in Washington.
Neoliberals celebrate market utility as the sole criterion of worth; interventionists exalt military adventure abroad as a means
of fighting evil in order to secure global progress . Both agendas have proved calamitous for most Americans. Many registered
their disaffection in 2016. Sanders is a social democrat and Trump a demagogic mountebank, but their campaigns underscored a
widespread repudiation of the Washington consensus. For about a week after the election, pundits discussed the possibility of a more
capacious Democratic strategy. It appeared that the party might learn something from Clinton's defeat. Then everything changed.
Links to his blog below. He's what investigative reporters should be like but most
definitely are NOT like these days. He's sharp as a tack and doesn't miss a thing.
Transparent DOJ and FBI Desperation: New York Times Attempts "Trump Operation"
Justification
December 30, 2017
The article found below is where he discusses his first clue about the HUGE scandal
confirmed at the above DETAILED analyses. If this doesn't result in just a whole bunch of
high level swamp creatures doing a perp walk or AT THE VERY LEAST losing their jobs, you'll
know there's no hope:
THE BIG UGLY – Why U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras Recusal From Mike
Flynn Case is a Big Deal
December 8, 2017
"... The attempt to tease, weave and develop a narrative against President Donald J. Trump over a Russian connection began almost immediately after his victory in November last year. This was meant to be institutional oversight and probing, but in another sense, it was also intended to be an establishment's cry of hope to haul the untenable and inconceivable before some process. No one could still fathom that Trump had actually won on his merits (or demerits). There had to be some other reason. ..."
"... Central to the Trump-Bannon approach to US politics has been the fist of defiance against those entities of establishment fame. There is the Central Intelligence Agency, which Trump scorned; there is the FBI, which Trump is at war with. Then there is the Department of Justice, which he regards as singularly unjust. ..."
"... Australia , Washington's ally with an enthusiastic puppy dog manner, wanted to help, to tip off US authorities that a great Satan, Russia, might be involved. ..."
"... Australian ex-officials were by no means the only ones involved in providing succour to the anti-Trump effort. A picture was being painted by other sources – British and Dutch, for instance – pointing to the Kremlin as central to the Democratic email hacks. The FBI probe, in time, would become the full-fledged investigation led by a former director of the organization, Robert Mueller . ..."
"... "Many people in our Country are asking what the 'Justice' Department is going to do about the fact that totally Crooked Hillary, AFTER receiving a subpoena from the United States Congress, deleted and 'acid washed' 33,000 Emails? No justice!" ..."
"... More to the point, Trump is certainly right in questioning the historic inability of the FBI to be a credible instrument of justice, even if history is not his strong suit. The Bureau under J. Edgar Hoover was a monster of surveillance, its reputation, despite being in deserved tatters, defended by one president after the other. ..."
"... As for bias, Trump is certainly right on the score that certain FBI officials, foremost amongst them lawyer Lisa Page and FBI special agent Peter Strzok , were demonstrably favourable to Clinton over him. ..."
"... Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected] ..."
The attempt to tease, weave and develop a narrative against President Donald J. Trump
over a Russian connection began almost immediately after his victory in November last year.
This was meant to be institutional oversight and probing, but in another sense, it was also
intended to be an establishment's cry of hope to haul the untenable and inconceivable before
some process. No one could still fathom that Trump had actually won on his merits (or
demerits). There had to be some other reason.
Central to the Trump-Bannon approach to US politics has been the fist of defiance against
those entities of establishment fame. There is the Central Intelligence Agency, which Trump
scorned; there is the FBI, which Trump is at war with. Then there is the Department of Justice,
which he regards as singularly unjust.
The FBI investigation into Trumpland and its reputed nexus with Russia remains both bane and
opportunity for Trump. As long as it continues, it affords Trump ammunition for populist
broadsides and claims that such entities are sworn to destroy him.
To watch this story unfold is to remember how a soap opera can best anything done in
celluloid. The New York Times has given us a New Year's Eve treat, claiming that former
Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos spilt the beans to former Australian foreign minister
Alexander Downer at London's Kensington Wine Rooms in May 2016.
The two men had, apparently, been doing what any decent being does at such a London venue:
drink. Papadopoulos' tongue started to wag as the imbibing continued. There was a Russian
connection. There was dirt to be had, featuring Hillary Clinton.
Downer, however hazed, archived the discussion. He could make a name for himself with this
decent brown nosing opportunity. Australia , Washington's ally with an enthusiastic puppy dog
manner, wanted to help, to tip off US authorities that a great Satan, Russia, might be
involved. So commenced the long road to the fall of Trump's former aide, who conceded, in time,
to have lied to the FBI. Trump's response was to
degrade Papadopoulos as a "low-level volunteer" and "liar", giving him the kiss of
unimportance.
Australian ex-officials were by no means the only ones involved in providing succour to the
anti-Trump effort. A picture was being painted by other sources – British and Dutch, for
instance – pointing to the Kremlin as central to the Democratic email hacks. The FBI
probe, in time, would become the full-fledged investigation led by a former director of the
organization, Robert Mueller .
This provides the broader context for the Trump assault on all manner of instruments in the
Republic. Earlier in December, Twitter was again ablaze with the president's fury. The blasts
centered on the guilty plea by former national security advisor Michael Flynn. He had, in fact,
had conversations with the former Russian ambassador. Trump's approach was two-fold: claim that Flynn's actions had been initially, at least,
lawful, while the conduct of the
FBI and Department of Justice had been uneven and arbitrary.
"So General Flynn lies to the FBI and his life is destroyed, while Crooked Hillary
Clinton, on that now infamous FBI holiday 'interrogation' with no swearing in and no
recording, lies many times and nothing happens to her?"
He then reserved a salvo for the DOJ.
"Many people in our Country are asking what the 'Justice' Department is going to do about
the fact that totally Crooked Hillary, AFTER receiving a subpoena from the United States
Congress, deleted and 'acid washed' 33,000 Emails? No justice!"
The persistent inability to understand Trumpland as a series of bullying an exploitative
transactions blunts the value of the FBI investigation. Whatever it purports to be, it smacks
of desperation, an effort in search of an explanation rather than a resolution. The Trump
Teflon remains in place, immovable.
More to the point, Trump is certainly right in questioning the historic inability of
the FBI to be a credible instrument of justice, even if history is not his strong suit. The
Bureau under J. Edgar Hoover was a monster of surveillance, its reputation, despite being in
deserved tatters, defended by one president after the other.
As for bias, Trump is certainly right on the score that certain FBI officials, foremost
amongst them lawyer Lisa Page and FBI special agent Peter Strzok , were demonstrably
favourable to Clinton over him.
... ... ...
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures
at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]
"... The best part about Trump is that he does not have to run false flags to get the public's support. ...No inside jobs like 9/11 and no fake shootings like Sandy Hook. He just has some solid policies that benefit normal Americans! ..."
Fox News host Maria Bartiromo interviews Representative Bud Cummins about the 2016
weaponization of the FBI and DOJ and the same group of people in 2017 working to undermine the
Trump administration.
This Tuesday FBI Asst. Director Andrew McCabe will meet with the House Intelligence
Committee. Around the same time Trump lawyers will be meeting with Robert Mueller. Could be a
big news week.
Lutz • 12 days ago
Only the chosen tribe can shut down an agency like the F.B.Lie. Control through money
distribution. They control everyone, PERIOD.
Tom Turek > Claude Taylor • 13 days ago
FBI? On site the night before 911, On site within minutes after Sen Wellstone's chartered
almost new Twin Turboprop Beachcraft with 2 pro plots smashed into the ground on approach.
Wellstone was about to expose 911. Illegally taking over the TWA800 investigation from NTSB
and many times removing evidence overnight that investigators found suspicious of a missile
strike. Told us that a low voltage wire in a fuel tank overheated and caused the plane to
break into 2. Wreckage still under armed guard!
About what 'IDEALS' is DJT talking??
Doctor72 • 13 days ago
The best part about Trump is that he does not have to run false flags to get the public's
support. ...No inside jobs like 9/11 and no fake shootings like Sandy Hook. He just has some
solid policies that benefit normal Americans!
MikeG the Deplorable > Doctor72 • 13 days ago
What a refreshing change.
Cyrano • 13 days ago
This man is afraid to call it treason...
centurion • 13 days ago
It's a very sad day for Trump supporters when they elected a person to jail the law
breakers in Washington, CIA, FBI, BLM, NSA, the Clintons, the Bush's and Trump does
absolutely nothing about it. Failure to do something IS consent.
Mistaron • 13 days ago
Why is this guy dancing around? It's not 'bad management' mate, it's bloody Treason!
Elim • 13 days ago
I just saw a clip of Trump answering questions at a news conference. He was answering
questions about the Russian collusion crap, and was saying that Putin and his government
denied any interference, just as he denied any collusion. When Trump was asked what he
personally believed, he said that he supported what the intelligence agencies said about it.
In other words, he believes what he was told by our intelligence services...which is what,
exactly? He didn't answer the question.
Why Rosenstein does not investigate the DNC corruption instead or along with targeting Trump? "Who the hell cares if it was the Russians who hacked DNC emails that
proved their hypocrisy, mendacity and the corruption of the media?" What was the crime committed by Trump that warrant opening
the investigation ?
Notable quotes:
"... Mueller has a rather large conflict of interest: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-19/hillary-clinton-told-fbis-mueller-deliver-uranium-russians-2009-secret-plane-side-ta ..."
"... Mueller participated in one of the greatest expansions of mass surveillance in human history. ..."
"... Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect it all" surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities. ..."
"... There's much more about Mueller which makes it clear he's no friend of democracy. http://www.globalresearch.ca/special-prosecutor-robert-mueller-is-a-political-hack/5594943 ..."
"... Apparatchik /ˌɑːpəˈrɑːtʃɪk/ (Russian: аппара́тчик [ɐpɐˈratɕɪk]) is a Russian colloquial term for a full-time, professional functionary of the Communist Party or government "apparat" (apparatus) that held any position of bureaucratic or political responsibility, with the exception of the higher ranks of management called "Nomenklatura". James Billington describes one as "a man not of grand plans, but of a hundred carefully executed details."[1] It is often considered a derogatory term, with negative connotations in terms of the quality, competence, and attitude of a person thus described.[2] ..."
"... Rosenstein and Mueller's Excellent Adventure. Mr. Mueller's Day Off. Sorry, it is hard to take this unconstitutional special counsel in search of a crime seriously. ..."
"... Rosenstein and Goldilocks??? You know, like from Hamlet. . . ..."
"... When Comey testified that AG Loretta Lynch ordered him to call the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton's violations of email-protocols on a private server & ignoring security classifications, putting our National Security at risk -- why didn't the Senate Intelligence Committee subpoena Ms. Lynch to testify ..."
"... Why did AG Loretta Lynch refuse to demand that the FBI put Hillary under oath & also record their questioning of her during Emailgate? Why was Hillary accorded special privileges in violation of FBI-protocols -- that citizens would never be accorded? ..."
"... Mueller is close to the Clintons -- he is close to Comey. In my opinion, a man of integrity would not have accepted the role of Special Counsel in this trumped-up coup d'etat. Shame on him. ..."
"... as long as the moronic brain-washed idiots on Broadway continue to give Hillary standing ovations just because she "tried" to break the glass ceiling .you know, the participation trophy ..then she will keep on thinking she is actually someone worth admiring. She is not. She is incompetent. She is corrupt. She is a criminal. She is unethical. She is, and always will be Crooked Hillary. A failed politician who should be in prison for the rest of her life. ..."
"... From Comey's statements regarding Hillary Clinton, I believe that should be reopened, especially regarding Bill Clinton's meeting with then Attorney General Lynch. Is Lynch so stupid not to think the public would see that for what it was, a cover-up. The Russia thing is a cloak to cover the Clinton/Lynch meeting. ..."
"... Rosenstein worked under Mueller for 3 years, early in Rosenstein's DOJ career: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Rosenstein#Department_of_Justice You can argue appearance of impropriety on both sides. Mueller is friends with Comey, and he was Rosenstein's boss at the beginning of Rosenstein's DOJ career. ..."
"... "Hardcore anti-Trump Democrat Senator from Virginia and Russia conspiracy theorist, Mark Warner, made $6 million from Russian search engine and tech company Yandex back in 2012. GotNews reports that the $6 million he pocketed represents 10% of his entire net worth. This is corroborated by the Christian Science Monitor, which reported his net worth to be around $80 million." ..."
"... Let's think about Hillary and Bill that were "broke" when they left the White House and then trace their actions while following the money. The uranium sale to the Russians was just the tip of the iceberg. They enriched themselves on the backs of the American people and should be in jail. Trump acted within the law as far as we can see and the investigations don't stop. ..."
"... It's starting to look more like an insurrection than an investigation. Definition of insurrection : an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government. ..."
"... I think Mueller is too close to Comey to investigate this whole thing. I know that I could not be completely fair if one of my friends was a witness. I would clearly give them more weight. ..."
"... "If he 'doesn't have a conflict of interest' it's because lawyers have turned that phrase into a term-of-art which allows them to go about their scuzzy ways blatant partiality notwithstanding. The man who has no conflict of interest has hired four lawyers who are part of the modest minority of the public who finance Democratic Party campaigns, of which 3 have given four figure sums to Democratic campaigns. It's not difficult to find attorneys who do not make political contributions of note. Only a single-digit minority of the public are campaign contributors ..."
This is getting so ridiculous! Let's have everyone recluse themselves and get down to the work of running the country! Who the
hell cares if it was the Russians who hacked DNC emails that proved their hypocrisy, mendacity and the corruption of the media?
Why aren't we "investigating" the DNC? Answer: because our "media" has been weaponized by them against it's "enemies."
Putin is an enemy because he didn't take kindly to Clinton's political weaponizing the press in it's sphere of influence. Can't
say I blame him. If the CIA can't hack Putin, and the US is helpless to prevent further hacking, then we have a much bigger problem.
Trump's ham-fisted attempts to get actual government officials to "go public" to reduce the media heat he feels, is much ado
about nothing. I wish he didn't care about the publicity, but then – if he didn't – he wouldn't be President now.
G.R. headline: "Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller Is a "Political Hack" -- note what JT said:
snippett: Unsure About Assassination of U.S. Citizens Living On U.S. Soil Rather than saying "of course not!", Mueller said
that he wasn't sure whether Obama had the right to assassinate Americans living on American soil. Constitutional expert Jonathan
Turley commented at the time: "One would hope that the FBI Director would have a handle on a few details guiding his responsibilities,
including whether he can kill citizens without a charge or court order."
***
He appeared unclear whether he had the power under the Obama Kill Doctrine or, in the very least, was unwilling to discuss
that power. For civil libertarians, the answer should be easy: "Of course, I do not have that power under the Constitution."
Mueller participated in one of the greatest expansions of mass surveillance in human history. As we noted in 2013:
FBI special agent Colleen Rowley points out:
Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents
were simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect
it all" surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA
whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities.
All parties involved swore a supreme loyalty oath to the U.S. Constitution, which includes fidelity to our Bill of Rights. All
ignored the torture, illegal spying and abusing the Espionage Act but they did lock up those that had fidelity to their oath (i.e.:
John Kiriakou).
Why has the Press lost interest in that disloyalty by most, not all, DOJ employees – they swore to protect Americans' constitutional
rights.
Whenever a member or supporter of the !% tells us that Mr. X is highly respected etc., you can be certain that Mr. X will not
act contrary to the beliefs and aspirations of the established order.
You are exactly right! Mueller is an Apparatchik. Which wiki says is:
Apparatchik /ˌɑːpəˈrɑːtʃɪk/ (Russian: аппара́тчик [ɐpɐˈratɕɪk]) is a Russian colloquial term for a full-time, professional
functionary of the Communist Party or government "apparat" (apparatus) that held any position of bureaucratic or political
responsibility, with the exception of the higher ranks of management called "Nomenklatura". James Billington describes one
as "a man not of grand plans, but of a hundred carefully executed details."[1] It is often considered a derogatory term, with
negative connotations in terms of the quality, competence, and attitude of a person thus described.[2]
Members of the "apparat" were frequently transferred between different areas of responsibility, usually with little
or no actual training for their new areas of responsibility. Thus, the term apparatchik, or "agent of the apparatus" was usually
the best possible description of the person's profession and occupation.[3]
Not all apparatchiks held lifelong positions. Many only entered such positions in middle age.[4]
Today apparatchik is also used in contexts other than that of the Soviet Union or communist countries. According to Collins
English Dictionary the word can mean "an official or bureaucrat in any organization".[5]
According to Douglas Harper's Online Etymology Dictionary, the term was also used in the meaning "Communist agent or spy",
originating in the writings of Arthur Koestler, c. 1941.[6]
In Australia, the term is often used to describe people who have made their career as factional operatives and leaders in
political parties, and who are therefore perceived to have little 'real-world' experience outside politics.
Rosenstein and Mueller's Excellent Adventure. Mr. Mueller's Day Off. Sorry, it is hard to take this unconstitutional
special counsel in search of a crime seriously.
When Comey testified that AG Loretta Lynch ordered him to call the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton's violations
of email-protocols on a private server & ignoring security classifications, putting our National Security at risk -- why didn't
the Senate Intelligence Committee subpoena Ms. Lynch to testify regarding:
Why did she advise Comey to call the investigation a "matter"? Why was she pressuring him to back-off and not indict
Hillary? To what degree was POTUS Obama involved in Hillary's e-mail gate? What was in the 30,000 emails that Hillary deleted?
What took place between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch on the airplane during Tarmac-gate in AZ? They didn't talk about
their "grandkids" alone, did they ergo, did Bill Clinton promise that if AG Lynch & Comey refused to recommend an indictment
that Hillary would recommend her to be nominated for the US Supreme Court? What, if any other, quid-pro-quos were offered
by Bill on behalf of Hillary in order to obstruct justice?
Why did AG Loretta Lynch refuse to demand that the FBI put Hillary under oath & also record their questioning of her
during Emailgate? Why was Hillary accorded special privileges in violation of FBI-protocols -- that citizens would never be
accorded? What was Obama-Lynch's role in aiding-and-abetting Hillary to avoid prosecution of crimes that other US citizens
would endure for lesser crimes?
Let's be honest please: It wasn't Trump or the Russians who obstructed justice -- attempted to rig our elections -- who perverted
the course of justice: -- It was Obama, Bill & Hillary Clinton, AG Loretta Lynch and Comey– all of whom thought that Hillary would
be POTUS and were happy to help her out -- and whom were willing to turn a blind-eye -- to her crimes in order to enjoy the perks that
she would provide in return for ignoring her blatant, willful & criminal activities.
Mueller is close to the Clintons -- he is close to Comey. In my opinion, a man of integrity would not have accepted the role of
Special Counsel in this trumped-up coup d'etat. Shame on him.
Yes! But, as long as the moronic brain-washed idiots on Broadway continue to give Hillary standing ovations just because she "tried"
to break the glass ceiling .you know, the participation trophy ..then she will keep on thinking she is actually someone worth
admiring. She is not. She is incompetent. She is corrupt. She is a criminal. She is unethical. She is, and always will be Crooked
Hillary. A failed politician who should be in prison for the rest of her life. The idiots on the left who continue to venerate
her are true 'sycophants' -- emphasis on 'sick.'
From Comey's statements regarding Hillary Clinton, I believe that should be reopened, especially regarding Bill Clinton's meeting
with then Attorney General Lynch. Is Lynch so stupid not to think the public would see that for what it was, a cover-up. The Russia
thing is a cloak to cover the Clinton/Lynch meeting. It's a sham that DOJ has let go. My main complaint is -- how much is this
going to cost the taxpayer? It has no basis in fact from anyone, so why are we here? Well, because the Dems are afraid of Donald
Trump! Sessions should tell his Deputy to end this by terminating the whole thing. Hopefully Dems will,pay for this in 2018. We
will not let Americans forget!
Rosenstein worked under Mueller for 3 years, early in Rosenstein's DOJ career:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Rosenstein#Department_of_Justice
You can argue appearance of impropriety on both sides. Mueller is friends with Comey, and he was Rosenstein's boss at the beginning
of Rosenstein's DOJ career.
The Dems won't rest until they get Trump's tax returns. Next we'll see "leaks" coming out of the IRS because Trump hasn't cleaned
house over there yet.
And, yes, if Trump is to reveal his tax returns, so should every member of Congress be under scrutiny and/or investigation.
I'm sure we'd find some interesting information. Like this from Mark Warner's:
"Hardcore anti-Trump Democrat Senator from Virginia and Russia conspiracy theorist, Mark Warner, made $6 million from Russian
search engine and tech company Yandex back in 2012. GotNews reports that the $6 million he pocketed represents 10% of his entire
net worth. This is corroborated by the Christian Science Monitor, which reported his net worth to be around $80 million."
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
"As far as we know, President Donald J. Trump has made 0% of his net worth from Russian companies. Maybe Warner should investigate
his own ties to Russia.
Virginia Democratic Senator Mark Warner, the ranking member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, is blocking the
White House from appointing a Treasury Department official to oversee financial crimes committed by terrorists. Warner, worth
over $80 million, is one of the Senate's richest members."
Let's think about Hillary and Bill that were "broke" when they left the White House and then trace their actions while following
the money. The uranium sale to the Russians was just the tip of the iceberg. They enriched themselves on the backs of the American
people and should be in jail. Trump acted within the law as far as we can see and the investigations don't stop.
The left is tribal and now even becoming openly violent.
It's starting to look more like an insurrection than an investigation. Definition of insurrection : an act or instance
of revolting against civil authority or an established government.
What a mess. Mueller has to recuse himself on anything Comey related, right? So, if Mueller opens an investigation into obstruction,
then both he and Rosenstein have to step aside. So Trump is correct when he says he is not under investigation. Hasn't Comey,
(and Coats and Rogers) all testified under oath that there was no obstruction? Hasn't it been determined that there is no 'collusion'
(whatever that means) between Trump and Russia? So what is the special counsel investigating?
How about instead of obstruction, they take a look at sedition?
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire
to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose
by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by
force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Michael Aarethun – he is not going to find Diogenese in Washington, DC. I think Mueller is too close to Comey to investigate
this whole thing. I know that I could not be completely fair if one of my friends was a witness. I would clearly give them more
weight.
Rosenstein has a clear conflict of interest. Mueller probably doesn't have a conflict of interest, but if I were in his shoes,
I would hire an attorney whose sole job is to deal with conflict of interest issues and other ethical issues that are certain
to come up. I would also take steps to see that this "ethics counsel" can't be fired without approval by the (acting) Attorney
General -- whoever is sitting in for Sessions.
"If he 'doesn't have a conflict of interest' it's because lawyers have turned that phrase into a term-of-art which allows
them to go about their scuzzy ways blatant partiality notwithstanding. The man who has no conflict of interest has hired four
lawyers who are part of the modest minority of the public who finance Democratic Party campaigns, of which 3 have given four figure
sums to Democratic campaigns. It's not difficult to find attorneys who do not make political contributions of note. Only a single-digit
minority of the public are campaign contributors. Comment dit-on Establishment stitch-up ?
There is strong circumstantial evidence that an insidious plot unprecedented in American
history was hatched within the FBI and the Obama Justice Department to help elect Hillary
Clinton and defeat Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election.
And when this apparent effort to improperly influence the election did not succeed, the
suspected conspirators appear to have employed a fraudulent investigation of President Trump in
an attempt to undo the election results and remove him as president.
Such a Machiavellian scheme would move well beyond what is known as the "deep state," a
popular reference to government employees who organize in secret to impose their own political
views on government policy in defiance of democratically elected leadership.
However, this apparent plot to keep Trump from becoming president and to weaken and
potentially pave the way for his impeachment with a prolonged politically motivated
investigation – if proven – would constitute something far more nefarious and
dangerous.
Such a plot would show that partisans within the FBI and the Justice Department, driven by
personal animus and a sense of political righteousness, surreptitiously conspired to subvert
electoral democracy itself in our country.
As of now, we have no proof beyond a reasonable doubt of such a plot. But we have very
strong circumstantial evidence.
And as the philosopher and writer Henry David Thoreau wrote in his journal in 1850: "Some
circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk."
Newly revealed text messages about the apparent anti-Trump plot are the equivalent of a
trout in the milk. It smells fishy.
The Plans
The mainstream media and Democrats dismiss talk of an anti-Trump conspiracy by the FBI and
Justice Department as right-wing nonsense – paranoid fantasies of Trump supporters with
no basis in facts. But there are plenty of facts that lay out a damning case based on
circumstantial evidence.
Recently disclosed text messages between FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa
Page suggest there may have been two parts of the apparent anti-Trump plot.
"Part A" was to devise a way to exonerate Clinton, despite compelling evidence that she
committed crimes under the Espionage Act in her mishandling of classified documents on her
private email server.
Absolving Clinton cleared the way for her to continue her candidacy at a time when all polls
and just about every pundit predicted she would be elected president in November 2016. If
Clinton had been charged with crimes she would likely have been forced to drop her candidacy,
and if she remained in the race her candidacy would have been doomed.
But "Part A" of the apparent anti-Trump plot was not enough. A back-up plan would be
prudent. It seems the Obama Justice Department and FBI conjured up a "Part B" just in case the
first stratagem failed. This would be even more malevolent – manufacturing an alleged
crime supposedly committed by Trump where no crime exists in the law.
And so, armed with a fictitious justification, a criminal investigation was launched into
so-called Trump-Russia "collusion." It was always a mythical legal claim, since there is no
statute prohibiting foreign nationals from volunteering their services in American political
campaigns.
More importantly, there was never a scintilla of evidence that Trump collaborated with
Russia to influence the election.
No matter. The intent may have been to sully the new president while searching for a crime
to force him from office.
But thanks to the discovery of text messages, circumstantial evidence has been exposed.
The Texts
The text messages exchanged between Strzok and Page, who were romantically involved, confirm
a stunning hostility toward Trump, calling him an "idiot" and "loathsome."
At the same time, the texts were filled with adoring compliments of Clinton, lauding her
nomination and stating: "She just has to win now."
One text between Strzok and Page dated Aug. 6, 2016 stands out and looks like the proverbial
smoking gun.
Page: "And maybe you're meant to stay where you are because you're meant to protect the
country from that menace." (This is clearly a reference to a Trump presidency).
Strzok: "Thanks. And of course I'll try and approach it that way. I can protect our country
at many levels . "
It is reasonable to conclude that Strzok had already taken steps to "protect" the country
from what he considered would be a dangerous and harmful Trump presidency.
Just one month earlier, then-FBI Director James Comey had announced he would recommend that
no criminal charges be filed by the Justice Department against Clinton. Given all the
incriminating evidence against Clinton, Comey's view that she should not be prosecuted made no
sense by any objective standard.
This is where Strzok played a pivotal role. As the lead investigator in the Clinton email
case, he is the person who changed the critical wording in Comey's description of Clinton's
handling of classified material, substituting "extremely careless" for "gross negligence."
As I explained in
an earlier column , this alteration of two words had enormous consequences, because it
allowed Clinton to evade prosecution. This removed the only legal impediment to her election as
president.
Documents made available by the Senate Homeland Security Committee also show that Comey
intended to declare that the sheer volume of classified material on Clinton's server supported
the "inference" that she was grossly negligent, which would constitute criminal conduct. Yet
this also was edited out, likely by Strzok, to avoid finding evidence of crimes.
This seems to be what Page and Strzok meant when they discussed his role as protector of the
republic. It appears that Strzok was instrumental in clearing Clinton by rewriting Comey's
otherwise incriminating findings.
Were Page and Strzok also referring to the investigation of Trump that was begun in July
2016, right after Clinton was absolved? After all, Strzok was the agent who reportedly signed
the documents launching the bureau's Trump-Russia probe. And he was a lead investigator in the
case before jumping to Robert Mueller's special counsel team.
If there is any doubt that Strzok and Page sought to undermine the democratic process,
consider this cryptic text about their "insurance policy" against the "risk" of a Trump
presidency.
Strzok: "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office –
that there's no way he gets elected – but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like
an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40. "
The reference to "Andy" is likely Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who was also
supervising the investigation of Clinton's emails at the same time his wife was receiving
roughly $675,000 in campaign money in her race for elective office in Virginia from groups
aligned with Clinton.
What was the "insurance policy" discussed in Andy's office? Was it the FBI's investigation
of Trump and his associates? Or was it the anti-Trump "dossier" that may have been used by the
FBI and the Justice Department as the basis for a warrant to wiretap and spy on Trump
associates? Perhaps it was both.
The Dossier
The "dossier" was a compendium of largely specious allegations about Trump, compiled by the
opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign and the
Democratic National Committee. Comey called it "salacious and unverified."
Various congressional committees suspect the dossier was illegally used to place a Trump
campaign associate, Carter Page, under foreign surveillance. When asked about that on Wednesday
during a hearing on Capitol Hill, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein refused to answer,
which sounds like an implicit "yes."
Using a dubious, if not phony, document in support of an affidavit to obtain a warrant from
a federal judge constitutes a fraud upon the court, which is a crime.
The dossier scandal recently ensnared Bruce Ohr, a top Justice Department official, who was
demoted last week for concealing his meetings with the men behind the document.
Ohr's wife worked for Fusion GPS. This created a disqualifying conflict of interest for Mr.
Ohr. He was legally obligated under Justice Department regulations to recuse himself from the
Mueller investigation of Russia's role in the election, but he did not.
Congress needs to find out whether the dossier was exploited as a pretext for initiating the
Russia probe against President Trump. It would also be unconscionable, if not illegal, for the
FBI and Justice Department to use opposition research funded by Clinton's campaign to spy on
her opponent or his campaign.
Both agencies have been resisting congressional subpoenas and other demands for answers,
which smacks of a cover-up. Since the Justice Department cannot be trusted to investigate
itself, a second special counsel should be appointed.
This new counsel should also reopen the Clinton email case and investigate the conduct of
Strzok, Page, Comey and others who may have obstructed justice by exonerating Clinton in the
face of substantial evidence that she had committed crimes.
If Strzok or anyone else allowed their political views to shape the investigations of either
Clinton or Trump and dictate the outcomes, that is a felony for which they should be
prosecuted.
The Mueller investigation is now so tainted with the appearance of corruption that it has
lost credibility and the public's trust.
"... Most of the emails were heavily redacted because they contained classified material -- but one that was sent on Nov. 25 2010 was addressed to "Anthony Campaign," an apparent address belonging to Weiner. ..."
"... The message contained a list of talking points for then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was prepping to make a call to Prince Saud of Saudi Arabia to warn him about sensitive documents that had been given to WikiLeaks by then-Army intelligence officer Bradley Manning. ..."
Most of the emails were heavily redacted because they contained classified
material -- but one that was sent on Nov. 25 2010 was addressed to "Anthony Campaign," an
apparent address belonging to Weiner.
The message contained a list of talking points for
then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was prepping to make a call to Prince Saud of
Saudi Arabia to warn him about sensitive documents that had been given to WikiLeaks by
then-Army intelligence officer Bradley Manning.
A
confidential document found on Anthony Weiner's laptop reveals that the United States
Embassy in Stockholm, Sweden expressed concerns in 2010 that WikiLeaks would release classified
US documents related to Sweden ahead of the September 19 Swedish election, tipping the vote
towards the Pirate Party. The subject of the cable reads " Wikileaks: The Pirate Party's White
Horse Into Sweden's Parliament? "
On June 29, 2010 a US diplomat met with three members of the Pirate Party - which is
described in the cable as a "mixture between communism and libertarianism," yet whose members
are "well-salaried professionals, independent from the party for income." Two of the "pirates,"
according to the report, were active in the "youth branch of the conservative party currently
leading government ."
The Embassy cable notes the " grim electoral outlook for Pirates " - as confirmed by a
Pirate party member interviewed by the US diplomat, "Unless WikiLeaks Saves the Day."
Two weeks after the cable was sent, an arrest warrant was issued for WikiLeaks founder
Julian Assange on sexual assault allegations - which was dropped, then re-issued, then revoked
again by Swedish authorities in August 2015 when they dropped their case against him.
The emergence of this confidential document ( found on Anthony Weiner's laptop and sent
while his wife, Huma Abedin, was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff ),
is disturbing - as it potentially implicates the Obama administration in a conspiracy to
silence Julian Assange while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State - not to mention that it
could be the smoking gun in yet another clear case of mishandled information found on
imprisoned sexual deviant Anthony Weiner's laptop the FBI's
Peter Strzok and crew must have somehow overlooked.
A brief timeline of events:
On August 20, 2010, the Swedish Prosecutor's Office issued an arrest warrant for Julian Assange over a rape
allegation - two weeks after the US Embassy met with the Pirate party and had concerns over
Assange leaking US secrets. The net day, Swedish cancelled the warrant. "I don't think there
is reason to suspect that he has committed rape," says one of Stockholm's chief prosecutors,
Eva Finne. Swedish prosecutors did however continue to investigate a separate allegation of
molestation, though they felt it was not a serious enough crime for an arrest warrant.
On September 1, 2010, Swedish Director of Prosecution, Marianne Ny, reopened the rape
investigation against Assange.
On November 18, 2010, Stockholm District Court approved a detention request for Mr.
Assange, who had traveled to London. Two days later, Swedish police issued an international
arrest warrant. On December 8, 2010, Assange is taken into British custody and taken to an
extradition hearing . Eight days later, Assange posts bail and walks free in London until May
30, 2012 when the UK Supreme Court rules that he should be extradited to Sweden.
August 16, 2012, Assange begins his asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy in London - where he
has remained for over five years.
In February, 2016, a UN panel found Assange to be
detained unlawfully in the Ecuadorian embassy.
In May, 2017, Swedish authorities once again dropped their case against Julian Assange,
with his Swedish lawyer Per Samuelsson told Swedish media "It is a total victory for Julian
Assange," adding "He is free to leave the embassy whenever he wants."
Unfortunately, that's not going to be quite so easy for the time being - as Assange faces
immediate arrest by the UK for skipping bail in his extradition hearing. Moreover, in April of
this year, CNN and the Washington Post
simultaneously reported that Attorney General Jeff Sessions' DOJ has prepared criminal charges
against Assange over 2010 leaks of diplomatic cables and military documents.
While the DOJ seems intent on locking Assange up, the WikiLeaks founder has also received
tremendous support from certain members of congress.
As we
reported last week , Congressman Dana Rohrabacher travelled to London in August with
journalist Charles Johnson for a meeting with Assange, where Rohrabacher said the WikiLeaks
founder offered "firsthand" information proving that the Trump campaign did not collude with
Russia, and which would refute the Russian hacking theory .
Rohrabacher brought that message back to Trump's Chief of Staff, John Kelly, to propose a
deal. In exchange for a presidential pardon, Assange would share evidence that would refute the
Russian hacking theory by proving they weren't the source of the emails, according to the
WSJ .
However - when Trump was asked in late September about the Assange proposal, he responded
that he'd "never heard" of it , causing Rohrabacher to unleash on John Kelly, who he blamed for
blocking the proposal from reaching the President. Rohrabacher told the
Daily Caller :
"I think the president's answer indicates that there is a wall around him that is being
created by people who do not want to expose this fraud that there was collusion between our
intelligence community and the leaders of the Democratic Party," Rohrabacher told The Daily
Caller Tuesday in a phone interview.
" This would have to be a cooperative effort between his own staff and the leadership in
the intelligence communities to try to prevent the president from making the decision as to
whether or not he wants to take the steps necessary to expose this horrendous lie that was
shoved down the American people's throats so incredibly earlier this year," Rohrabacher
said.
Contributing to the notion of deep-state interference, CIA director Mike Pompeo referred to
WikiLeaks as a "
hostile intelligence service " in April, calling Julian Assange "a fraud, a coward hiding
behind a screen" for exposing information about democratic governments rather than
authoritarian regimes. This quite the ironic statement, considering Pompeo used leaked emails
from WikiLeaks as proof "the fix was in" against President Trump.
So - while the Swedish authorities have dropped their case against Assange, and the UN says
he's been unlawfully detailed - the UK insists on arresting Assange the moment he steps outside
the Ecuadorian embassy for jumping bail on the dropped charges, and the US Department of
Justice is reportedly prepared to slap criminal charges on Assange.
Perhaps the establishment is still a bit miffed that the "white wizard" showed the world
what's really underneath the pantsuit, which despite the constant rhetoric of the past year is
what ultimately cost Hillary - and so many of her charitable friends - the election.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
the creation of the Office of Homeland Security and the vote for a voluminous
anti-terrorist Code which had been drawn up long beforehand, the USA Patriot
Act. For affairs which the administration itself qualifies as " terrorist ",
this text suspends the Bill of Rights which was the glory of your country. It
unbalances your institutions. Two centuries later, it validates the triumph
of the great landowners who wrote the Constitution, and the defeat of the heroes
of the War of Independence who demanded that the Bill of Rights must be added.
