Softpanorama

Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Skepticism and critical thinking is not panacea, but can help to understand the world better

Bill Clinton, a War criminal, the founder of neoliberal "Vichy left"

The man who sold Democratic Party to Wall Street and helped FIRE sector to convert the country into casino

News Casino Capitalism Recommended Links Clinton Cash scandal Corporatist Corruption: Systemic Fraud under Clinton-Bush-Obama Regime Epstein as the symbol of moral degradation of the US elite  Hillary "Warmonger" Clinton Bill Clinton sexcapades and Hillary
War is Racket Yugoslav wars Harvard Mafia, Andrei Shleifer and the economic rape of Russia New American Militarism Madeleine Albright   Jeffrey Sachs and "shock therapy" racket Criminal negligence in financial regulation Financial Sector Induced Systemic Instability
Neoliberalism as a New Form of Corporatism Casino Capitalism Hillary Clinton email scandal Hillary role in cover up of Bill Clinton sexapades Neoliberal corruption Corporatist Corruption: Systemic Fraud under Clinton-Bush-Obama Regime Neoliberal Kleptocracy Neoconservatism
Predator state Bush  Corruption of Regulators Trickle down economics Mayberry Machiavellians Milton Friedman Phil Gramm Greenspan: Grey Cardinal of Washington
Ronald Reagan: modern prophet of profligacy Twelve apostles of deregulation Rubinism Lawrence Summers Sandy Weill Clinton Foundation - Wikipedia Financial Humor Etc

Some people referring to Bill Clinton sexcapades say "Bill Clinton gave us Bush the Younger thanks to having the self control of an adolescent chimpanzee." (   But this is wrong. Bill Clinton was much more dangerous then that.

We can consider Bill Clinton to be the founder of "Vichy left". He was instrumental in looting Russia after dissolution of the USSR which eventually created for the USA anb adversary they really fear. With full spectrum of offensive weapons which can annihilate the USA more effectively then the USSR ever could.

He also sold Democratic Party to the Wall Street, creating first neoliberal "Vichy left" party. The trick that was later replicated by Tony Blair in the UK -- another war criminal of the epoch of triumphal ascendance of neoliberalism.

US Democrats were once the party that was for slavery as well, so this is not the first time they defense reactionary, harmful for the nation,  political course. So in way Bill Clinton returned the Party to its historic roots, not it stands for neoliberal ("debt-based") slavery.

Contrary to what US media say, Bill and Hillary Clinton are certainly not liberals or "progressives" (strange US term which means "normal in European sense social democrats), but typical run-of-the-mill neoliberals (with Hillary beings a neocon, an unrepentant warmonger hell bent on inciting the war with Russia via "no fly zone" in Syria).

As such they are Republicans of DINO ("Democrats only in name").

Bill Clinton gave us NAFTA, repeal of Glass Steagill, deregulation of media, etc. Bill Clinton switched Democrats from the policy of Americanism (or "America first" in Trump terms) – focusing on what’s good for America’s middle class – to a policy of globalism, focusing on how to make money for large corporations who can move their wealth and workers to foreign countries all to the detriment of the American worker and the American economy.

Speaking of "Clinton family" Hillary is a war hawk and supported TPP, who during her tenure as the Secretary of State turned "Public Service" into shady, lucrative business.  In a nutshell, they got rich by making super big $$$ speeches to shady groups and persons who wanted to influence in the US government. Bill's speech fees skyrocketed when she became Secretary of State.  See  Clinton Cash

Bill Clinton was a staunch neoliberal, one of 12  apostils of deregulation. He also is a kind of Judas Iscariot of Democratic Party  who helped to sell Democratic Party to Wall Street for an annual "pension" about 20 silver coins (sorry million of USD), delivered via speakers fees.  He can  can be viewed as a Godfather of  kleptocratic neocons called  Mayberry Machiavellians. He also was the first  the neoconservative president, completely in bed with Likud lobby.

The President which destroyed the USA relations with post-Soviet Russia by attack on Serbia (On 24 March 1999, Primakov was heading to Washington, D.C. for an official visit. Flying over the Atlantic Ocean, he learned that NATO had started to bomb Yugoslavia. Primakov cancelled the visit, ordered the plane to turn around over the ocean and returned to Moscow in a maneuver dubbed "Primakov's Loop". Yevgeny Primakov  ). His main achievements were:

The collapse and subsequent economic rape of the USSR region in 1991-1998 was a huge stimulus for the US economy. Something like 300 millions of new customers overnight for many products and huge expansion of the dollar zone, which partially compensates for the loss of EU to euro.

Even if we count just the cash absorbed by the region, it will be a major economic stimulus. All-it-all it was Bernanke size if we add buying assets for pennies on the dollar.

Actually, Bill Clinton put a solid fundament for subsequent deterioration relations with Russia. His semi-successful attempt to colonize Russia (under Yeltsin Russia was a semi-colony and definitely a vassal state of the USA) backfired.

Now the teeth of dragon planted by Slick Bill (of Kosovo war fame) are visible in full glory. Russian elite no longer trusts the US elite and feels threatened.

Series of female sociopath (or borderline personalities) in the role of Secretaries of State did not help either. The last one, "We came, we saw, he died" Hillary and her protégé Victoria Nuland (which actually was a close associate of Dick Cheney http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2005/11/president_cheney.html ) are actually replay of unforgettable Madeleine Albright with her famous a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" and Albright replied "we think the price is worth it."

Selling neoliberalism under the disguise of triangulation

The term was first used by President of the United States Bill Clinton's chief political advisor Dick Morris as a way to describe his strategy for getting Clinton reelected in the 1996 presidential election. In Dick Morris' words, triangulation meant "the president needed to take a position that not only blended the best of each party's views but also transcended them to constitute a third force in the debate." In news articles and books, it is sometimes referred to as "Clintonian triangulation". Morris advocated a set of policies that were different from the traditional policies of the Democratic Party. These policies included deregulation and balanced budgets.

One of the most widely cited capstones of Clinton's triangulation strategy was when, in his 1996 State of the Union Address, Clinton declared that the "era of big government is over."[5]
 
Politicians alleged to have used triangulation more recently include US President Barack Obama,[6][7] former Senator Hillary Clinton, Tony Blair with "New Labour" in the United Kingdom, Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin with the Liberal Party of Canada, Fredrik Reinfeldt with "The New Moderates" in Sweden, and Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, and Kevin Rudd of the Australian Labor Party. In France, the Socialist candidate in the 2007 presidential election, Ségolène Royal, advocated “military supervision” (encadrement militaire) for first offenders.

During the 2010 State of the Union Address, President Obama insisted that he would remain with his agenda in the face of criticism, rather than resort to triangulation.[5]

The Third Way  actually means neoliberalism

The term "Third Way" was picked up  in the 1950s by German ordoliberal economists such as Wilhelm Röpke, resulting in the development of the concept of the social market economy -- an early attempt to justify neoliberalism. Later Röpke distanced himself from the term and located the social market economy as "first way" in the sense of an advancement of the free market economy.  Most significantly, Harold Macmillan, British Prime Minister from 1957 to 1963, based his philosophy of government on what he entitled in a book, The Middle Way

In politics, the Third Way is a set of neoliberal policies that on the surface tries to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by selling trade union interests to the higher bidder under the smokescreen of adopting synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies.  The Third Way was by proponents of neoliberalism as an attempt to weaken power of the state to regulated transnational corporations and discredit  economic interventionist policies that had previously been popularized by Keynesianism. It rise corresponds to the rise of popularity for neoliberalism and the New Right. The Third Way managed completely co-opt and destroy some Democratic Parties (in the USA, GB and Germany).

Major Third Way social democratic proponent Tony Blair claimed that the socialism he advocated was different from traditional conceptions of socialism. Blair said "My kind of socialism is a set of values based around notions of social justice ... Socialism as a rigid form of economic determinism has ended, and rightly". Blair referred to it as "social-ism" that involves politics that recognized individuals as socially interdependent, and advocated social justice, social cohesion, equal worth of each citizen, and equal opportunity.

Third Way social democratic theorist Anthony Giddens has said that the Third Way rejects the traditional conception of socialism, and instead accepts the conception of socialism as conceived of by Anthony Crosland as an ethical doctrine that views social democratic governments as having achieved a viable ethical socialism by removing the unjust elements of capitalism by providing social welfare and other policies, and that contemporary socialism has outgrown the Marxian claim for the need of the abolition of capitalism.

Blair in 2009 publicly declared support for a "new capitalism" -- neoliberalism.

It supports the pursuit of greater egalitarianism in society through action to increase the distribution of skills, capacities, and productive endowments, while rejecting income redistribution as the means to achieve this. Like neoliberalism in general it emphasizes commitment to balanced budgets, an emphasis on personal responsibility, decentralization of government power to the lowest level possible to restore the power of financial oligarchy), encouragement of public-private partnerships, improving labor supply (with Wal-Mart and McDonalds as two examples what they can do for impoverishing labor class), privatizing of education, protection of transnational corporations, which are above the law.

It been heavily criticized by many social democrats, democratic socialists and communists in particular as a betrayal of left-wing values.
 


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Aug 02, 2020] Clinton connection to Epstein was not accidental

Notable quotes:
"... Looks like Clinton "dicking (underage) blondes." I am shocked! ..."
Aug 02, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Mao , Aug 1 2020 4:15 utc | 66

In recently unsealed court documents involving dead child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and his alleged accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, a woman named Virginia Giuffre, who publicly accused Epstein of sex trafficking, said that she once saw former Democratic President Bill Clinton on Epstein's island with "two young girls" from New York.

In the questioning by lawyer Jack Scarola, Guiffre was asked, "Do you have any recollection of Jeffrey Epstein's specifically telling you that 'Bill Clinton owes me favors?'"

"Yes, I do," Guiffre answered. "It was a laugh though. He would laugh it off. You know, I remember asking Jeffrey what's Bill Clinton doing here [on Epstein's island] kind of thing, and he laughed it off and said well he owes me favors."

https://www.newsweek.com/bill-clinton-went-jeffrey-epsteins-island-2-young-girls-virginia-giuffre-says-1521845


Hoarsewhisperer , Aug 1 2020 5:07 utc | 72

Interesting extract from Xymphora's July 31 blog entry...

Tweet (trappedpatriot):

"So they screwed up bigtime on the redactions for the Ghislaine Maxwell release today. You can literally copy and paste the redacted pages into notepad and read them. Check out document #143 for a great example. #Epstein #Maxwell"

The trick works (I'd like to think it is not a mistake but some direct action by a court employee who is tired of all the lies). From document #143 (a deposition of Maxwell where her lawyer instructs her not to answer most, but not all, questions:
...

I can wait for the Official Version but I'd be interested to hear if any of MoA's resident sleuths have found the copy/paste assertion to be true?

NemesisCalling , Aug 1 2020 5:55 utc | 74

@74 hoarse

Not holding my breath but my ears are perked.

It looks like they highlighted what was to be redacted in adobe instead of scanning redacted documents manually.

Somebody screwed up? Intentionally? Mistrial for Maxwell?

Looks like Clinton "dicking (underage) blondes." I am shocked!

Trump is looking clean and I would have already guessed it with his foray into the porn industry w/ Stormy Daniels. Whereas with paedophiles, it is about power and domination, when you are into a chick like Daniels, you are staying simple and "keeping your cart wheel in worn ruts." (Tao Te Ching)

[Aug 01, 2020] Unsealed docs say Bill Clinton was on 'pedophile island' w- 'young girls' cite Epstein saying former president 'owed him favor'

Notable quotes:
"... "young girls" ..."
"... "When you were present with Jeffery Epstein and Bill Clinton on the island, who else was there?" ..."
"... "2 young girls" ..."
"... "He would laugh it off. You know, I remember asking Jeffrey 'What's Bill Clinton doing here?' and he laughed it off and said 'well he owes me a favor,'" ..."
"... "He never told me what favors they were. I never knew. I didn't know if he was serious." ..."
"... He told me a long time ago that everyone owes him favors. They're all in each other's pockets. ..."
"... "young girls" ..."
"... "When you were present with Jeffery Epstein and Bill Clinton on the island, who else was there?" ..."
"... "2 young girls" ..."
"... "He would laugh it off. You know, I remember asking Jeffrey 'What's Bill Clinton doing here?' and he laughed it off and said 'well he owes me a favor,'" ..."
"... "He never told me what favors they were. I never knew. I didn't know if he was serious." ..."
"... He told me a long time ago that everyone owes him favors. They're all in each other's pockets. ..."
"... "he's got his own spa." ..."
"... "good friends," ..."
"... "young girls" ..."
"... "When you were present with Jeffery Epstein and Bill Clinton on the island, who else was there?" ..."
"... "2 young girls" ..."
"... "He would laugh it off. You know, I remember asking Jeffrey 'What's Bill Clinton doing here?' and he laughed it off and said 'well he owes me a favor,'" ..."
"... "He never told me what favors they were. I never knew. I didn't know if he was serious." ..."
"... He told me a long time ago that everyone owes him favors. They're all in each other's pockets. ..."
"... "he's got his own spa." ..."
"... "good friends," ..."
"... "sexual relations" ..."
"... "the sexual abuse of many other minors by Epstein and several of Epstein's co-conspirators," ..."
"... "young girls" ..."
"... "When you were present with Jeffery Epstein and Bill Clinton on the island, who else was there?" ..."
"... "2 young girls" ..."
"... "He would laugh it off. You know, I remember asking Jeffrey 'What's Bill Clinton doing here?' and he laughed it off and said 'well he owes me a favor,'" ..."
"... "He never told me what favors they were. I never knew. I didn't know if he was serious." ..."
"... He told me a long time ago that everyone owes him favors. They're all in each other's pockets. ..."
"... "he's got his own spa." ..."
"... "good friends," ..."
"... "sexual relations" ..."
"... "the sexual abuse of many other minors by Epstein and several of Epstein's co-conspirators," ..."
Aug 01, 2020 | www.rt.com

Newly unsealed files tied to the Jeffrey Epstein sex-trafficking case imply that former US President Bill Clinton visited the investor's private island along with "young girls," and that the FBI knew well about the minors' abuse.

Comprising hundreds of pages of documents, the trove was released on Thursday night following a judge's order last week to have it unsealed, over the objections of Ghislaine Maxwell, a former girlfriend to Epstein who has recently been charged as an accomplice in his alleged sex-trafficking operation.

ALSO ON RT.COM US judge authorizes release of previously-sealed documents in case of Jeffrey Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell

The records stem from a 2015 defamation suit filed by Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, which was placed under lock and key after the case was settled in 2017, but was recently unsealed, as a result of a lawsuit brought last year by conservative blogger Mike Cernovich and the Miami Herald newspaper.

Among other revelations, the documents indicate that former US president Bill Clinton consorted with "young girls" during at least one visit to Epstein's private resort in the Virgin Islands, where the billionaire was said to host regular "sex orgies."

"When you were present with Jeffery Epstein and Bill Clinton on the island, who else was there?" one witness – presumably Giuffre – was asked during an interview, to which she replied that Epstein, Maxwell, an unidentified woman named "Emmy" and "2 young girls" had been on the island with the former POTUS. The witness did not elaborate on Clinton's interactions with the girls, however.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=RT_com&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=true&id=1289016133052518401&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fusa%2F496711-unsealed-epstein-docs-clinton-fbi%2F&siteScreenName=RT_com&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px

The same witness also told her attorney in 2011 that she had overheard Epstein saying that Clinton owed him "favors," but noted she couldn't tell whether he was joking.

"He would laugh it off. You know, I remember asking Jeffrey 'What's Bill Clinton doing here?' and he laughed it off and said 'well he owes me a favor,'" she said. "He never told me what favors they were. I never knew. I didn't know if he was serious."

He told me a long time ago that everyone owes him favors. They're all in each other's pockets.

One of America's top law enforcement agencies was also apparently aware that underage girls were still being abused at Epstein's properties as far back as 2011 – years after he was sentenced for similar crimes in his first criminal case. During her defamation suit, Giuffre said she had provided the FBI a now widely circulated photo of herself and the UK's Prince Andrew – where he is pictured smiling with an arm around her bare waist.

In 2014, moreover, Giuffre contacted the FBI to request evidence they had previously seized from Epstein's residences to aid her civil case, suggesting the bureau had for long been informed of her allegations regarding Epstein and his continued involvement with minor girls.

Home USA News Unsealed docs say Bill Clinton was on 'pedophile island' w/ 'young girls' & cite Epstein saying former president 'owed him favor' 31 Jul, 2020 06:18 Get short URL FILE PHOTO: US Attorney Audrey Strauss speaks at a news conference announcing charges against Ghislaine Maxwell for her role in the sexual exploitation and abuse of minor girls by Jeffrey Epstein. © Reuters / Lucas Jackson 3593 Follow RT on RT Newly unsealed files tied to the Jeffrey Epstein sex-trafficking case imply that former US President Bill Clinton visited the investor's private island along with "young girls," and that the FBI knew well about the minors' abuse.

Comprising hundreds of pages of documents, the trove was released on Thursday night following a judge's order last week to have it unsealed, over the objections of Ghislaine Maxwell, a former girlfriend to Epstein who has recently been charged as an accomplice in his alleged sex-trafficking operation.

ALSO ON RT.COM US judge authorizes release of previously-sealed documents in case of Jeffrey Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell

The records stem from a 2015 defamation suit filed by Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, which was placed under lock and key after the case was settled in 2017, but was recently unsealed, as a result of a lawsuit brought last year by conservative blogger Mike Cernovich and the Miami Herald newspaper.

Among other revelations, the documents indicate that former US president Bill Clinton consorted with "young girls" during at least one visit to Epstein's private resort in the Virgin Islands, where the billionaire was said to host regular "sex orgies."

"When you were present with Jeffery Epstein and Bill Clinton on the island, who else was there?" one witness – presumably Giuffre – was asked during an interview, to which she replied that Epstein, Maxwell, an unidentified woman named "Emmy" and "2 young girls" had been on the island with the former POTUS. The witness did not elaborate on Clinton's interactions with the girls, however.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=RT_com&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=true&id=1289016133052518401&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fusa%2F496711-unsealed-epstein-docs-clinton-fbi%2F&siteScreenName=RT_com&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px

The same witness also told her attorney in 2011 that she had overheard Epstein saying that Clinton owed him "favors," but noted she couldn't tell whether he was joking.

"He would laugh it off. You know, I remember asking Jeffrey 'What's Bill Clinton doing here?' and he laughed it off and said 'well he owes me a favor,'" she said. "He never told me what favors they were. I never knew. I didn't know if he was serious."

He told me a long time ago that everyone owes him favors. They're all in each other's pockets.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=RT_com&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-1&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1289039805528059904&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fusa%2F496711-unsealed-epstein-docs-clinton-fbi%2F&siteScreenName=RT_com&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=RT_com&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-2&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1289051260566384640&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fusa%2F496711-unsealed-epstein-docs-clinton-fbi%2F&siteScreenName=RT_com&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px

One of America's top law enforcement agencies was also apparently aware that underage girls were still being abused at Epstein's properties as far back as 2011 – years after he was sentenced for similar crimes in his first criminal case. During her defamation suit, Giuffre said she had provided the FBI a now widely circulated photo of herself and the UK's Prince Andrew – where he is pictured smiling with an arm around her bare waist.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=RT_com&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-3&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=true&id=1289028705818480642&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fusa%2F496711-unsealed-epstein-docs-clinton-fbi%2F&siteScreenName=RT_com&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px

In 2014, moreover, Giuffre contacted the FBI to request evidence they had previously seized from Epstein's residences to aid her civil case, suggesting the bureau had for long been informed of her allegations regarding Epstein and his continued involvement with minor girls.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=RT_com&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-4&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=true&id=1289021598561980416&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fusa%2F496711-unsealed-epstein-docs-clinton-fbi%2F&siteScreenName=RT_com&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=RT_com&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-5&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=true&id=1289020613852635136&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fusa%2F496711-unsealed-epstein-docs-clinton-fbi%2F&siteScreenName=RT_com&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px

President Donald Trump also made an appearance in the unsealed papers. However, an associate of Epstein, Juan Alessi, said in an interview that Trump "never" stayed overnight while visiting Epstein's Palm Beach estate, and that he did not receive any "massages" there, as "he's got his own spa." An alleged victim also maintained that while Trump and Epstein were "good friends," Trump made no attempts to "flirt" with her. Home USA News Unsealed docs say Bill Clinton was on 'pedophile island' w/ 'young girls' & cite Epstein saying former president 'owed him favor' 31 Jul, 2020 06:18 Get short URL FILE PHOTO: US Attorney Audrey Strauss speaks at a news conference announcing charges against Ghislaine Maxwell for her role in the sexual exploitation and abuse of minor girls by Jeffrey Epstein. © Reuters / Lucas Jackson 3593 Follow RT on RT Newly unsealed files tied to the Jeffrey Epstein sex-trafficking case imply that former US President Bill Clinton visited the investor's private island along with "young girls," and that the FBI knew well about the minors' abuse.

Comprising hundreds of pages of documents, the trove was released on Thursday night following a judge's order last week to have it unsealed, over the objections of Ghislaine Maxwell, a former girlfriend to Epstein who has recently been charged as an accomplice in his alleged sex-trafficking operation.

ALSO ON RT.COM US judge authorizes release of previously-sealed documents in case of Jeffrey Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell

The records stem from a 2015 defamation suit filed by Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, which was placed under lock and key after the case was settled in 2017, but was recently unsealed, as a result of a lawsuit brought last year by conservative blogger Mike Cernovich and the Miami Herald newspaper.

Among other revelations, the documents indicate that former US president Bill Clinton consorted with "young girls" during at least one visit to Epstein's private resort in the Virgin Islands, where the billionaire was said to host regular "sex orgies."

"When you were present with Jeffery Epstein and Bill Clinton on the island, who else was there?" one witness – presumably Giuffre – was asked during an interview, to which she replied that Epstein, Maxwell, an unidentified woman named "Emmy" and "2 young girls" had been on the island with the former POTUS. The witness did not elaborate on Clinton's interactions with the girls, however.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=RT_com&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=true&id=1289016133052518401&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fusa%2F496711-unsealed-epstein-docs-clinton-fbi%2F&siteScreenName=RT_com&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px

The same witness also told her attorney in 2011 that she had overheard Epstein saying that Clinton owed him "favors," but noted she couldn't tell whether he was joking.

"He would laugh it off. You know, I remember asking Jeffrey 'What's Bill Clinton doing here?' and he laughed it off and said 'well he owes me a favor,'" she said. "He never told me what favors they were. I never knew. I didn't know if he was serious."

He told me a long time ago that everyone owes him favors. They're all in each other's pockets.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=RT_com&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-1&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1289039805528059904&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fusa%2F496711-unsealed-epstein-docs-clinton-fbi%2F&siteScreenName=RT_com&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=RT_com&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-2&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1289051260566384640&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fusa%2F496711-unsealed-epstein-docs-clinton-fbi%2F&siteScreenName=RT_com&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px

One of America's top law enforcement agencies was also apparently aware that underage girls were still being abused at Epstein's properties as far back as 2011 – years after he was sentenced for similar crimes in his first criminal case. During her defamation suit, Giuffre said she had provided the FBI a now widely circulated photo of herself and the UK's Prince Andrew – where he is pictured smiling with an arm around her bare waist.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=RT_com&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-3&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=true&id=1289028705818480642&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fusa%2F496711-unsealed-epstein-docs-clinton-fbi%2F&siteScreenName=RT_com&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px

In 2014, moreover, Giuffre contacted the FBI to request evidence they had previously seized from Epstein's residences to aid her civil case, suggesting the bureau had for long been informed of her allegations regarding Epstein and his continued involvement with minor girls.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=RT_com&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-4&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=true&id=1289021598561980416&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fusa%2F496711-unsealed-epstein-docs-clinton-fbi%2F&siteScreenName=RT_com&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=RT_com&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-5&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=true&id=1289020613852635136&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fusa%2F496711-unsealed-epstein-docs-clinton-fbi%2F&siteScreenName=RT_com&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px

President Donald Trump also made an appearance in the unsealed papers. However, an associate of Epstein, Juan Alessi, said in an interview that Trump "never" stayed overnight while visiting Epstein's Palm Beach estate, and that he did not receive any "massages" there, as "he's got his own spa." An alleged victim also maintained that while Trump and Epstein were "good friends," Trump made no attempts to "flirt" with her.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=RT_com&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-6&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1289038574252433408&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fusa%2F496711-unsealed-epstein-docs-clinton-fbi%2F&siteScreenName=RT_com&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=RT_com&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-7&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=true&id=1289043259403038720&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fusa%2F496711-unsealed-epstein-docs-clinton-fbi%2F&siteScreenName=RT_com&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px

Despite repeatedly insisting he had no ties to Epstein's sex-trafficking ring, legal scholar and former Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz is directly accused in the documents of having "sexual relations" with an underage girl. He is also said to have witnessed "the sexual abuse of many other minors by Epstein and several of Epstein's co-conspirators," and would later help to negotiate an undisclosed immunity deal for himself during Epstein's first criminal case. Home USA News Unsealed docs say Bill Clinton was on 'pedophile island' w/ 'young girls' & cite Epstein saying former president 'owed him favor' 31 Jul, 2020 06:18 Get short URL FILE PHOTO: US Attorney Audrey Strauss speaks at a news conference announcing charges against Ghislaine Maxwell for her role in the sexual exploitation and abuse of minor girls by Jeffrey Epstein. © Reuters / Lucas Jackson 3593 Follow RT on RT Newly unsealed files tied to the Jeffrey Epstein sex-trafficking case imply that former US President Bill Clinton visited the investor's private island along with "young girls," and that the FBI knew well about the minors' abuse.

Comprising hundreds of pages of documents, the trove was released on Thursday night following a judge's order last week to have it unsealed, over the objections of Ghislaine Maxwell, a former girlfriend to Epstein who has recently been charged as an accomplice in his alleged sex-trafficking operation.

ALSO ON RT.COM US judge authorizes release of previously-sealed documents in case of Jeffrey Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell

The records stem from a 2015 defamation suit filed by Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, which was placed under lock and key after the case was settled in 2017, but was recently unsealed, as a result of a lawsuit brought last year by conservative blogger Mike Cernovich and the Miami Herald newspaper.

Among other revelations, the documents indicate that former US president Bill Clinton consorted with "young girls" during at least one visit to Epstein's private resort in the Virgin Islands, where the billionaire was said to host regular "sex orgies."

"When you were present with Jeffery Epstein and Bill Clinton on the island, who else was there?" one witness – presumably Giuffre – was asked during an interview, to which she replied that Epstein, Maxwell, an unidentified woman named "Emmy" and "2 young girls" had been on the island with the former POTUS. The witness did not elaborate on Clinton's interactions with the girls, however.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=RT_com&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=true&id=1289016133052518401&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fusa%2F496711-unsealed-epstein-docs-clinton-fbi%2F&siteScreenName=RT_com&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px

The same witness also told her attorney in 2011 that she had overheard Epstein saying that Clinton owed him "favors," but noted she couldn't tell whether he was joking.

"He would laugh it off. You know, I remember asking Jeffrey 'What's Bill Clinton doing here?' and he laughed it off and said 'well he owes me a favor,'" she said. "He never told me what favors they were. I never knew. I didn't know if he was serious."

He told me a long time ago that everyone owes him favors. They're all in each other's pockets.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=RT_com&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-1&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1289039805528059904&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fusa%2F496711-unsealed-epstein-docs-clinton-fbi%2F&siteScreenName=RT_com&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=RT_com&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-2&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1289051260566384640&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fusa%2F496711-unsealed-epstein-docs-clinton-fbi%2F&siteScreenName=RT_com&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px

One of America's top law enforcement agencies was also apparently aware that underage girls were still being abused at Epstein's properties as far back as 2011 – years after he was sentenced for similar crimes in his first criminal case. During her defamation suit, Giuffre said she had provided the FBI a now widely circulated photo of herself and the UK's Prince Andrew – where he is pictured smiling with an arm around her bare waist.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=RT_com&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-3&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=true&id=1289028705818480642&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fusa%2F496711-unsealed-epstein-docs-clinton-fbi%2F&siteScreenName=RT_com&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px

In 2014, moreover, Giuffre contacted the FBI to request evidence they had previously seized from Epstein's residences to aid her civil case, suggesting the bureau had for long been informed of her allegations regarding Epstein and his continued involvement with minor girls.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=RT_com&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-4&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=true&id=1289021598561980416&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fusa%2F496711-unsealed-epstein-docs-clinton-fbi%2F&siteScreenName=RT_com&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=RT_com&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-5&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=true&id=1289020613852635136&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fusa%2F496711-unsealed-epstein-docs-clinton-fbi%2F&siteScreenName=RT_com&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px

President Donald Trump also made an appearance in the unsealed papers. However, an associate of Epstein, Juan Alessi, said in an interview that Trump "never" stayed overnight while visiting Epstein's Palm Beach estate, and that he did not receive any "massages" there, as "he's got his own spa." An alleged victim also maintained that while Trump and Epstein were "good friends," Trump made no attempts to "flirt" with her.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=RT_com&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-6&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1289038574252433408&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fusa%2F496711-unsealed-epstein-docs-clinton-fbi%2F&siteScreenName=RT_com&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=RT_com&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-7&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=true&id=1289043259403038720&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fusa%2F496711-unsealed-epstein-docs-clinton-fbi%2F&siteScreenName=RT_com&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px

Despite repeatedly insisting he had no ties to Epstein's sex-trafficking ring, legal scholar and former Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz is directly accused in the documents of having "sexual relations" with an underage girl. He is also said to have witnessed "the sexual abuse of many other minors by Epstein and several of Epstein's co-conspirators," and would later help to negotiate an undisclosed immunity deal for himself during Epstein's first criminal case.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=RT_com&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-8&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1289009776433782786&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fusa%2F496711-unsealed-epstein-docs-clinton-fbi%2F&siteScreenName=RT_com&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=RT_com&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-9&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=true&id=1289014185637093377&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fusa%2F496711-unsealed-epstein-docs-clinton-fbi%2F&siteScreenName=RT_com&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px

More than 1,000 pages of documents from Giuffre's civil defamation case had previously been released in August 2019, indicating that a long list of wealthy and powerful figures regularly spent time with Epstein at his lavish properties. One day after that trove was unsealed, Epstein was found hanging in his Manhattan prison cell, dead from an apparent suicide after being charged with sex trafficking and imprisoned some weeks previously.

Maxwell was arrested and charged with procuring minors for sexual abuse earlier this month, after keeping a low profile in the period following Epstein's death. She has pleaded not guilty to six criminal counts and remains in custody without bail, after prosecutors had labeled her an "extreme" flight risk.

[Jul 31, 2020] Tucker Carlson calls Obama 'one of the sleaziest and most dishonest figures' in US political history

Highly recommended!
So Obama managed to beat Clinton? Incredible achievement !
BTW Gen. Flynn case goes 'all the way to the top' to Obama: Rep. Jordan
Jul 31, 2020 | www.msn.com

Tucker Carlson described former President Obama as "one of the sleaziest and most dishonest figures in the history of American politics" after his eulogy at the funeral of civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) on Thursday.

© The Hill tucker Carlson

Carlson, who also described the former president as "a greasy politician" for calling on Congress to pass a new Voting Rights Act and to eliminate the filibuster, which Obama described as a relic of the Jim Crow era that disenfranchised Black Americans, in order to do so.

me marginwidth=

"Barack Obama, one of the sleaziest and most dishonest figures in the history of American politics, used George Floyd's death at a funeral to attack the police," Carlson said before showing a segment of Obama's remarks.

Watch the latest video at foxnews.com

[Jul 29, 2020] Opinion - More willful blindness by the media on spying by Obama administration

Jul 29, 2020 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

More willful blindness by the media on spying by Obama administration

By Jonathan Turley

July 27, 2020 " Information Clearing House " - The Washington press corps seems engaged in a collective demonstration of the legal concept of willful blindness, or deliberately ignoring the facts, following the release of yet another declassified document which directly refutes prior statements about the investigation into Russia collusion. The document shows that FBI officials used a national security briefing of then candidate Donald Trump and his top aides to gather possible evidence for Crossfire Hurricane, its code name for the Russia investigation.

It is astonishing that the media refuses to see what is one of the biggest stories in decades. The Obama administration targeted the campaign of the opposing party based on false evidence. The media covered Obama administration officials ridiculing the suggestions of spying on the Trump campaign and of improper conduct with the Russia investigation. When Attorney General William Barr told the Senate last year that he believed spying did occur, he was lambasted in the media, including by James Comey and others involved in that investigation. The mocking "wow" response of the fired FBI director received extensive coverage.

The new document shows that, in summer 2016, FBI agent Joe Pientka briefed Trump campaign advisers Michael Flynn and Chris Christie over national security issues, standard practice ahead of the election. It had a discussion of Russian interference. But this was different. The document detailing the questions asked by Trump and his aides and their reactions was filed several days after that meeting under Crossfire Hurricane and Crossfire Razor, the FBI investigation of Flynn. The two FBI officials listed who approved the report are Kevin Clinesmith and Peter Strzok.

No Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent Media

Get Our Free Newsletter You can't buy your way onto these pages

Clinesmith is the former FBI lawyer responsible for the FISA surveillance conducted on members of the Trump campaign. He opposed Trump and sent an email after the election declaring "viva the resistance." He is now under review for possible criminal charges for altering a FISA court filing. The FBI used Trump adviser Carter Page as the basis for the original FISA application, due to his contacts with Russians. After that surveillance was approved, however, federal officials discredited the collusion allegations and noted that Page was a CIA asset. Clinesmith had allegedly changed the information to state that Page was not working for the CIA.

Strzok is the FBI agent whose violation of FBI rules led Justice Department officials to refer him for possible criminal charges. Strzok did not hide his intense loathing of Trump and famously referenced an "insurance policy" if Trump were to win the election. After FBI officials concluded there was no evidence of any crime by Flynn at the end of 2016, Strzok prevented the closing of the investigation as FBI officials searched for any crime that might be used to charge the incoming national security adviser.

Documents show Comey briefed President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden on the investigation shortly before the inauguration of Trump. When Comey admitted the communications between Flynn and Russian officials appeared legitimate, Biden reportedly suggested using the Logan Act, a law widely seen as unconstitutional and never been used to successfully convict a single person, as an alternative charge against Flynn. The memo contradicts eventual claims by Biden that he did not know about the Flynn investigation. Let us detail some proven but mostly unseen facts.

First, the Russia collusion allegations were based in large part on the dossier funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The Clinton campaign repeatedly denied paying for the dossier until after the election, when it was confronted with irrefutable evidence that the money had been buried among legal expenditures. As New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman wrote, "Folks involved in funding this lied about it and with sanctimony for a year."

Second, FBI agents had warned that dossier author Christopher Steele may have been used by Russian intelligence to plant false information to disrupt the election. His source for the most serious allegations claims that Steele misrepresented what he had said and that it was little more than rumors that were recast by Steele as reliable intelligence.

Third, the Obama administration had been told that the basis for the FISA application was dubious and likely false. Yet it continued the investigation, and then someone leaked its existence to the media. Another declassified document shows that, after the New York Times ran a leaked story on the investigation, even Strzok had balked at the account as misleading and inaccurate. His early 2017 memo affirmed that there was no evidence of any individuals in contact with Russians. This information came as the collusion stories were turning into a frenzy that would last years.

Fourth, the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller and inspectors general found no evidence of collusion or knowing contact between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. What inspectors general did find were false statements or possible criminal conduct by Comey and others. While unable to say it was the reason for their decisions, they also found statements of animus against Trump and his campaign by the FBI officials who were leading the investigation. Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein testified he never would have approved renewal of the FISA surveillance and encouraged further investigation into such bias.

Finally, Obama and Biden were aware of the investigation, as were the administration officials who publicly ridiculed Trump when he said there was spying on his campaign. Others, like House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, declared they had evidence of collusion but never produced it. Countless reporters, columnists, and analysts still continue to deride, as writer Max Boot said it, the spinning of "absurd conspiracy theories" about how the FBI "supposedly spied on the Trump campaign."

Willful blindness has its advantages. The media covered the original leak and the collusion narrative, despite mounting evidence that it was false. They filled hours of cable news shows and pages of print with a collusion story discredited by the FBI. Virtually none of these journalists or experts have acknowledged that the collusion leaks were proven false, let alone pursue the troubling implications of national security powers being used to target the political opponents of an administration. But in Washington, success often depends not on what you see but what you can unsee.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley . - " Source " -

[Jul 29, 2020] Deep state coup 1.0 - Conservapedia

Jul 29, 2020 | www.conservapedia.com

The Deep state coup attempt (sometimes called the soft coup or the "insurance policy" ) was an effort by high-level Obama administration intelligence community officials and holdovers to sabotage the agenda of President Donald Trump , remove him from power, and hide the illegal actions of the Obama administration.

Major players in the coup attempt were Barack Hussein Obama , Hillary Rodham Clinton , John Brennan , James Clapper , James Comey , Andrew McCabe , Rod Rosenstein , Sally Yates , Bruce Ohr , Andrew Weissmann and a host of other lower level DNC operatives in the US intelligence community and partisan aligned mainstream media organizations. Republican Sen. John McCain is also known to have shared information and worked with the plotters during the coup effort. [1]

[Jul 29, 2020] Keep hearing these things about Tashina "Tash" Gauhar, head of DoJ National Security Division seems to always be involved with all these things -- Clinton Emails, DNC/Weiner, Sessions recusal, Mueller liaison at DoJ, FISA warrants.

Tashina "Tash" Gauhar, also goes by Tanisha Guahar, is the Deputy Assistant Attorney General (DAAG) in the Department of Justice National Security Division (NSD). Gauhar is a FISA lawyer. Tash was at the DOJ since 2001, and she formerly served as assistant counsel and chief of operations in what was then called the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review. She worked for DAG Rosenstein as she did for DAG Sally Yates. Tash Gauhar was the DAG's executor and enforcer for national security. Tashina Gauhar was/is best friends with Lisa Page . Tashina is reported to have attempted to get access to highly compartmentalized NSA information, and lied about being an appropriately cleared recipient.
Guahar is said to have been removed from her position in charge of FISA applications immediately after IG Michael Horowitz submitted his first draft report to Attorney General Bill Barr for classification review. Gauhar now reportedly works for Boeing . [1]
She is the DOJ/FBI lawyer at the heart of the Clinton-email investigation; the DOJ/FBI lawyer hired by Eric Holder at his firm and later at the DOJ; the DOJ/FBI lawyer who was transferred to the Clinton probe; the DOJ/FBI lawyer at the epicenter of the Weiner laptop issues, the only one from MYE who spoke to New York; the DOJ/FBI lawyer who constructs the FISA applications on behalf of Main Justice; . just happens to be the same DOJ/FBI lawyer recommending to AG Jeff Sessions that he recuse himself. Tashina Gauhar - Conservapedia
Jul 29, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Keep hearing these things about Tashina "Tash" Gauhar, head of DoJ National Security Division seems to always be involved with all these things -- Clinton Emails, DNC/Weiner, Sessions recusal, Mueller liaison at DoJ, FISA warrants.

Posted by: scott s. | 27 July 2020 at 08:50 PM

[Jul 29, 2020] The Curious Silence of the Traitors by Larry C Johnson - Sic Semper Tyrannis

Jul 29, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

27 JULY 2020 The Curious Silence of the Traitors by Larry C Johnson

Remember when John O. Brennan--Obama's CIA Director--and disgraced FBI agent, Peter Strzok, were regularly spewing anti-Trump diatribes on Twitter? Well, Strzok went silent on 11 July 2020 and Brennan did the same a week later (18 July 2020). I do not think that is a coincidence.

I have now heard from three separate sources that John Durham will have plea deals and/or indictments before 1 September 2020. Two of the first heads to roll likely will be lying lawyer Kevin Clinesmith , who deliberately withheld exculpatory from a FISA application to spy on Carter Page, and lover boy, Peter Strzok.

And then there is the retarded fool, John Brennan, who fancies himself as the Mozart of the Intelligence Community. Sorry John, you do not even qualify to clean Salieri's toliet. Until 9 days ago, John was a regular tweeter hurling foul invectives at Donald Trump.

Here are two examples of their July 11 screeds:

Trump's commutation of Stone apparently pushed them over the edge. Boo hoo. But since then it has been crickets from these two chowderheads. Has the past caught up with them? At least in Strzok's case he has retained legal representation. No indicator yet about Brennan. A competent lawyer would understand that tweets, especially those attacking the Trump Administration, is a potentially dangerous, self-incriminating activity.

More than two weeks of silence from Strzok and one week from Brennan does not appear to be a mere instance of having nothing to say. Lack of substance has not prevented these two buffoons from shooting their mouths off in the past. Is the day of reckoning nigh?


TV , 27 July 2020 at 06:08 PM

I sure hope so, but I'm not optimistic.
The swamp will not go willingly and Barr, for all his comments about "justice", is still a member in good standing.
Look at how the FBI is still out of control, hiding and shredding documents and the "career" lawyers are still operating the DOJ as an arm of the Democrat party.

Deap , 27 July 2020 at 07:24 PM

How long did Martha Stewart end up in the slammer? How much time did the Varsity Blues parents get in the Big House? People still do go to jail in this country for messing around with the facts.

Are Brennan and Strozk immune after trying to take down a sitting President, but trying to get your stupid kid into USC by cheating gets a prolonged close encounter with Bubba?

Surely, we don't have two systems of justice. One for government employees and one for the rest of us. I gather one does not "plea bargain" unless there is a case. Though Gen Flynn can still beg to differ with that presumption. Surely we are not intro framing suspects, even though their possible charge was framing the President.

Does the DOJ have clean hands at last, on Russiagate. And will a possible plea bargain finally lead to loss of their security clearances? And pensions. Did Clapper flip.

Deap , 27 July 2020 at 07:28 PM

Why was the "essential question" to only investigate the Trump campaign.

Facts in evidence clearly show Clinton was the one getting the Russians to interfere in the 2016 campaign. How is her Twitter account doing right now. Did she too drop into this sudden cone of silence?

scott s. , 27 July 2020 at 08:50 PM

Keep hearing these things about Tashina "Tash" Gauhar, head of DoJ National Security Division seems to always be involved with all these things -- Clinton Emails, DNC/Weiner, Sessions recusal, Mueller liaison at DoJ, FISA warrants.

Deap , 28 July 2020 at 01:03 AM

10AM EST - Tues - House Judiciary Hearings - Oversight of DOJ - AG Barr testifying.

nbsp; Fred , 28 July 2020 at 11:37 AM

Thanks for the write up Larry. The sounds of silence are deafening. The silence of riots apparently being news, until this instant, when Congressman Nadler was forced to see five minutes of it via video in the hearing room on Congress, to which he chastised the ranking member for not giving him 48 hours warning that truth would be shown. I wonder what antifa's masters have in store for us for the rest of the week, given their narrative is losing them voter support.

BillWade , 28 July 2020 at 01:33 PM

Strzok has a book coming out, "Compromised: Counterintelligence and the Threat of Donald J. Trump". I'd rather see him sweating bullets before the Sep 8 release. Thanks Larry!

Deap , 28 July 2020 at 06:00 PM

Once behind bars, Strzok can't profit from his crime so this must be a frantic ghost-written doozie. And all Russia, Russia, Russia again. Talk about an issue that generates zero traction.

I think we can all write the plot upfront (OrangemanBad), upon with he will hang the most gauzy of facts Too bad he could not get Team Mueller to agree with him when it counted.

I mourn the trees sacrificed to his tawdry cause. Maintaining a wife and mistress at the same time however, does add up.

[Jul 26, 2020] Obamagate might have consequnces for Obama gang mambers but not for Obama, Biden and Clintons

Jul 26, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

MARK CHAPMAN July 24, 2020 at 5:20 pm

Former Flynn Deputy K.T. McFarland claims the Durham criminal inquiry into the friggin' in the riggin' of the "Russia Investigation" and who knew what and when at the FBI and elsewhere is just about ready to wrap up, and teases that we can expect indictments by the end of the summer. Solid documentary evidence in the form of meeting notes, email exchanges and the like has emerged, she says.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/ex-flynn-deputy-kt-mcfarland-john-durham-has-cold-hard-evidence-that-will-lead-to-indictments

[Jul 23, 2020] Fred Weir- Steele Dossier

This is a very primitive take of Steele dossier. It was part of obama color revolution attempt against Trump.
Jul 23, 2020 | eastwestaccord.com

About the Steele Dossier. From the beginning I was nagged by the question of whether anyone had seriously dug into its provenance? I mean, the chain of custody is critical in evaluating evidence, isn't it? But that didn't seem to matter to most conversations about it for the longest time. The impression was left hanging that Christopher Steele, crackerjack agent, had got the inside stuff straight from people in or near the Kremlin.

Now we learn that the FBI did interview Steele's main conduit for all those claims -- "Primary Sub-source" -- intensively, for three days, early in the Trump administration. They just never bothered to release any of their findings to the public, even as the dossier's main claim -- Trump is a Kremlin agent of long standing, beholden to Putin due to some pee tape kompromat -- took hold in the American political mind and became an article of faith for some. Still is.

The FBI notes of that interview were released just a few days ago. And they reveal the "dossier" had zero original reporting. It was concocted entirely from rumors picked up second-or-third hand, inventive guesses, drunken conversations with persons of no particular expertise, pillow talk between the main sub-source and his dependent Russian lady friend, and fragments of a garbled phone call with a "source" whose identity could not be even approximately established.

In other words, it's way worse than even I thought. And regular readers of this page know pretty well what I thought about the likely veracity of the Steele Dossier. That such a pathetic tissue of speculation, delirium and outright falsehood could capture the American political imagination and drive debate -- for years! -- is simply astounding.

"Much of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Donald Trump was built on the premise that Christopher Steele and his dossier were to be believed. This even though, early on, Steele's claims failed to bear scrutiny. Just how far off the claims were became clear when the FBI interviewed Steele's "Primary Subsource" over three days beginning on Feb. 9, 2017. Notes taken by FBI agents of those interviews were released by the Senate Judiciary Committee Friday afternoon."

[Jul 21, 2020] Tracing John Gleeson, a helper for Flynn Judge Emmet Sullivan, and Andrew Weissmann of the Robert Mueller group - Sic Semper Tyrannis

Jul 21, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

"Getting" Flynn was the key to neutering the danger Trump posed to the deep state, since General Flynn was the one military advisor to Trump who was knowledgeable and who had recognized the salient fact that, under Obama, the US was employing the "raghead" element to do their bidding in Syria and elsewhere.

Without Flynn, Trump, who like many has a tendency to accept the views of credentialled experts, could be convinced to continue the deep state policy of permanent warfare aided by jihadist barbarians. Trump's tragedy was that he accepted what appeared to be the inevitable and allowed Flynn to be taken down.

Posted by: exiled off mainstreet | 21 July 2020 at 06:59 PM

[Jul 20, 2020] Who was Steele's primary Subsource and who belong his circle of heavily drinking buddies who brainstormed the set of myth which Steele put in the dossier

Did Skripal played any role in this mess. In this case his poisoning looks more logical as an attempt to hide him from Russians, who might well suspect him in playing a role in creating Steele dossier by some myths that were present in it.
Notable quotes:
"... Even Beria would laugh at this kind of "evidence". ..."
Jul 20, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Eric Felten via RealClearInvestigations.com,

Much of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Donald Trump was built on the premise that Christopher Steele and his dossier were to be believed. This even though, early on, Steele's claims failed to bear scrutiny. Just how far off the claims were became clear when the FBI interviewed Steele's "Primary Subsource" over three days beginning on Feb. 9, 2017. Notes taken by FBI agents of those interviews were released by the Senate Judiciary Committee Friday afternoon.

The Primary Subsource was in reality Steele's sole source, a long-time Russian-speaking contractor for the former British spy's company, Orbis Business Intelligence. In turn, the Primary Subsource had a group of friends in Russia. All of their names remain redacted. From the FBI interviews it becomes clear that the Primary Subsource and his friends peddled warmed-over rumors and laughable gossip that Steele dressed up as formal intelligence memos.

Paul Manafort: The Steele dossier's "Primary Subsource" admitted to the FBI "that he was 'clueless' about who Manafort was, and that this was a 'strange task' to have been given." AP Photo/Seth Wenig, File

Steele's operation didn't rely on great expertise, to judge from the Primary Subsource's account. He described to the FBI the instructions Steele had given him sometime in the spring of 2016 regarding Paul Manafort: "Do you know [about] Manafort? Find out about Manafort's dealings with Ukraine, his dealings with other countries, and any corrupt schemes." The Primary Subsource admitted to the FBI "that he was 'clueless' about who Manafort was, and that this was a 'strange task' to have been given."

The Primary Subsource said at first that maybe he had asked some of his friends in Russia – he didn't have a network of sources, according to his lawyer, but instead just a "social circle." And a boozy one at that: When the Primary Subsource would get together with his old friend Source 4, the two would drink heavily. But his social circle was no help with the Manafort question and so the Primary Subsource scrounged up a few old news clippings about Manafort and fed them back to Steele.

Also in his "social circle" was Primary Subsource's friend "Source 2," a character who was always on the make. "He often tries to monetize his relationship with [the Primary Subsource], suggesting that the two of them should try and do projects together for money," the Primary Subsource told the FBI (a caution that the Primary Subsource would repeat again and again.) It was Source 2 who "told [the Primary Subsource] that there was compromising material on Trump."

And then there was Source 3, a very special friend. Over a redacted number of years, the Primary Subsource has "helped out [Source 3] financially." She stayed with him when visiting the United States. The Primary Subsource told the FBI that in the midst of their conversations about Trump, they would also talk about "a private subject." (The FBI agents, for all their hardnosed reputation, were too delicate to intrude by asking what that "private subject" was).

Michael Cohen: The bogus story of the Trump fixer's trip to Prague seems to have originated with "Source 3," a woman friend of the Primary Subsource, who was "not sure if Source 3 was brainstorming here." AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File

One day Steele told his lead contractor to get dirt on five individuals. By the time he got around to it, the Primary Subsource had forgotten two of the names, but seemed to recall Carter Page, Paul Manafort and Trump lawyer Michael Cohen. The Primary Subsource said he asked his special friend Source 3 if she knew any of them. At first she didn't. But within minutes she seemed to recall having heard of Cohen, according to the FBI notes. Indeed, before long it came back to her that she had heard Cohen and three henchmen had gone to Prague to meet with Russians.

Source 3 kept spinning yarns about Michael Cohen in Prague. For example, she claimed Cohen was delivering "deniable cash payments" to hackers. But come to think of it, the Primary Subsource was "not sure if Source 3 was brainstorming here," the FBI notes say.

The Steele Dossier would end up having authoritative-sounding reports of hackers who had been "recruited under duress by the FSB" -- the Russian security service -- and how they "had been using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data and conduct 'altering operations' against the the Democratic Party." What exactly, the FBI asked the subject, were "altering operations?" The Primary Subsource wouldn't be much help there, as he told the FBI "that his understanding of this topic (i.e. cyber) was 'zero.'" But what about his girlfriend whom he had known since they were in eighth grade together? The Primary Subsource admitted to the FBI that Source 3 "is not an IT specialist herself."

And then there was Source 6. Or at least the Primary Subsource thinks it was Source 6.

Ritz-Carlton Moscow: The Primary Subsource admitted to the FBI "he had not been able to confirm the story" about Trump and prostitutes at the hotel. But he did check with someone who supposedly asked a hotel manager, who said that with celebrities, "one never knows what they're doing." Moscowjob.net/Wikimedia

While he was doing his research on Manafort, the Primary Subsource met a U.S. journalist "at a Thai restaurant." The Primary Subsource didn't want to ask "revealing questions" but managed to go so far as to ask, "Do you [redacted] know anyone who can talk about all of this Trump/Manafort stuff, or Trump and Russia?" According to the FBI notes, the journalist told Primary Subsource "that he was skeptical and nothing substantive had turned up." But the journalist put the Primary Subsource in touch with a "colleague" who in turn gave him an email of "this guy" journalist 2 had interviewed and "that he should talk to."

With the email address of "this guy" in hand, the Primary Subsource sent him a message "in either June or July 2016." Some weeks later the Primary Subsource "received a telephone call from an unidentified Russia guy." He "thought" but had no evidence that the mystery "Russian guy" was " that guy." The mystery caller "never identified himself." The Primary Subsource labeled the anonymous caller "Source 6." The Primary Subsource and Source 6 talked for a total of "about 10 minutes." During that brief conversation they spoke about the Primary Subsource traveling to meet the anonymous caller, but the hook-up never happened.

Nonetheless, the Primary Subsource labeled the unknown Russian voice "Source 6" and gave Christopher Steele the rundown on their brief conversation – how they had "a general discussion about Trump and the Kremlin" and "that it was an ongoing relationship." For use in the dossier, Steele named the voice Source E.

When Steele was done putting this utterly unsourced claim into the style of the dossier, here's how the mystery call from the unknown guy was presented: "Speaking in confidence to a compatriot in late July 2016, Source E, an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald TRUMP, admitted that there was a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership." Steele writes "Inter alia," – yes, he really does deploy the Latin formulation for "among other things" – "Source E acknowledged that the Russian regime had been behind the recent leak of embarrassing e-mail messages, emanating from the Democratic National Committee [DNC], to the WikiLeaks platform."

All that and more is presented as the testimony of a "close associate" of Trump, when it was just the disembodied voice of an unknown guy.

Perhaps even more perplexing is that the FBI interviewers, knowing that Source E was just an anonymous caller, didn't compare that admission to the fantastical Steele bluster and declare the dossier a fabrication on the spot.

But perhaps it might be argued that Christopher Steele was bringing crack investigative skills of his own to bear. For something as rich in detail and powerful in effect as the dossier, Steele must have been researching these questions himself as well, using his hard-earned spy savvy to pry closely held secrets away from the Russians. Or at the very least he must have relied on a team of intelligence operatives who could have gone far beyond the obvious limitations the Primary Subsource and his group of drinking buddies.

But no. As we learned in December from Inspector General Michael Horowitz, Steele "was not the originating source of any of the factual information in his reporting." Steele, the IG reported "relied on a primary sub-source (Primary Sub-source) for information, and this Primary Sub-source used a network of [further] sub-sources to gather the information that was relayed to Steele." The inspector general's report noted that "neither Steele nor the Primary Sub-source had direct access to the information being reported."

One might, by now, harbor some skepticism about the dossier. One might even be inclined to doubt the story that Trump was "into water sports" as the Primary Subsource so delicately described the tale of Trump and Moscow prostitutes. But, in this account, there was an effort, however feeble, to nail down the "rumor and speculation" that Trump engaged in "unorthodox sexual activity at the Ritz."

While the Primary Subsource admitted to the FBI "he had not been able to confirm the story," Source 2 (who will be remembered as the hustler always looking for a lucrative score) supposedly asked a hotel manager about Trump and the manager said that with celebrities, "one never knows what they're doing." One never knows – not exactly a robust proof of something that smacks of urban myth. But the Primary Subsource makes the best of it, declaring that at least "it wasn't a denial."

If there was any denial going on it was the FBI's, an agency in denial that its extraordinary investigation was crumbling.

bh2, 23 minutes ago

Even Beria would laugh at this kind of "evidence".


[Jul 19, 2020] Judicial Watch Uncovers Explosive FBI Emails Appearing To Reference A White House 'Confidential Informant' by Sara Carter

Obama administration was not simply dirty. It was criminal to the core.
Jul 17, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
Twitter Facebook Reddit Email Print

Authored by Sara Carter via SaraACarter.com,

A top government watchdog group obtained 136 pages of never before publicized emails between former FBI lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page and one in particular appears to refer to a confidential informant inside the White House in 2017, according to a press release from Judicial Watch .

Those emails, some of which are heavily redacted, reveal that "Strzok, Page and top bureau officials in the days prior to and following President Donald Trump's inauguration discussing a White House counterintelligence briefing that could "play into" the FBI's "investigative strategy."

NOW PLAYING

Majority Say They Want to See Trump's Taxes, Many Think Returns Would Hurt Reelection Chances

White House Reportedly Moves to Make Coronavirus Cases Private by Cutting Out CDC

Trump White House Reportedly Conducting 'Loyalty' Interviews of Officials, Appointees

Majority Don't Trust Trump's Public Messages on COVID-19, Disapproval on Pandemic Response Hits 60%

Trump's Niece Says She's Heard Him Use the N-Word, Anti-Semitic Slurs

Trump Administration is Reportedly Out to Smear Dr. Anthony Fauci for Early Comments on Coronavirus

Trump Refuses To Unveil Obama's Portrait At The White House

White House Testing Staff For COVID-19, But Are Results Accurate?

Moreover, another email sent by Strzok to Bill Priestap, the Former Assistant Director for the Counterintelligence Division, refers to what appears to be a confidential informant in the White House. The email was sent the day after Trump's inauguration.

"I heard from [redacted] about the WH CI briefing routed from [redacted]," wrote Strzok. " I am angry that Jen did not at least cc: me, as my branch has pending investigative matters there, this brief may play into our investigative strategy, and I would like the ability to have visibility and provide thoughts/counsel to you in advance of the briefing. This is one of the reasons why I raised the issue of lanes/responsibilities that I did when you asked her to handle WH detailee interaction."

In April, 2019 this reporter first published information that there was an alleged confidential informant for the FBI in the White House. In fact, then senior Republican Chairmen of the Senate Appropriations Committee Charles Grassley and Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson submitted a letter to Department of Justice Attorney General William Barr revealing the new texts from Strzok to Page showing the pair had discussed attempts to recruit sources within the White House to allegedly spy on the Trump administration.

The Chairmen revealed the information in a three page letter. The texts had been already been obtained by SaraACarter.com and information regarding the possible attempt to recruit White House sources had been divulged by several sources to this news site last week.

At the time, texts obtained by this news site and sources stated that Strzok had one significant contact within the White House – at the time that would have been Vice President Mike Pence's Chief of Staff Joshua Pitcock, as reported.

Over the past year, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, along with years of numerous Congressional investigations, has uncovered a plethora of documentation revealing the most intimate details of the FBI's now debunked investigation into Trump's campaign and its alleged conspiracy with Russia.

https://lockerdome.com/lad/13084989113709670?pubid=ld-dfp-ad-13084989113709670-0&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com&rid=www.zerohedge.com&width=890

For example, in a series of emails exchanged by top bureau officials – in the FBI General Counsel's office, Counterintelligence Division and Washington Field office on Jan. 19, 2017 – reveal that senior leadership, including former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe were coordinating with each other in their ongoing attempt to target the incoming administration. Priestap was also included in the email exchanges. The recent discovery in April, of Priestap's handwritten notes taken in January, 2017 before the Strzok and his FBI partner interviewed Flynn were a bombshell. In Priestap's notes he states, "What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"

In one recent email chain obtained by Judicial Watch, FBI assistant general counsel in the FBI's National Security Law Branch stated in an email to Strzok [which was almost entirely redacted]

"I'll give Trisha/Baker a heads up too," it stated. Strzok's reply to the assistant general counsel, however, was redacted by DOJ. The response back to Strzok has also been redacted.

Then later in the evening at 7:04 p.m., Strzok sends another emails stating, "I briefed Bill (Priestap) this afternoon and he was trying without success to reach the DD [McCabe]. I will forward below to him as his [sic] changes the timeline. What's your recommendation?"

The reply, like many of the documents obtained by Judicial Watch from the DOJ, is almost entirely redacted. The email response to Strzok was from the Counterintelligence Division.

Here's what was not redacted

"Approved by tomorrow afternoon is the request. [Redacted] – please advise if I am missing something." An unidentified official replies, "[Redacted], Bill is aware and willing to jump in when we need him."

Judicial Watch Timeline of Events On Emails Obtained Through FOIA

At 8 p.m., Strzok responds back (copying officials in the Counterintelligence Division, Washington Field Office and General Counsel's office):

"Just talked with Bill. [Redacted]. Please relay above to WFO and [redacted] tonight, and keep me updated with plan for meet and results of same. Good luck."

Strzok then forwards the whole email exchange to Lisa Page, saying, "Bill spoke with Andy. [Redacted.] Here we go again "

The Day After Trump's Inauguration

The day after Trump's inauguration, on Jan. 21, 2017, Strzok forwarded Page and [a redacted person] an email he'd sent that day to Priestap. Strzok asked them to "not forward/share."

In the email to Priestap, Strzok said, "I heard from [redacted] about the WH CI briefing routed from [redacted]. I am angry that Jen did not at least cc: me, as my branch has pending investigative matters there, this brief may play into our investigative strategy , and I would like the ability to have visibility and provide thoughts/counsel to you in advance of the briefing. This is one of the reasons why I raised the issue of lanes/responsibilities that I did when you asked her to handle WH detailee interaction."

" Also, on January 21, 2017, Strzok wrote largely the same message he'd sent to Priestap directly to his counterintelligence colleague Jennifer Boone ," states Judicial Watch.

* * *

From Judicial Watch Press Release:

The records were produced to Judicial Watch in a January 2018 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed after the DOJ failed to respond to a December 2017 request for all communications between Strzok and Page ( Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00154)).

The FBI has only processed emails at a rate of 500 pages per month and has yet to process text messages. At this rate, the production of these communications, which still number around 8,000 pages, would not be completed until at least late 2021.

In other emails, Strzok comments on reporting on the anti-Trump dossier authored by Hillary Clinton's paid operative Christopher Steele.

In a January 2017 email , Strzok takes issue with a UK Independent report which claimed Steele had suspected there was a "cabal" within the FBI which put the Clinton email investigation above the Trump-Russia probe. Strzok, a veteran counterintelligence agent, was at the heart of both the Clinton email and Trump-Russia investigations.

In April and June of 2017, the FBI would use the dossier as key evidence in obtaining FISA warrants to spy on Trump campaign associate Carter Page. In a declassified summary of a Department of Justice assessment of the warrants that was released by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in January of this year, it was determined that those two applications to secretly monitor Page lacked probable cause.

The newly released records include a January 11, 2017, email from Strzok to Lisa Page, Priestap, and Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Jon Moffa, a New York Times report which refers to the dossier as containing "unsubstantiated accounts" and "unproven claims." In the email, Strzok comments on the article, calling it "Pretty good reporting."

On January 14, 2017, FBI Assistant Director for Public Affairs Michael Kortan forwards to Strzok, Page and Priestap a link to a UK Independent article entitled "Former MI6 Agent Christopher Steele's Frustration as FBI Sat On Donald Trump Russia File for Months".

The article, citing security sources, notes that "Steele became increasingly frustrated that the FBI was failing to take action on the intelligence from others as well as him. He came to believe there was a cover-up: that a cabal within the Bureau blocked a thorough inquiry into Mr Trump, focusing instead on the investigation into Clinton's emails."

Strzok responds: "Thanks Mike. Of course not accurate [the cover-up/cabal nonsense]. Is that question gaining traction anywhere else?"

The records also include a February 10, 2017, email from Strzok to Page mentioning then-national security adviser Michael Flynn (five days before Flynn resigned) and includes a photo of Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Strzok also makes a joke about how McCabe had fat shamed Kislyak.

On February 8, 2017, Strzok, under the subject "RE: EO on Economic Espionage," emailed Lisa Page, saying, "Please let [redacted] know I talked to [redacted]. Tonight, he approached Flynn's office and got no information." Strzok was responding to a copy of an email Page had sent him. The email, from a redacted FBI official to Deputy Director McCabe read: "OPS has not received a draft EO on economic espionage. Instead, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce advised OPS that they received a draft, but they did not send us the draft. I'll follow up with our detailees about this EO." Flynn resigned on February 13, 2017.

On January 26, 2017, Nancy McNamara of the FBI's Inspection Division emailed Strzok and Priestap with the subject line "Leak," saying, "Tried calling you but the phones are forwarded to SIOC. I got the tel call report, however [redacted]. Feel free to give me a call if I have it wrong." Strzok forwarded the McNamara email to Lisa Page and an unidentified person in the General Counsel's office, saying, "Need to talk to you about how to respond to this."

On January 11, 2017, Yahoo News reporter Michael Isikoff emailed Kortan, saying he'd learned that Steele had worked for the Bureau's Eurasian organized crime section and had turned over the dossier on Trump-Russian "collusion" to the bureau in Rome. Kortan forwards Isikoff's email to aide Richard Quinn, who forwards to Strzok "just for visibility". Strzok forwards to his boss, Priestap and Moffa, saying, "FYI, [redacted], you or I should probably inform [redacted]. How's your relationship with him? Bill unless you object, I'll let Parmaan [presumably senior FBI official Bryan Paarmann] know." Strzok forwards the whole exchange onto Lisa Page.

On January 18, 2017, reporter Peter Elkind of ProPublica reached out to Kortan, asking to interview Strzok, Michael Steinbach, Jim Baker, Priestap, former FBI Director James Comey and DEA administrator Chuck Rosenberg for a story Elkind was working on. Kortan replied, "Okay, I will start organizing things." Further along in the thread, an FBI Press Office official reached out to an FBI colleague for assistance with the interviews, saying Steinbach had agreed to a "background discussion" with Elkind, who was "writing the 'definitive' account of what happened during the Clinton investigation, specifically, Comey's handling of the investigation, seeking to reconstruct and explain in much greater detail what he did and why he did it." In May 2017, Elkind wrote an article titled "The Problems With the FBI's Email Investigation Went Well Beyond Comey," which in light of these documents, strongly suggests many FBI officials leaked to the publication.

Strzok ended up being scheduled to meet with Elkind at 9:30 a.m. on January 31, 2017, before an Elkind interview of Comey's chief of staff Jim Rybicki. Elkind's reporting on the Clinton email investigation was discussed at length in previous emails obtained by Judicial Watch.

"These documents suggest that President Trump was targeted by the Comey FBI as soon as he stepped foot in the Oval Office," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "And now we see how the Comey FBI was desperate to spin, through high-level leaks, its mishandling of the Clinton email investigation. And, in a continuing outrage, it should be noted that Wray's FBI and Barr's DOJ continue slow-walk the release of thousands of Page-Strzok emails – which means the remaining 8,000 pages of records won't be reviewed and released until 2021-2022!"

In February 2020, Judicial Watch uncovered an August 2016 email in which Strzok says that Clinton, in her interview with the FBI about her email controversy, apologized for "the work and effort" it caused the bureau and she said she chose to use it "out of convenience" and that "it proved to be anything but." Strzok said Clinton's apology and the "convenience" discussion were "not in" the FBI 302 report that summarized the interview.

Also in February, Judicial Watch made public Strzok-Page emails showing their direct involvement in the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, the bureau's investigation of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. The records also show additional "confirmed classified emails" were found on Clinton's unsecure non-state.gov email server "beyond the number presented" in then-FBI Director James Comey's statements; Strzok and Page questioning the access the DOJ was granting Clinton's lawyers; and Page revealing that the DOJ was making edits to FBI 302 reports related to the Clinton Midyear Exam investigation. The emails detail a discussion about "squashing" an issue related to the Seth Rich controversy.

In January 2020, Judicial Watch uncovered Strzok-Page emails that detail special accommodations given to the lawyers of Clinton and her aides during the FBI investigation of the Clinton email controversy.

In November 2019, Judicial Watch revealed Strzok-Page emails that show the attorney representing three of Clinton's aides were given meetings with senior FBI officials.

Also in November, Judicial Watch uncovered emails revealing that after Clinton's statement denying the transmission of classified information over her unsecure email system, Strzok sent an email to FBI officials citing "three [Clinton email] chains" containing (C) [classified] portion marks in front of paragraphs."

In a related case, in May 2020, Judicial Watch received the " electronic communication " (EC) that officially launched the counterintelligence investigation, termed "Crossfire Hurricane," of President Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. The document was written by former FBI official Peter Strzok.

[Jul 18, 2020] Real Russiagate bombshell -- FBI knew Steele dossier was fiction, Strzok notes show NYTimes reporting misleading and inaccurate

Notable quotes:
"... "primary sub-source" ..."
"... "misleading and inaccurate" ..."
"... "no evidence" ..."
"... Interestingly, June 2017 is when the FBI and DOJ signed off on the last extension of the FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign via adviser Carter Page. The warrant was signed by acting FBI director and Comey's former deputy Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein – who wrote both the memo used to fire Comey and the scope memo for the Mueller investigation. ..."
"... Evidence has shown that the initial FISA warrant against Page – in October 2016, shortly before the election – and the three renewals all relied heavily on the Steele Dossier, without making it clear to the court that it was unverified opposition research compiled at the behest of a rival political party. ..."
"... "miscarriage of justice" ..."
"... "collusion" ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
"... the infamous dossier used as a pretext to spy on President Donald Trump's campaign was unreliable ..."
Jul 17, 2020 | www.rt.com

New documents show the FBI was aware that the infamous dossier used as a pretext to spy on President Donald Trump's campaign was unreliable, and that the New York Times published false information about the 'Russiagate' probe.

The two documents were published on Friday by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), as part of an ongoing probe of the FBI's investigation of Trump. One is a 59-page, heavily redacted interview of the "primary sub-source" for Christopher Steele, the British spy commissioned through a series of cut-outs by the Hillary Clinton campaign to dig up dirt on Trump during the 2016 election campaign.

While the identity of the source is hidden, the document makes it clear it was not a current or former Russian official, but a non-Russian employee of Steele's British company, Orbis. The source's testimony seriously questioned the claims made in the dossier – which is best known for the salacious accusation that Trump was being blackmailed by Russia with tapes of an alleged sex romp in a Moscow hotel.

The second, and more intriguing, document is a five-page printout of a February 14, 2017 article from the New York Times, along with 13 notes by Peter Strzok, one of the senior FBI agents handling the Russiagate probe. The article was published five days after the FBI interview with the sub-source, and Strzok actually shows awareness of it (in note 11, specifically).

In the very first note, Strzok labeled as "misleading and inaccurate" the claim by the New York Times that the Trump campaign had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials before the 2016 election, noting there was "no evidence" of this.

Likewise, Strzok denied the FBI was investigating Roger Stone (note 10) – a political operative eventually indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller over allegedly lying about (nonexistent) ties to WikiLeaks, whose sentence Trump recently commuted to outrage from 'Russiagate' proponents. Nor was Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort on any calls involving Russian government officials, contrary to claims by the Times (note 3).

Not only did the FBI know the story was false, in part based on the knowledge they had from Steele's source, but the recently ousted FBI director Jim Comey had openly disputed it in June 2017. The paper stood by its reporting.

Interestingly, June 2017 is when the FBI and DOJ signed off on the last extension of the FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign via adviser Carter Page. The warrant was signed by acting FBI director and Comey's former deputy Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein – who wrote both the memo used to fire Comey and the scope memo for the Mueller investigation.

Evidence has shown that the initial FISA warrant against Page – in October 2016, shortly before the election – and the three renewals all relied heavily on the Steele Dossier, without making it clear to the court that it was unverified opposition research compiled at the behest of a rival political party.

ALSO ON RT.COM So it wasn't 'by the book'? Strzok notes reveal Obama & Biden were involved in FBI going after General Flynn

The last two renewals, in April and June 2017, were requested after the sub-source interview. Commenting on the document release, Sen. Graham called these two renewals a "miscarriage of justice" and argued that the FBI and the Department of Justice should have stopped and re-evaluated their case.

Mueller eventually found no "collusion" between Trump and Russia as alleged by the Democrats, but not before a dozen people – from Stone and Manafort to Trump's first national security adviser Michael Flynn and innocent Russian student Maria Butina – became casualties of the investigation.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! 236 13


Austin Rock 22 hours ago Staggering is the monumental deceitful effort to hitch Trump to Russia. And yet for MSM and their poodles in the press no barb thrown is too outragious, no smear is too false enough. With Google, Twitter and Facebook on board we Europeans are being played. But we Europeans are not as stupid as your average US punter. These pathetic fairy tales are an embarressement to journalism.

[Jul 18, 2020] Devin Nunes on new revelations about origins of the Russia probe -- We want indictments

Jul 17, 2020 | news.yahoo.com

Senate panel releases key FBI memo on Christopher Steele; reaction from John Solomon, co-author of 'Fallout,' and Rep. Devin Nunes, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee.

[Jul 18, 2020] The New Peter Strzok Notes Just Made the NYT Look Like Bigger Idiots Over Their Trump-Russia Collusion Peddling

Jul 18, 2020 | townhall.com

The Trump-Russia collusion story continues to be eaten away, and these new notes from disgraced ex-FBI Agent Peter Strzok center on The New York Times and their reporting that got the ball rolling on this media manufactured myth. Yes, it's about time we say that because these documents, which analyzed the piece about Trump aides having contacts with Russian intelligence officials before the 2016 election, has more utility being used to catch crap from birdcages now that's been exposed as a fraud. In 2017, this "bombshell" dropped . Even at the outset, there was still no evidence of collusion. Just rumor and unsubstantiated gossip.

"The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation," that's what the Times had in their piece. It's one of the many bombshells that turned out to be nothing burgers, part of the liberal media's Russia fetish that turned into one of the biggest, if not the biggest , journalism fails ever. It's sad, really. All one had to do was merely accept that Lady McBeth, aka Hillary Rodham Clinton, lost the 2016 election. Any person with cognitive function knew that this story was just simply too good to be true. Second, when weeks and months go by and no evidence arises, it's a dud. When multiple "breaks" in the case, arise and turn out to be garbage -- there's nothing to the story. It's not real. It's a myth, but the anti-Trump opposition press kept pressing and pressing until we got a clown show the likes of which we have never seen. Now, part of it is a bit annoying because we all knew the truth before these clowns did, but seeing these guys fail and have their work just be totally trashed, burned to a crisp, and then pissed on is just pure gold. Two words that can be applied to the entire Democrat-media complex: Suck. It.

So, let's get to the notes that deliver a tomahawk to the face of the liberal media. Based on the FBI's notes, pretty much everything in it was a lie. "Misleading, inaccurate, and no evidence" are the key phrases Strzok used concerning this fake news story. The story said that Paul Manafort was plugged into the calls. The FBI said, "We are unaware of any calls with any Russian govt official in which Manafort was a party."

The publication said Roger Stone was part of the FBI's Russian inquiry. The FBI denied this. Then-FBI Director James Comey, who would later be fired for cause in May of 2017, also disputed the story but the NYT decided to stand by it because 'orange man bad.' Well, they do deserve Pulitzers I guess for being the biggest dupes in the business for taking fake information at face value. Has the media learned that yet too? Probably not because they're all abjectly stupid people, but not all classified information is true. It can be false. Remember that next time you report on leaks about North Korean Kim Jong-un being brain dead.

The ripple effect from stories like this was severe. It led scores of reporters down a media-manufactured alternate reality that some have not climbed out of yet. They took the blue pill and remained in wonderland.

"Ignorance is bliss," or maybe in this case just pure unadulterated idiocy.

You guys were wrong. How many times do we have to hit you on the head with a baseball bat until you get it? You were wrong. Your stories were trash, based in lies and false information and weaponized by Democrats to try and usurp a duly elected president because you don't like him. You're all entitled brats who deserve an ass-kicking. And Barack Obama appears to be calling the shots on some of the major battles in this fake news fiasco, specifically when it comes to Michael Flynn, who has been vindicated regarding his role in this whole mess. He was innocent and targeted by former members of the Obama administration, including former Vice President Joe Biden.


[Jul 09, 2020] Indictments Imminent In 'Obamagate' Probe by John Solomon

Notable quotes:
"... Top former [Obama] officials, including former CIA Director John Brennan, are said to be targets of the Durham investigation. ..."
"... "The deep state is so deep that ppl get away w political crimes," wrote Grassley on Twitter. "Durham should be producing some fruit of his labor." ..."
Jul 09, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Via WND.com,

Investigative reporter John Solomon says there's a "lot of activity" in U.S. Attorney John Durham's criminal investigation of the Obama administration's probe of now-debunked claims of Trump-Russia collusion during the 2016 election.

"My sources tell me there's a lot of activity. I'm seeing, personally, activity behind the scenes [showing] the Department of Justice is trying to bring those first indictments, " Solomon said in an interview with the Fox Business Network's Lou Dobbs reported by the Washington Examiner .

"And I would look for a time around Labor Day to see the first sort of action by the Justice Department."

Solomon said he's seeing "action consistent with building prosecutions and preparing for criminal plea bargains."

"Until they bring it before the grand jury you never know if it's going to happen. I'm seeing activity consistent with that. "

Top former [Obama] officials, including former CIA Director John Brennan, are said to be targets of the Durham investigation.

But Attorney General William Barr has said he doesn't expect Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, to be subjects of a criminal investigation.

Solomon said he is hearing from defense lawyers and people "on the prosecution side" that complications with the coronavirus pandemic are "slowing down" the grand jury process.

"There is overwhelming evidence in the public record now that crimes were committed," Solomon said.

He cited "falsification of documents, false testimony, false representations before the FISA court."

WND reported this week Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said Durham should launch any prosecutions before the November election.

"The deep state is so deep that ppl get away w political crimes," wrote Grassley on Twitter. "Durham should be producing some fruit of his labor."

A report from DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz found at least 17 "significant" errors or omissions related to the Obama administration's efforts to use the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provisions against Trump.

WND reported former U.S. attorney Joe DiGenova said the public shouldn't worry about whether or not charges are filed against Obama and Biden.

"Shaming" them will undoubtedly happen, with or without charges, he argued in an interview with Boston radio host Howie Carr.

"I happen to believe that the public shaming of former President Obama and Vice President Biden is far more important than indicting them," he said.

[Jul 09, 2020] Is Strzok Memo The Rosetta Stone Of Obamagate- -

Jul 09, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Is Strzok Memo The Rosetta Stone Of Obamagate? by Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2020 - 22:25 Twitter Facebook Reddit Email Print

Authored by Frank Miele via RealClearPolitics.com,

So much happens so fast in a world with a 15-minute news cycle that it's difficult for a journalist to stop and breathe, let alone ponder the meaning of the latest breathless reporting.

As an example, it seems like it was months ago when the D.C. Court of Appeals ordered Judge Emmet Sullivan to dismiss the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, but it was actually less than two weeks ago. June 24 to be exact, but to Flynn it probably seems like forever. No word from Sullivan about whether he intends to follow the order of the senior court, or continue to stall in an effort to punish Lt. Gen. Flynn for his political crime of supporting President Trump. But based on his record so far, Sullivan can probably be counted on to drag his feet while thumbing his nose at justice.

me title=

https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.393.1_en.html#goog_1147260250

Whether it is the Flynn case, or the persecution of one-time Trump adviser Roger Stone for a procedural crime of lying before a malevolent Congress, the implicit reason behind all the over-the-top harassment almost seems to be to goad Trump into pardoning his much-maligned associates in order to create another fake news cycle as we head into the 2020 election. Nobody asks, "Did you see what that corrupt judge did? Or what the Democrat-worshiping DOJ did?" It's always " Did you hear what that crazy bastard Trump did?" )

It doesn't seem to matter to the mainstream media that evidence has mounted into the stratosphere that Trump has been right all along about his campaign being illegally surveilled by the Obama administration. It doesn't matter that Trump survived a two-plus year investigation by a special counsel and was cleared of any kind of collusion with the Russians. The Democrats and their agents in the Deep State know that whatever they do to harass Trump will be treated as noble and patriotic by the corrupt media, and that whenever evidence surfaces of their criminal behavior it will be promptly buried again.

Which brings us to the infamous handwritten notes by disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok about a White House meeting that surfaced in a recent filing in the Flynn case. Strzok had already earned a prominent place in the "Wish I Hadn't Done That" Hall of Fame for his serial confession via text message of not just marital infidelity but also constitutional perfidy. But the half-page of notes released by Flynn's defense team rises to the level of a history-altering "Oops!" Indeed, it could well be the Rosetta stone that allows us to penetrate the secrets of the anti-Trump conspiracy that stretched from the FBI to the CIA, the Justice Department and the White House.

What we know about the provenance of the notes comes from Flynn's attorney Sidney Powell, who said they were written by Strzok about a meeting that took place on Jan. 4, 2017. The only problem is that the cast of characters in the memo duplicates those who were in attendance at the White House on Jan. 5, 2017, to discuss how the Obama administration should proceed in its dealings with Flynn, who was accused of playing footsie with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak prior to assuming his official role as national security adviser. Attorney General William Barr has gone on the record (on the "Verdict With Ted Cruz" podcast) that the notes actually describe the Jan. 5 meeting.

If so, the notes strongly contradict Susan Rice's CYA "memo to self" where the Obama national security adviser recounts the Jan. 5 meeting and stresses three times that President Obama and his team were handling the Flynn investigation "by the book." Methinks the lady doth protest too much, especially now that we have Strzok's contemporaneous notes to contradict her memo, which suspiciously was written in the final minutes of the Obama administration as Donald Trump was being sworn in at the Capitol.

From what we can tell, Strzok (unlike Rice) was not writing his memo to protect anyone. He seems to have merely jotted down some notes about what various participants in the meeting said, including President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Rice, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and Strzok's boss -- FBI Director James Comey. Chances are, at this point Strzok had no idea his dirty laundry was going to be aired or that his role as a master of the universe was going to be toppled.

https://lockerdome.com/lad/13084989113709670?pubid=ld-dfp-ad-13084989113709670-0&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com&rid=www.zerohedge.com&width=890

But to see the importance of these notes, we need to transcribe them from the cryptic handwritten notes. Words and phrases that are outright guesses are reproduced in brackets. Speakers are noted at the beginning of each line. "NSA" stands for Rice. "D" stands for Comey. "DAG" stands for Yates. "VP" stands for Biden. "P" stands for Obama. "Cuts" is said to refer to summaries of phone calls monitored under a FISA warrant to collect foreign intelligence.

NSA - D - DAG: Flynn cuts. Other [countries].

D - DAG: Lean forward on [illegible, but possibly "ambass" as in ambassador. Others have speculated on "useless" or "unless," which don't fit the context, or "unclass" as in "unclassified" or even a name beginning with m. We just don't know.]

VP: "Logan Act"

P: These are unusual times

VP: I've been on the Intel Committee for 10 years and I never

P: Make sure you look at thing[s] + have the right people on it

P: Is there anything I shouldn't be telling transition team?

D: Flynn -- > Kislyak calls but appear legit.

[Apple][??] - Happy New Year - Yeah right

The reasons why these nine lines are so important have been adequately explored by other writers on most of the relevant topics. Most significantly from a political point of view is confirmation that Biden lied when he said he had nothing to do with the criminal prosecution of Flynn. The Logan Act is a more than 200-year-old statute that forbids ordinary Americans from negotiating with foreign governments that have a dispute with the United States. No one has ever been convicted under the law, and Flynn was not an ordinary American, but rather the incoming national security adviser; nonetheless it was a central plank in the plan to give Flynn enough rope to hang himself. The fact that quotes appear only around the words Logan Act suggest that this was a direct quote from Biden.

In addition, the order by Obama presumably to Comey to "have the right people on it" suggests that there was a political element to the investigation and that the president wanted loyalists to handle it. What other explanation is there? Who exactly are the "wrong people" in the FBI? (That's a rhetorical question. Obviously the wrong people were Strzok, Comey and their buddies at the FBI and CIA who were wiretapping honest Americans and framing a president.)

Finally, and most importantly for Flynn and his attorneys, we have a contemporaneous account of the FBI director assuring the president that Flynn's conversations with Kislyak were "legit." In that case, why did Strzok reveal in an instant message on Jan. 4, 2017, the day before this historic meeting, that the FBI agent in charge should NOT close the case against Flynn even though it should have already been closed because no evidence had accrued against him? If Comey thought the general's conversations with Kislyak were "legit," then why did Strzok tell another FBI contact that the "7th floor [was] involved" in the decision to keep the Flynn case alive. The seventh floor being where the offices of Comey and the rest of the top FBI brass are located. Strzok was ecstatic to find out that the case had "serendipitously" not been closed, and told his girlfriend Lisa Page, "Our utter incompetence actually helps us."

There seems to be no consensus among analysts about the context of Strzok's notes. According to Rice's independent recollection of the Jan. 5 meeting, only the principals named above were present. CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had already been booted out of the meeting after giving a briefing on alleged Russian election interference. It seems unlikely that Strzok would have been present in any capacity.

Andrew McCarthy at National Review speculates that "Strzok's notes were taken when someone later briefed him about the White House meeting that Strzok did not attend." The New York Post concludes that the Strzok memo is "plainly Strzok's notes of FBI chief Jim Comey's account." Certainly if Strzok were briefed by someone in attendance, it was most likely Comey. But Ivan Pentchoukov of The Epoch Times floats a much more interesting idea about how Strzok came to be in possession of the facts he recorded in the memo.

"The on-the-fly nature of the notes suggest that he was either physically present or listened in on a conference call," Pentchoukov speculates.

Well, the Washington Post reports that "Strzok's lawyer told The Fact Checker that Strzok did not attend the meeting," and then suggests that probably means "the notes may recount what someone else - perhaps Comey - told him about the meeting." Yes, maybe so, but there is good reason not to skate over the possibility that, as Pentchoukov puts it, Strzok "listened in" on the conversation.

NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST

ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX

Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.

This is indeed heady stuff, as it is beyond reason to think that Strzok was an invited participant. The last thing anyone at that meeting would want is an independent account of what was said as they planned how to entrap one of the incoming president's closest aides. Yet that does not eliminate the chance that Strzok benefited from some kind of surveillance technique to eavesdrop on the conversation, either with the knowledge of one person in the room or possibly with none. Of course it is scary to think that the FBI was wiretapping the White House, but they did it to Trump Tower, so who knows?

It is the nature of the notes themselves that lends credence to this speculation. If they were written after the fact to memorialize a conversation Strzok had with Comey or someone else, there is no way to account for the brevity and choppiness of the account. Rather than just put "Logan Act" next to VP, an after-the-fact recitation would have been more likely to specify, "The Vice President brought up the Logan Act as one statute that could be used to prosecute Flynn's dangerous dealings with the Russian ambassador." And most suspiciously, there is no explanation for why Strzok would have cut off the end of Biden's other contribution to the conversation. "I've been on the Intel Committee for 10 years and I never," the transcript goes. "Never what?" the reader wants to know.

Of course we can add the words ourselves: "Never heard of anyone being prosecuted for talking to a foreign leader, especially not if they had a legitimate interest in establishing relations with their counterpart prior to a new president taking office." If Strzok were making leisurely notes while talking to his boss, or especially if he had gone back to his own office and thought it worthwhile to record what he had been told, would it make any sense for him to stop in mid-sentence?

No, it wouldn't. It only makes sense if, as Pentchoukov describes it, the notes were written "on the fly." Certainly not with a tape recorder running, where one could establish an exact transcript, but hurriedly, sloppily, furtively. That would also explain why the handwriting is not exactly consistent with other known samples of Strzok's script. Presumably, the FBI has validated the handwriting as Strzok's, but does the FBI have any reason to lie about that? Hmm.

Ultimately, if Strzok is indeed the author, we need him to testify under oath exactly what is in the notes, and how they came to be written. Hopefully the FBI, the attorney general or someone else will declassify the extensive redactions above and below the nine lines that were released. One has to imagine that in those passages, Strzok revealed his source for the material quoted, as well as confirming the date of the meeting, and possibly the reason for the meeting. He has quite a tale to tell -- one that could change history.

If there were even one Republican senator in charge of a committee who had the curiosity of a 3-year-old, it is likely we could actually get to the bottom of the shenanigans that nearly toppled a president and finally pin the "tale" on the donkey -- the Democratic donkey that is.

But Republican senators in an election year have better things to do than protect and defend the Constitution. There are fundraisers to attend, after all.


[Jul 03, 2020] Dangerous Game - How the Wreckage of Russiagate Ignited a New Cold War by Kyle Anzalone and Will Porter

Jul 02, 2020 | libertarianinstitute.org

It's been nearly four years since the myth of Trump-Russia collusion made its debut in American politics, generating an endless stream of stories in the corporate press and hundreds of allegations of conspiracy from pundits and officials. But despite netting scores of embarrassing admissions, corrections, editor's notes and retractions in that time, the theory refuses to die.

Over the years, the highly elaborate "Russiagate" narrative has fallen away piece-by-piece. Claims about Donald Trump's various back channels to Moscow -- Carter Page , George Papadopoulos , Michael Flynn , Paul Manafort , Alfa Bank -- have each been thoroughly discredited. House Intelligence Committee transcripts released in May have revealed that nobody who asserted a Russian hack on Democratic computers, including the DNC's own cyber security firm , is able to produce evidence that it happened. In fact, it is now clear the entire investigation into the Trump campaign was without basis .

It was alleged that Moscow manipulated the president with " kompromat " and black mail, sold to the public in a " dossier " compiled by a former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele. Working through a DC consulting firm , Steele was hired by Democrats to dig up dirt on Trump, gathering a litany of accusations that Steele's own primary source would later dismiss as "hearsay" and "rumor." Though the FBI was aware the dossier was little more than sloppy opposition research, the bureau nonetheless used it to obtain warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.

Even the claim that Russia helped Trump from afar, without direct coordination, has fallen flat on its face. The " troll farm " allegedly tapped by the Kremlin to wage a pro-Trump meme war -- the Internet Research Agency -- spent only $46,000 on Facebook ads, or around 0.05 percent of the $81 million budget of the Trump and Clinton campaigns. The vast majority of the IRA's ads had nothing to do with U.S. politics, and more than half of those that did were published after the election, having no impact on voters. The Department of Justice, moreover, has dropped its charges against the IRA's parent company, abandoning a major case resulting from Robert Mueller's special counsel probe.

Though few of its most diehard proponents would ever admit it, after four long years, the foundation of the Trump-Russia narrative has finally given way and its edifice has crumbled. The wreckage left behind will remain for some time to come, however, kicking off a new era of mainstream McCarthyism and setting the stage for the next Cold War.

It Didn't Start With Trump

The importance of Russiagate to U.S. foreign policy cannot be understated, but the road to hostilities with Moscow stretches far beyond the current administration. For thirty years, the United States has exploited its de facto victory in the first Cold War, interfering in Russian elections in the 1990s, aiding oligarchs as they looted the country into poverty, and orchestrating Color Revolutions in former Soviet states. NATO, meanwhile, has been enlarged up to Russia's border, despite American assurances the alliance wouldn't expand " one inch " eastward after the collapse of the USSR.

Unquestionably, from the fall of the Berlin Wall until the day Trump took office, the United States maintained an aggressive policy toward Moscow. But with the USSR wiped off the map and communism defeated for good, a sufficient pretext to rally the American public into another Cold War has been missing in the post-Soviet era. In the same 30-year period, moreover, Washington has pursued one disastrous diversion after another in the Middle East, leaving little space or interest for another round of brinkmanship with the Russians, who were relegated to little more than a talking point. That, however, has changed.

The Crisis They Needed

The Washington foreign policy establishment -- memorably dubbed " the Blob " by one Obama adviser -- was thrown into disarray by Trump's election win in the fall of 2016. In some ways, Trump stood out as the dove during the race, deeming "endless wars" in the Middle East a scam, calling for closer ties with Russia, and even questioning the usefulness of NATO. Sincere or not, Trump's campaign vows shocked the Beltway think tankers, journalists, and politicos whose worldviews (and salaries) rely on the maintenance of empire. Something had to be done.

In the summer of 2016, WikiLeaks published thousands of emails belonging to then-Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, her campaign manager, and the Democratic National Committee. Though damaging to Clinton, the leak became fodder for a powerful new attack on the president-to-be. Trump had worked in league with Moscow to throw the election, the story went, and the embarrassing email trove was stolen in a Russian hack, then passed to WikiLeaks to propel Trump's campaign.

By the time Trump took office, the narrative was in full swing. Pundits and politicians rushed to outdo one another in hysterically denouncing the supposed election-meddling, which was deemed the "political equivalent" of the 9/11 attacks , tantamount to Pearl Harbor , and akin to the Nazis' 1938 Kristallnacht pogrom. In lock-step with the U.S. intelligence community -- which soon issued a pair of reports endorsing the Russian hacking story -- the Blob quickly joined the cause, hoping to short-circuit any tinkering with NATO or rapprochement with Moscow under Trump.

The allegations soon broadened well beyond hacking. Russia had now waged war on American democracy itself, and "sowed discord" with misinformation online, all in direct collusion with the Trump campaign. Talking heads on cable news and former intelligence officials -- some of them playing both roles at once -- weaved a dramatic plot of conspiracy out of countless news reports, clinging to many of the "bombshell" stories long after their key claims were blown up .

A large segment of American society eagerly bought the fiction, refusing to believe that Trump, the game show host, could have defeated Clinton without assistance from a foreign power. For the first time since the fall of the USSR, rank-and-file Democrats and moderate progressives were aligned with some of the most vocal Russia hawks across the aisle, creating space for what many have called a " new Cold War. "

Stress Fractures

Under immense pressure and nonstop allegations, the candidate who shouted "America First" and slammed NATO as " obsolete " quickly adapted himself to the foreign policy consensus on the alliance, one of the first signs the Trump-Russia story was bearing fruit.

Demonstrating the Blob in action, during debate on the Senate floor over Montenegro's bid to join NATO in March 2017, the hawkish John McCain castigated Rand Paul for daring to oppose the measure, riding on anti-Russian sentiments stoked during the election to accuse him of "working for Vladimir Putin." With most lawmakers agreeing the expansion of NATO was needed to "push back" against Russia, the Senate approved the request nearly unanimously and Trump signed it without batting an eye -- perhaps seeing the attacks a veto would bring, even from his own party.

Allowing Montenegro -- a country that illustrates everything wrong with NATO -- to join the alliance may suggest Trump's criticisms were always empty talk, but the establishment's drive to constrain his foreign policy was undoubtedly having an effect. Just a few months later, the administration would put out its National Security Strategy , stressing the need to refocus U.S. military engagements from counter-terrorism in the Middle East to "great power competition" with Russia and China.

On another aspiring NATO member, Ukraine, the president was also hectored into reversing course under pressure from the Blob. During the 2016 race, the corporate press savaged the Trump campaign for working behind the scenes to " water down " the Republican Party platform after it opposed a pledge to arm Ukraine's post-coup government. That stance did not last long.

Though even Obama decided against arming the new government -- which his administration helped to install -- Trump reversed that move in late 2017, handing Kiev hundreds of Javelin anti-tank missiles. In an irony noticed by few , some of the arms went to open neo-Nazis in the Ukrainian military, who were integrated into the country's National Guard after leading street battles with security forces in the Obama-backed coup of 2014. Some of the very same Beltway critics slamming the president as a racist demanded he pass weapons to out-and-out white supremacists.

Ukraine's bid to join NATO has all but stalled under President Volodymyr Zelensky, but the country has nonetheless played an outsized role in American politics both before and after Trump took office. In the wake of Ukraine's 2014 U.S.-sponsored coup, "Russian aggression" became a favorite slogan in the American press, laying the ground for future allegations of election-meddling.

Weaponizing Ukraine

The drive for renewed hostilities with Moscow got underway well before Trump took the Oval Office, nurtured in its early stages under the Obama administration. Using Ukraine's revolution as a springboard, Obama launched a major rhetorical and policy offensive against Russia, casting it in the role of an aggressive , expansionist power.

Protests erupted in Ukraine in late 2013, following President Viktor Yanukovych's refusal to sign an association agreement with the European Union, preferring to keep closer ties with Russia. Demanding a deal with the EU and an end to government corruption, demonstrators -- including the above-mentioned neo-Nazis -- were soon in the streets clashing with security forces. Yanukovych was chased out of the country, and eventually out of power.

Through cut-out organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy, the Obama administration poured millions of dollars into the Ukrainian opposition prior to the coup, training, organizing and funding activists. Dubbed the "Euromaidan Revolution," Yanukovych's ouster mirrored similar US-backed color coups before and since, with Uncle Sam riding on the back of legitimate grievances while positioning the most U.S.-friendly figures to take power afterward.

The coup set off serious unrest in Ukraine's Russian-speaking enclaves, the eastern Donbass region and the Crimean Peninsula to the south. In the Donbass, secessionist forces attempted their own revolution, prompting the new government in Kiev to launch a bloody "war on terror" that continues to this day. Though the separatists received some level of support from Moscow, Washington placed sole blame on the Russians for Ukraine's unrest, while the press breathlessly predicted an all-out invasion that never materialized.

In Crimea -- where Moscow has kept its Black Sea Fleet since the late 1700s -- Russia took a more forceful stance, seizing the territory to keep control of its long term naval base. The annexation was accomplished without bloodshed, and a referendum was held weeks later affirming that a large majority of Crimeans supported rejoining Russia, a sentiment western polling firms have since corroborated . Regardless, as in the Donbass, the move was labeled an invasion, eventually triggering a raft of sanctions from the U.S. and the EU (and more recently, from Trump himself ).

The media made no effort to see Russia's perspective on Crimea in the wake of the revolution -- imagining the U.S. response if the roles were reversed, for example -- and all but ignored the preferences of Crimeans. Instead, it spun a black-and-white story of "Russian aggression" in Ukraine. For the Blob, Moscow's actions there put Vladimir Putin on par with Adolf Hitler, driving a flood of frenzied press coverage not seen again until the 2016 election.

Succumbing to Hysteria

While Trump had already begun to cave to the onslaught of Russiagate in the early months of his presidency, a July 2018 meeting with Putin in Helsinki presented an opportunity to reverse course, offering a venue to hash out differences and plan for future cooperation. Trump's previous sit-downs with his Russian counterpart were largely uneventful, but widely portrayed as a meeting between master and puppet. At the Helsinki Summit, however, a meager gesture toward improved relations was met with a new level of hysterics.

Trump's refusal to interrogate Putin on his supposed election-hacking during a summit press conference was taken as irrefutable proof that the two were conspiring together. Former CIA Director John Brennan declared it an act of treason , while CNN gravely contemplated whether Putin's gift to Trump during the meetings -- a World Cup soccer ball -- was really a secret spying transmitter. By this point, Robert Mueller's special counsel probe was in full effect, lending official credibility to the collusion story and further emboldening the claims of conspiracy.

Though the summit did little to strengthen U.S.-Russia ties and Trump made no real effort to do so -- beyond resisting the calls to directly confront Putin -- it brought on some of the most extreme attacks yet, further ratcheting up the cost of rapprochement. The window of opportunity presented in Helsinki, while only cracked to begin with, was now firmly shut, with Trump as reluctant as ever to make good on his original policy platform.

Sanctions!

After taking a beating in Helsinki, the administration allowed tensions with Moscow to soar to new heights, more or less embracing the Blob's favored policies and often even outdoing the Obama government's hawkishness toward Russia in both rhetoric and action.

In March 2018, the poisoning of a former Russian spy living in the United Kingdom was blamed on Moscow in a highly elaborate storyline that ultimately fell apart (sound familiar?), but nonetheless triggered a wave of retaliation from western governments. In the largest diplomatic purge in US history, the Trump administration expelled 60 Russian officials in a period of two days, surpassing Obama's ejection of 35 diplomats in response to the election-meddling allegations.

Along with the purge, starting in spring 2018 and continuing to this day, Washington has unleashed round after round of new sanctions on Russia, including in response to " worldwide malign activity ," to penalize alleged election-meddling , for " destabilizing cyber activities ," retaliation for the UK spy poisoning , more cyber activity , more election-meddling -- the list keeps growing.

Though Trump had called to lift rather than impose penalties on Russia before taking office, worn down by endless negative press coverage and surrounded by a coterie of hawkish advisers, he was brought around on the merits of sanctions before long, and has used them liberally ever since.

Goodbye INF, RIP OST

By October 2018, Trump had largely abandoned any idea of improving the relationship with Russia and, in addition to the barrage of sanctions, began shredding a series of major treaties and arms control agreements. He started with the Cold War-era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), which had eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons -- medium-range missiles -- and removed Europe as a theater for nuclear war.

At this point in Trump's tenure, super-hawk John Bolton had assumed the position of national security advisor, encouraging the president's worst instincts and using his newfound influence to convince Trump to ditch the INF treaty. Bolton -- who helped to detonate a number of arms control pacts in previous administrations -- argued that Russia's new short-range missile had violated the treaty. While there remains some dispute over the missile's true range and whether it actually breached the agreement, Washington failed to pursue available dispute mechanisms and ignored Russian offers for talks to resolve the spat.

After the U.S. officially scrapped the agreement, it quickly began testing formerly-banned munitions. Unlike the Russian missiles, which were only said to have a range overstepping the treaty by a few miles, the U.S. began testing nuclear-capable land-based cruise missiles expressly banned under the INF.

Next came the Open Skies Treaty (OST), an idea originally floated by President Eisenhower, but which wouldn't take shape until 1992, when an agreement was struck between NATO and former Warsaw Pact nations. The agreement now has over 30 members and allows each to arrange surveillance flights over other members' territory, an important confidence-building measure in the post-Soviet world.

Trump saw matters differently, however, and turned a minor dispute over Russia's implementation of the pact into a reason to discard it altogether, again egged on by militant advisers. In late May 2020, the president declared his intent to withdraw from the nearly 30-year-old agreement, proposing nothing to replace it.

Quid Pro Quo

With the DOJ's special counsel probe into Trump-Russia collusion coming up short on both smoking-gun evidence and relevant indictments, the president's enemies began searching for new angles of attack. Following a July 2019 phone call between Trump and his newly elected Ukrainian counterpart, they soon found one.

During the call , Trump urged Zelensky to investigate a computer server he believed to be linked to Russiagate, and to look into potential corruption and nepotism on the part of former Vice President Joe Biden, who played an active role in Ukraine following the Obama-backed coup.

Less than two months later, a " whistleblower " -- a CIA officer detailed to the White House, Eric Ciaramella -- came forward with an "urgent concern" that the president had abused his office on the July call. According to his complaint , Trump threatened to withhold U.S. military aid, as well as a face-to-face meeting with Zelensky, should Kiev fail to deliver the goods on Biden, who by that point was a major contender in the 2020 race.

The same players who peddled Russiagate seized on Ciaramella's account to manufacture a whole new scandal: "Ukrainegate." Failing to squeeze an impeachment out of the Mueller probe, the Democrats did just that with the Ukraine call, insisting Trump had committed grave offenses, again conspiring with a foreign leader to meddle in a U.S. election.

At a high point during the impeachment trial, an expert called to testify by the Democrats revived George W. Bush's "fight them over there" maxim to argue for U.S. arms transfers to Ukraine, citing the Russian menace. The effort was doomed from the start, however, with a GOP-controlled Senate never likely to convict and the evidence weak for a "quid pro quo" with Zelensky. Ukrainegate, like Russiagate before it, was a failure in its stated goal, yet both served to mark the administration with claims of foreign collusion and press for more hawkish policies toward Moscow.

The End of New START?

The Obama administration scored a rare diplomatic achievement with Russia in 2010, signing the New START Treaty, a continuation of the original Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty inked in the waning days of the Soviet Union. Like its first iteration, the agreement places a cap on the number of nuclear weapons and warheads deployed by each side. It featured a ten-year sunset clause, but included provisions to continue beyond its initial end date.

With the treaty set to expire in early 2021, it has become an increasingly hot topic throughout Trump's presidency. While Trump sold himself as an expert dealmaker on the campaign trail -- an artist , even -- his negotiation skills have shown lacking when it comes to working out a new deal with the Russians.

The administration has demanded that China be incorporated into any extended version of the treaty, calling on Russia to compel Beijing to the negotiating table and vastly complicating any prospect for a deal. With a nuclear arsenal around one-tenth the size of that of Russia or the U.S., China has refused to join the pact. Washington's intransigence on the issue has put the future of the treaty in limbo and largely left Russia without a negotiating partner.

A second Trump term would spell serious trouble for New START, having already shown willingness to shred the INF and Open Skies agreements. And with the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) already killed under the Bush administration, New START is one of the few remaining constraints on the planet's two largest nuclear arsenals.

Despite pursuing massive escalation with Moscow from 2018 onward, Trump-Russia conspiracy allegations never stopped pouring from newspapers and TV screens. For the Blob -- heavily invested in a narrative as fruitful as it was false -- Trump would forever be "Putin's puppet," regardless of the sanctions imposed, the landmark treaties incinerated or the deluge of warlike rhetoric.

Running for an Arms Race

As the Trump administration leads the country into the next Cold War, a renewed arms race is also in the making. The destruction of key arms control pacts by previous administrations has fed a proliferation powder keg, and the demise of New START could be the spark to set it off.

Following Bush Jr.'s termination of the ABM deal in 2002 -- wrecking a pact which placed limits on Russian and American missile defense systems to maintain the balance of mutually assured destruction -- Russia soon resumed funding for a number of strategic weapons projects, including its hypersonic missile. In his announcement of the new technology in 2018, Putin deemed the move a response to Washington's unilateral withdrawal from ABM, which also saw the U.S. develop new weapons .

Though he inked New START and campaigned on vows to pursue an end to the bomb, President Obama also helped to advance the arms build-up, embarking on a 30-year nuclear modernization project set to cost taxpayers $1.5 trillion. The Trump administration has embraced the initiative with open arms, even adding to it , as Moscow follows suit with upgrades to its own arsenal.

Moreover, Trump has opened a whole new battlefield with the creation of the US Space Force , escalated military deployments, ramped up war games targeting Russia and China and looked to reopen and expand Cold War-era bases.

In May, Trump's top arms control envoy promised to spend Russia and China into oblivion in the event of any future arms race, but one was already well underway. After withdrawing from INF, the administration began churning out previously banned nuclear-capable cruise missiles, while fielding an entire new class of low-yield nuclear weapons. Known as "tactical nukes," the smaller warheads lower the threshold for use, making nuclear conflict more likely. Meanwhile, the White House has also mulled a live bomb test -- America's first since 1992 -- though has apparently shelved the idea for now.

A Runaway Freight Train

As Trump approaches the end of his first term, the two major U.S. political parties have become locked in a permanent cycle of escalation, eternally compelled to prove who's the bigger hawk. The president put up mild resistance during his first months in office, but the relentless drumbeat of Russiagate successfully crushed any chances for improved ties with Moscow.

The Democrats refuse to give up on "Russian aggression" and see virtually no pushback from hawks across the aisle, while intelligence "leaks" continue to flow into the imperial press, fueling a whole new round of election-meddling allegations .

Likewise, Trump's campaign vows to revamp U.S.-Russian relations are long dead. His presidency counts among its accomplishments a pile of new sanctions, dozens of expelled diplomats and the demise of two major arms control treaties. For all his talk of getting along with Putin, Trump has failed to ink a single deal, de-escalate any of the ongoing strife over Syria, Ukraine or Libya, and been unable to arrange one state visit in Moscow or DC.

Nonetheless, Trump's every action is still interpreted through the lens of Russian collusion. After announcing a troop drawdown in Germany on June 5, reducing the U.S. presence by just one-third, the president was met with the now-typical swarm of baseless charges. MSNBC regular and retired general Barry McCaffrey dubbed the move "a gift to Russia," while GOP Rep. Liz Cheney said the meager troop movement placed the "cause of freedom in peril." Top Democrats in the House and Senate introduced bills to stop the withdrawal dead in its tracks, attributing the policy to Trump's "absurd affection for Vladimir Putin, a murderous dictator."

Starting as a dirty campaign trick to explain away the Democrats' election loss and jam up the new president, Russiagate is now a key driving force in the U.S. political establishment that will long outlive the age of Trump. After nearly four years, the bipartisan consensus on the need for Cold War is stronger than ever, and will endure regardless of who takes the Oval Office next.

[Jul 01, 2020] Kosovo Indictment Proves Bill Clinton s Serbian War Atrocities - Defend Democracy Press by Jim Bovard

Notable quotes:
"... Clinton remains a hero in Kosovo where a statue of him was erected in the capital, Pristina. The Guardian newspaper noted that the statue showed Clinton "with a left hand raised, a typical gesture of a leader greeting the masses. In his right hand he is holding documents engraved with the date when NATO started the bombardment of Serbia, 24 March 1999." It would have been a more accurate representation to depict Clinton standing on a pile of corpses of the women, children, and others killed in the U.S. bombing campaign. ..."
"... Bill Clinton's 1999 bombing of Serbia was as big a fraud as George W. Bush's conning this nation into attacking Iraq. The fact that Clinton and other top U.S. government officials continued to glorify Hashim Thaci despite accusations of mass murder, torture, and body trafficking is another reminder of the venality of much of America's political elite. Will Americans again be gullible the next time that Washington policymakers and their media allies concoct bullshit pretexts to blow the hell out of some hapless foreign land? ..."
Jun 25, 2020 | www.defenddemocracy.press

President Bill Clinton's favorite freedom fighter just got indicted for mass murder, torture, kidnapping, and other crimes against humanity. In 1999, the Clinton administration launched a 78-day bombing campaign that killed up to 1500 civilians in Serbia and Kosovo in what the American media proudly portrayed as a crusade against ethnic bias. That war, like most of the pretenses of U.S. foreign policy, was always a sham.

Kosovo President Hashim Thaci was charged with ten counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity by an international tribunal in The Hague in the Netherlands. It charged Thaci and nine other men with "war crimes, including murder, enforced disappearance of persons, persecution, and torture." Thaci and the other charged suspects were accused of being "criminally responsible for nearly 100 murders" and the indictment involved "hundreds of known victims of Kosovo Albanian, Serb, Roma, and other ethnicities and include political opponents."

Hashim Thaci's tawdry career illustrates how anti-terrorism is a flag of convenience for Washington policymakers. Prior to becoming Kosovo's president, Thaci was the head of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), fighting to force Serbs out of Kosovo. In 1999, the Clinton administration designated the KLA as "freedom fighters" despite their horrific past and gave them massive aid. The previous year, the State Department condemned "terrorist action by the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army." The KLA was heavily involved in drug trafficking and had close to ties to Osama bin Laden.

But arming the KLA and bombing Serbia helped Clinton portray himself as a crusader against injustice and shift public attention after his impeachment trial. Clinton was aided by many shameless members of Congress anxious to sanctify U.S. killing. Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CN) whooped that the United States and the KLA "stand for the same values and principles. Fighting for the KLA is fighting for human rights and American values." And since Clinton administration officials publicly compared Serb leader Slobodan Milošević to Hitler, every decent person was obliged to applaud the bombing campaign.

Both the Serbs and ethnic Albanians committed atrocities in the bitter strife in Kosovo. But to sanctify its bombing campaign, the Clinton administration waved a magic wand and made the KLA's atrocities disappear. British professor Philip Hammond noted that the 78-day bombing campaign "was not a purely military operation: NATO also destroyed what it called 'dual-use' targets, such as factories, city bridges, and even the main television building in downtown Belgrade, in an attempt to terrorize the country into surrender."

Read also: From the very beginning: Α conscious plan to destroy Greece!

NATO repeatedly dropped cluster bombs into marketplaces, hospitals, and other civilian areas. Cluster bombs are anti-personnel devices designed to be scattered across enemy troop formations. NATO dropped more than 1,300 cluster bombs on Serbia and Kosovo and each bomb contained 208 separate bomblets that floated to earth by parachute. Bomb experts estimated that more than 10,000 unexploded bomblets were scattered around the landscape when the bombing ended and maimed children long after the ceasefire.

In the final days of the bombing campaign, the Washington Post reported that "some presidential aides and friends are describing Kosovo in Churchillian tones, as Clinton's 'finest hour.'" The Post also reported that according to one Clinton friend "what Clinton believes were the unambiguously moral motives for NATO's intervention represented a chance to soothe regrets harbored in Clinton's own conscience The friend said Clinton has at times lamented that the generation before him was able to serve in a war with a plainly noble purpose, and he feels 'almost cheated' that 'when it was his turn he didn't have the chance to be part of a moral cause.'" By Clinton's standard, slaughtering Serbs was "close enough for government work" to a "moral cause."

Shortly after the end of the 1999 bombing campaign, Clinton enunciated what his aides labeled the Clinton doctrine: "Whether within or beyond the borders of a country, if the world community has the power to stop it, we ought to stop genocide and ethnic cleansing." In reality, the Clinton doctrine was that presidents are entitled to commence bombing foreign lands based on any brazen lie that the American media will regurgitate. In reality, the lesson from bombing Serbia is that American politicians merely need to publicly recite the word "genocide" to get a license to kill.

Read also: Derrière l'affaire Benalla, la banalisation de la violence policière

After the bombing ended, Clinton assured the Serbian people that the United States and NATO agreed to be peacekeepers only "with the understanding that they would protect Serbs as well as ethnic Albanians and that they would leave when peace took hold." In the subsequent months and years, American and NATO forces stood by as the KLA resumed its ethnic cleansing, slaughtering Serb civilians, bombing Serbian churches and oppressing any non-Muslims. Almost a quarter-million Serbs, Gypsies, Jews, and other minorities fled Kosovo after Mr. Clinton promised to protect them. By 2003, almost 70 percent of the Serbs living in Kosovo in 1999 had fled, and Kosovo was 95 percent ethnic Albanian.

But Thaci remained useful for U.S. policymakers. Even though he was widely condemned for oppression and corruption after taking power in Kosovo, Vice President Joe Biden hailed Thaci in 2010 as the "George Washington of Kosovo." A few months later, a Council of Europe report accused Thaci and KLA operatives of human organ trafficking. The Guardian noted that the report alleged that Thaci's inner circle "took captives across the border into Albania after the war, where a number of Serbs are said to have been murdered for their kidneys, which were sold on the black market." The report stated that when "transplant surgeons" were "ready to operate, the [Serbian] captives were brought out of the 'safe house' individually, summarily executed by a KLA gunman, and their corpses transported swiftly to the operating clinic."

Despite the body trafficking charge, Thaci was a star attendee at the annual Global Initiative conference by the Clinton Foundation in 2011, 2012, and 2013, where he posed for photos with Bill Clinton. Maybe that was a perk from the $50,000 a month lobbying contract that Thaci's regime signed with The Podesta Group, co-managed by future Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta, as the Daily Caller reported.

Clinton remains a hero in Kosovo where a statue of him was erected in the capital, Pristina. The Guardian newspaper noted that the statue showed Clinton "with a left hand raised, a typical gesture of a leader greeting the masses. In his right hand he is holding documents engraved with the date when NATO started the bombardment of Serbia, 24 March 1999." It would have been a more accurate representation to depict Clinton standing on a pile of corpses of the women, children, and others killed in the U.S. bombing campaign.

In 2019, Bill Clinton and his fanatically pro-bombing former Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, visited Pristina, where they were "treated like rock stars" as they posed for photos with Thaci. Clinton declared, "I love this country and it will always be one of the greatest honors of my life to have stood with you against ethnic cleansing (by Serbian forces) and for freedom." Thaci awarded Clinton and Albright medals of freedom "for the liberty he brought to us and the peace to entire region." Albright has reinvented herself as a visionary warning against fascism in the Trump era. Actually, the only honorific that Albright deserves is "Butcher of Belgrade."

Clinton's war on Serbia was a Pandora's box from which the world still suffers. Because politicians and most of the media portrayed the war against Serbia as a moral triumph, it was easier for the Bush administration to justify attacking Iraq, for the Obama administration to bomb Libya, and for the Trump administration to repeatedly bomb Syria. All of those interventions sowed chaos that continues cursing the purported beneficiaries.

Bill Clinton's 1999 bombing of Serbia was as big a fraud as George W. Bush's conning this nation into attacking Iraq. The fact that Clinton and other top U.S. government officials continued to glorify Hashim Thaci despite accusations of mass murder, torture, and body trafficking is another reminder of the venality of much of America's political elite. Will Americans again be gullible the next time that Washington policymakers and their media allies concoct bullshit pretexts to blow the hell out of some hapless foreign land?

[Jun 28, 2020] https://saraacarter.com/ag-barr-reveals-durhams-probe-into-fbi-will-have-developments-by-summers-end/

Jun 28, 2020 | saraacarter.com

Bartiromo's interview with Barr on "Sunday Morning Futures," is the first time the Attorney General has given a time frame for the information. He also noted that he was surprised by the lack of public interest in Durham's investigation.

Unfortunately, in the opinion of this writer, the lack of public interest in the Durham probe may have more to do with the Justice Department's secrecy to discuss the investigation publicly and the failure – as of yet – to indict or hold many of those involved legally accountable for their actions.

Although Barr has been the most informative on the Durham investigation during his interviews, other Justice Department officials have been less than cooperative when asked about developments in the probe and therefore making it less likely to garner public interest.

Durham's investigation, however, is expanding on the evidence amassed by both Congress and Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz's December report. That report revealed numerous omissions and lies in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Application on Carter Page, a short term 2016 Trump campaign volunteer.

"So that has been surprising to me, that people aren't concerned about civil liberties and the integrity of our governmental process in terms of the future of Durham's investigation," Barr said. "You know, he's pressing ahead as hard as he can. And I expect that, you know, we will have some developments hopefully before the end of the summer." Still, Barr made it clear that Durham's probe is expected to continue passed the November's election.

He noted one caveat, that depends "on who wins the election."

He also discussed with Bartiromo the unmasking of Trump campaign officials during the 2016 elections saying, "I would say it's unusual for an outgoing administration, high level officials, to be unmasking very, you know, very much in the days they're preparing to leave office. Makes you wonder what they were doing."

[Jun 25, 2020] Meanwhile...

Jun 25, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Looks like @JoeBiden and @BarackObama were complicit in framing @GenFlynn .

I can't wait for Flynn to tell all he knows about these traitors. https://t.co/JynrbnuawE

-- John Cardillo (@johncardillo) June 24, 2020

[Jun 25, 2020] Seven Big Hints AG Barr Has Dropped About Durham's Probe Of The Russia Investigators

Jun 25, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Seven Big Hints AG Barr Has Dropped About Durham's Probe Of The Russia Investigators


by Tyler Durden Wed, 06/24/2020 - 13:50 Authored by John Solomon via JustTheNews.com,

Attorney General William Barr is bringing increasing clarity to the focus of U.S. Attorney John Durham's criminal investigation into the conduct of the Russia collusion investigators.

In a series of recent interviews, the nation's chief enforcement officer has dropped some big hints about what is under investigation, who is and isn't being investigated, and what evidence uncovered by the Durham team is emerging as important.

Barr also has suggested what events in the timeline are emerging as important in the 2016-17 effort to find dirt on President Trump and his campaign and transition team.

Here are the seven most important revelations Barr has made over the last month.

1. Timetable: Durham's investigation has been slowed by the pandemic. But some action is expected by end of summer, and the probe could stretch beyond Election Day.

Barr told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo on Sunday that the coronavirus has slowed Durham's ability to interview witnesses and use a grand jury if needed, though he did not officially confirm there was grand jury activity in the case.

"It is a fact that there have not been grand juries in virtually all districts for a long period of time," Barr said.

But most importantly, the attorney general laid out a likely timeline for when the first actions might be taken in the case, while stressing the probe could carry beyond the election.

"In terms of the future of Durham's investigation, he's pressing ahead as hard as he can, and I expect that we will have some developments, hopefully before the end of the summer," Barr said. "But as I've said, his investigation will continue. It's not going to stop because of the election. What happens after the election may depend on who wins the election."

2. Barr believes evidence used by the FBI to justify opening an investigation into the Trump campaign's ties to Moscow was very thin.

The attorney general has made clear in multiple interviews that Australian diplomat Alexander Downer's meeting with Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos at a London bar in May 2016 was a weak justification for opening Crossfire Hurricane.

Downer claimed Papadopoulos made comments about Russians possessing dirt on Hillary Clinton, and the FBI believed that was enough to predicate a counterintelligence investigation.

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz agreed in his report that was enough, but found substantial evidence the FBI cheated afterwards to keep the probe going in the absence of evidence of wrongdoing.

Barr does not seem to accept the opening of the FBI probe was justified.

Papadopoulos' alleged "comment in a London wine bar" would be "a very slender reed to get law enforcement and intelligence agencies involved in investigating the campaign of one's political opponent," Barr declared Sunday.

Barr isn't the only high-profile figure to think that. Former FBI Assistant Director for Intelligence Kevin Brock has said the FBI memo opening Crossfire Hurricane did not meet the standards for opening a counter-intelligence investigation.

3. Investigators are focused on what happened before Crossfire Hurricane officially started, including when Christopher Steele first began compiling his dossier.

In multiple interviews, Barr has made clear Durham's team is examining what actions government officials and private individuals may have taken in the winter and spring of 2016 before the FBI officially opened its probe of the Trump campaign on July 31, 2016.

Perhaps the most tantalizing statement Barr has made on this came Sunday when he suggested it was important that Steele began working on his dossier before July 2016, raising the possibility that some unexplained events earlier that year may have been connected to that early Steele work.

"I understand why it is important to try to determine whether there was any activity before July, before the Papadopoulos wine bar conversation," Barr explained. "And so people are looking at that. It's significant also that the dossier was initiated before July."

4. Barr views the FBI's continuation of the Russia probe after the Steele dossier "collapsed" as an illegitimate effort to remove the president.

Barr has repeatedly cited the fact that the FBI continued to rely on the Steele dossier after the former MI6 agent's primary sub-source contradicted information in the dossier in January 2017 and March 2017 -- and failed to tell the FISA court about the problems with the repudiated evidence.

"The dossier pretty much collapsed at that point -- and yet they continued to use it as a basis for pursuing this counterintelligence investigation," Barr noted this past weekend.

The attorney general suggested such behavior supports arguments that what was really going on was an attempted coup to remove Trump from office. "It is the closest we have come to an organized effort to push a president out of office," he said.

5. There are multiple criminal investigations into leaks of classified information.

Barr made clear that Durham and others are examining multiple leaks for possible criminal violations while cautioning proving leak cases can be challenging. One of those is focused on who leaked Michael Flynn's call with the Russian ambassador.

"Leaking national defense information, unauthorized disclosure of that information is a felony," Barr said. "We have a lot of leak investigations underway."

6. Barr is concerned by the outgoing Obama administration's extensive unmasking of Americans' conversations ... but don't expect Barack Obama or Joe Biden to get in trouble.

After the recent revelation that more than three dozen Obama administration officials sought to unmask intercepted conversations of incoming Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, Barr declared, "It makes you wonder what they were doing."

"It's unusual for an outgoing administration, high-level officials, to be unmasking very much in the days they're preparing to leave office," he added.

As a sign of that concern, Barr has named a U.S. attorney from Texas to assist Durham to examine the unmaskings for any illegalities.

But Barr also tamped down any expectation that the former president or vice president will be investigated, stating clearly they are not targets of the probe.

"As to President Obama and Vice President Biden, whatever their level of involvement, based on the information I have today, I don't expect Mr. Durham's work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man," the attorney general said last month. "Our concern over potential criminality is focused on others."

7. Durham is examining whether political pressures were applied during the intelligence community's assessment of Russia's intentions in 2016 election meddling. That could be bad news for former CIA chief John Brennan.

In the Obama administration's final days, Brennan, outgoing DNI James Clapper and then-FBI Director James Comey release the Intelligence Community Assessment, which declared Russia meddled in the 2016 election with hacking and Facebook ads and that Moscow's intention was to help Trump win.

The first conclusion is widely accepted, while the second is more controversial, especially now that evidence has been declassified showing Russia was feeding derogatory disinformation about Trump to Steele. Why, experts wonder, would Russia be doing that if Putin wanted Trump to win?

Barr said Durham is investigating whether any political pressure was brought to bear to come to that second conclusion. Sources have told Just the News there is some evidence that CIA analysts and others had concerns about the strength of the evidence about Russia's intentions.
play_arrow Itinerant , 1 hour ago

The first conclusion is widely accepted ... declared Russia meddled in the 2016 election with hacking and Facebook ads

And it's high time for a dose of reality.

1. There's no evidence of a hack , as CrowdStrike stated in interviews that have been released. There is a lot of evidence that it was a leak from inside the DNC premises, and that Guccifer is an Intelligence Agency persona.

2. There's no evidence that Putin (or his administration) directed any purported Russian meddling campaign.

3. There's no evidence that the Facebook ads were not click bait and were ever intentioned to cause "Division". No coherent account can be given as to what "disinformation" they were trying to spread, and why the Russian leadership would want to spread such "disinformation". In fact, "it was so sophisticated that it remained hidden in plain view". That's because the whole story is just psychological projection, based on assumptions of what the Russians would want to do (no connection to anything they've ever said). Just look at some of the examples, and you can reach no other conclusion than: Click bait.

CallOfTheWild , 3 hours ago

The Watch Pot NEVER BOILS.....WTF

Brennan
Clapper
Comey
McCabe
Strzok
Page
Ohr
Halper
Mifsud
Baker
Preistep
Yates
Rosenstein
Obama
Wray
Simpson
Clinton x2
Weissmann
Lynch
Jarrett
Rice
Fritsch
Power
McLaughlin
Ferrante

Boomer's revenge , 6 hours ago

Un acceptable. They commited a treasonous Coup d'état with impunity, insulting and ridiculing all of us as they did it. "Could smell the Trump voters at Walmart".

ComradeChe , 7 hours ago

There was genius in the "Russian Collision" narrative; they kept it up, incessantly, even as it was factually falling apart. There was no link. And still they kept at it. The result was that everyone is SICK TO DEATH of this crap. No one cares. The Trump haters gonna hate regardless-- and everyone else, whether they back the president or not, are just over it. It blew up in Pelosi's face-- but no one cares.

Now, most of America is three mortgage payments behind and they don't give a damn about anything but trying to keep their lives together. Obama, Rice, Clapper, Brennan et al pulled off the most egregious political crime in the history of the republic. Even in his wildest dreams Tricky **** Nixon couldn't get the IRS, the NSA and the CIA to do political hits for him. But Obama-- nails it. The trifecta: the IRS 'rogue agents from Cincinnati' stifle the Tea Party; the FBI/CIA jerk off the FISA Court with a bought and paid for shovel full of BS, and then use the NSA to spy on a political candidate-- and better yet, conspire with foreign intelligence services who utilize electronic surveillance within the US, so the CIA can keep its skirts clean; and lastly, the circular firing squad of the National Security council facilitates the 'unmasking' of dozens of Americans who are not terrorists, or spies but political opponents.

No this didn't happen in Guatemala. This happened in the US.

And you know what? Obama and all his minions ARE going to get away with it. Barry got away with presenting a birth certificate cobbled together on Adobe Illustrator; they didn't even bother to make a PDF out of it. It was BAM in your face, 23 different fonts on 15 different layers. So what? Hillary got away with keeping hundreds of Top Secret Codeword documents on a home made web server. So what? Then she got away with accepting a sweet &130 million payoff for the Clinton Foundation, right after she okayed the transfer of 25% of our enriched Uranium to... wait for it... Putin. And then the IC blames Trump for being a stooge of Putin.

It's too rich. If you are waiting for justice, forget it. I've seen this movie before.

Arch_Stanton , 8 hours ago

1. Timetable: Durham's investigation has been slowed by the pandemic. But some action is expected by end of summer, and the probe could stretch beyond Election Day.

There will be no action, or should I say inaction, until after the election

2. Barr believes evidence used by the FBI to justify opening an investigation into the Trump campaign's ties to Moscow was very thin.

3. Investigators are focused on what happened before Crossfire Hurricane officially started, including when Christopher Steele first began compiling his dossier.

4. Barr views the FBI's continuation of the Russia probe after the Steele dossier "collapsed" as an illegitimate effort to remove the president.

This is true and we all knew this over 3 years ago.

5. There are multiple criminal investigations into leaks of classified information.

Multiple leaks? No kidding.

6. Barr is concerned by the outgoing Obama administration's extensive unmasking of Americans' conversations ... but don't expect Barack Obama or Joe Biden to get in trouble.

We are all far more than "concerned". This was a coup. Obama initiated this whole coup and Biden was in on the planning and we know it. Why do they skate?

7. Durham is examining whether political pressures were applied during the intelligence community's assessment of Russia's intentions in 2016 election meddling. That could be bad news for former CIA chief John Brennan.

Hoping it's more than news. Hoping for indictments.

This is a joke, and I'm not surprised. If Trump loses, this whole affair will be dropped and consigned to the memory hole immediately.

Chocura750 , 7 hours ago

Thin justification is enough considering the importance of the claim.

BaNNeD oN THe RuN , 8 hours ago

Perhaps the most tantalizing statement Barr has made on this came Sunday when he suggested it was important that Steele began working on his dossier before July 2016, raising the possibility that some unexplained events earlier that year may have been connected to that early Steele work.

It was reported in real time in 2016 that the Steele Dossier work was initiated at the request of rival Republican candidates (likely Jeb Bush, possibly Ted Cruz) and they handed it off to the Clinton Campaign to continue. The Bush family then supported Clinton in the election. This was a uni-party effort to keep control in the 2 families.

Gerb00 , 8 hours ago

They all skate by, no one goes to jail, they all get multi million dollar gooka dn movie deals, mr senile and mr o-*** get nobel peace prizes and shrines where the lincoln memorial used to be..

David Wooten , 8 hours ago

"...the attorney general laid out a likely timeline for when the first actions might be taken in the case, while stressing the probe could carry beyond the election."

Wrongdoings by past administrations go beyond Obiden to Bush 43 or earlier and also include most members of the Senate and a fair number in the House. They stretch from Russia to Ukraine to Libya to Syria to the UK to France to Israel to Assange, etc. They cover members of both parties in the US and back to Tony Blair in Britain and some very powerful people. They are all tied together in some way.

It will take far longer than the election to get the bottom of it and, given the anti-Trump atmosphere that prevails, Durham is unlikely to produce any unsealed indictments before the election lest they be tainted with politics, ie, helping Trump - as Ken Starr's report was tainted as undermining Clinton's election.

Those involved are so powerful that the best that can be expected is to remove them from positions of power, both in and out of government. Some these guys would rather die or bring on a nuclear war than spend years to decades in prison.

Don't hold your breath.

bumboo , 8 hours ago

Hush Hush. Durham and Barr are part of the establishment. Barr and Robert Muller are friends (attend same Bible class). One of them invited the other one to his daughter's wedding (nothing wrong). Part of the Cabal.

Durham investigated the Guantanamo tapes burning by a CIA officer and wrote the per someone's instructions. The author is assuming that his readers are fools and lazy. Sorry, those days are gone, thanks to alternate Media and citizen's journalism or empowerment. We dont have relay journalists in their rocking chair and writing superficial stuff. Did the writer address Joseph Misfud, the Maltese guy.

https://time.com/5633912/joseph-mifsud-mueller-testimony/

Durham and Barr visited him to investigate.

Dr. Bonzo , 8 hours ago

There is sufficient information in the public sphere, including inculpatory evidence that would be more than sufficient to produce indictments. The fact that Trump's AG drags his feet on this within months of the election suggests Trump continues to waffle and go soft in the knees when it matters most. In spite of talking a big game, Trump is a softie.

He might be an incredibly sophisticated media manipulator, and good for him, but I'm not really sure he understands that this burgeoning insurrection, including the complex campaign to unseat him during his presidency, constitutes an insurgency against the Constitutional Republic.

This makes the agents within the Deep State traitors, the executing agents acting in the streets insurrectionists and BLM potentially foreign agents. Trump and his team seem to think this is all just disgruntled political opposition. IT's nothing of the sort.

[Jun 25, 2020] Did Obama-Biden Lie Strzok's Newly Discovered FBI Notes Reignite Obamagate by John Solomon

Jun 24, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by John Solomon via JustTheNews.com,

The belated discovery of disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok's January 2017 notes raises troubling new questions about whether President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden were coordinating efforts during their final days in office to investigate Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn -- even as the FBI wanted to shut down the case.

Investigators will need to secure testimony from Strzok, fired two years ago from the FBI, to be certain of the exact meaning and intent of his one paragraph of notes, which were made public in court on Wednesday.

But they appear to illuminate an extraordinary high-level effort by outgoing Obama-era officials during the first weekend of January to find a way to sustain a counterintelligence investigation of Flynn in the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing.

The Justice Department says the notes were written between Jan. 3-5, 2017, the very weekend the FBI agent who had investigated Flynn's ties to Russia for five months recommended the case be closed because there was "no derogatory" evidence that he committed a crime or posed a counterintelligence threat. FBI supervisors overruled the agent's recommendation.

Strzok's notes appear to quote then-FBI Director James Comey as suggesting that Flynn's intercepted calls with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak "appear legit," bolstering other recently disclosed evidence showing the bureau saw nothing wrong with Flynn's behavior.

The notes also suggest Biden -- who once claimed he had no knowledge of the Flynn probe -- raised the issue of the Logan Act, an obscure, centuries-old law, as a possible avenue for continuing to investigate Flynn.

And Strzok appears to quote Obama as suggesting the FBI assign "the right people" to pursue the case.

You can read the notes here:

These conversations, if accurately portrayed in the Strzok notes, occurred during the same three-day period in which FBI supervisors overruled their field agent's recommendation to shut down the Flynn case and pivoted toward the strategy of luring Flynn into an FBI interview where he might be caught lying.

Sidney Powell, Flynn's lawyer, laid out the potential ramifications of the notes in a court filing on Wednesday, calling the new evidence "stunning and exculpatory."

"Mr. Obama himself directed that 'the right people' investigate General Flynn. This caused former FBI Director Comey to acknowledge the obvious: General Flynn's phone calls with Ambassador Kislyak 'appear legit,'" Powell argued in her new motion.

" According to Strzok's notes, it appears that Vice President Biden personally raised the idea of the Logan Act. That became an admitted pretext to investigate General Flynn," she added.

You can read her filing here: The notes are unlikely to have a substantial impact on the outcome of Flynn's case because a three-judge appeals court panel in Washington earlier Wednesday ordered U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan to immediately dismiss Flynn's prior conviction for lying to the FBI.

Even if the rebuked judge appeals the decision or the full appeals court reconsiders the case, Flynn is likely on a path to being a free and innocent man.

The real impact of the notes may be on the Justice Department's ongoing investigation of the Russia investigators, where U.S. Attorneys John Durham and Jeff Jensen are determining whether the FBI or others committed crimes in deceiving the courts or Congress about the evidence in the now-discredited Russia collusion allegations.

A former senior FBI official told Just the News that Strzok's notes about the White House meeting are a red flag that the Comey-led bureau may have been involving itself illegitimately in a political dispute between the outgoing Obama administration and incoming Trump administration.

"It was a political meeting about a policy dispute, and the bureau had no business being involved," Former Assistant Director for Intelligence Kevin Brock said. "No other FBI director would ever have attended such a meeting.

"Comey is quoted in the notes as saying the Kislyak call appeared legit. At that point he should have gotten up and left the room," Brock added.

"The FBI had no business being represented in that meeting. It did not have a counterintelligence interest any longer."

A second impact of the notes could be on the campaign trail. A few months ago, Biden claimed he was unaware of the Flynn probe as he was leaving the VP's office.

"I know nothing about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn," he said.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/3Yrblo64caA

He then clarified his denial.

"I was aware that they asked for an investigation," Biden said. "But that's all I know about it, and I don't think anything else."

If Powell's interpretation of the notes is correct, Biden was knowledgeable enough to suggest a possible pretext for continued investigation, the Logan Act. And he eventually unmasked one of Flynn's intercepted phone calls a week later.

Former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes told Just the News on Wednesday the newly discovered notes affirm his long-held suspicion that the Obama White House was trying to influence the FBI's Russia probe in untoward ways.

" Now we know both Obama and Biden were directly involved in planning the attack on Flynn ," Nunes said.

"The Obama administration exploited our intelligence community to spy on their political opponents and engineer bogus investigations and prosecutions of them.

"This is the single biggest abuse of power I've seen in my lifetime," he added.

[Jun 21, 2020] Senate approves subpoenas of Obama officials in Russian collusion probe - Washington Times

Jun 21, 2020 | www.washingtontimes.com

A Senate committee approved subpoenas Thursday for more than 50 mostly Obama-era officials in a dramatic escalation of the investigation into origins of the Trump-Russia collusion probe.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is wielding the subpoena power, said the move will finally put on the hot seat top officials, including former FBI Director James B. Comey and former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

"Comey and McCabe and that whole crowd -- their day is coming," Mr. Graham said.

Others targeted for subpoenas are former National Intelligence Director James R. Clapper, former CIA chief John O. Brennan, former Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates, Justice Department official Bruce Ohr and FBI officials Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, James Baker and Bill Priestap.

The panel's politically charged inquiry has the potential to rewrite the Russia collusion narrative that until recently dominated Washington and colored voters' views of the Justice Department and the Obama administration, in which presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joseph R. Biden served as vice president.

Democrats said the investigation is a fishing expedition intended to smear President Trump's political enemies as the campaign season heats up.

"Never has a chairman devoted the full weight of this committee's resources to pursue a wholly partisan investigation after being prompted by a presidential campaign," said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat and a panel member.

The committee's probe also is a response to public pressure from Trump supporters who are frustrated with the lack of accountability for top officials at the FBI and Justice Department who publicly pushed the unsubstantiated collusion accusations.

Accusations of collusion with Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election dogged Mr. Trump since he took office and fueled Democrats' charges that he occupies the Oval Office illegitimately.

Most of Mr. Trump's term was conducted under the cloud of special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation, which failed to dig up evidence of collusion or charge any Trump allies on charges related to conspiring with Russia.

Mr. Trump calls the Russia probe a "hoax."

His supporters think it was a political hit job orchestrated by Democrats with the help of a deep state.

In a party-line vote, Republicans on the panel granted Mr. Graham the authority to subpoena individuals for documents and testimony about the origins of the Russia probe.

Mr. Graham has the power to subpoena "any current or former executive branch official or employee involved in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation," the name of the FBI's investigation into alleged ties to the Trump campaign and Russia.

He also has the authority to subpoena individuals involved in the dissemination of a report by former British spy Christopher Steele, who compiled a salacious but unverified opposition-research dossier against Mr. Trump funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.

Fusion GPS founder Glenn R. Simpson and Nellie Ohr are expected to receive subpoenas for their roles in commissioning and distributing the dossier.

Republicans contend that mounting evidence suggests the Russia probe was not on the up and up.

A report last year by the Justice Department inspector general found multiple errors and omissions in the FBI's application for a court order to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

The omissions, which included potentially exculpatory evidence, have raised questions about whether Mr. Page was a political target by anti-Trump officials in the FBI before and after the election.

Mr. Graham also wants to probe the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador.

The Justice Department moved this year to dismiss the case after spending roughly two years prosecuting it. The department said the FBI did not have a sufficient basis to interview Flynn because it sought to close the case after failing to uncover wrongdoing.

Sen. Mazie K. Hirono, Hawaii Democrat, accused Mr. Graham of going over "ground that has already been covered."

In a bid to upend the subpoena vote, Democrats sought to add a series of amendments to compel testimony and documents from Mr. Trump's allies.

Among the individuals Democrats want to be subpoenaed are former Trump fixer Michael Cohen, former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani and Flynn.

The amendments were defeated easily in a series of party-line votes.

"The fact that you are turning down every single relevant witness tells us and tells the world this is an irrelevant investigation," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat.

Mr. Graham clapped back that Trump associates were heavily scrutinized in the Mueller probe.

"I don't understand why you would want to do the Mueller investigation all over again after we've spent 2½ years and $25 million doing it," said Mr. Graham. "I'm sorry it didn't turn out the way people liked, but it is behind us. Now we are going to look at what happened and the misconduct involved and hold people accountable."

Under committee rules, Mr. Graham cannot issue a subpoena unilaterally. The committee chairman can issue a subpoena only with the consent of the ranking member or a committee vote.

Democrats said the granting of subpoena power to one person violated the committee's bipartisan spirit. They accused Mr. Graham of trying to grant himself "unilateral subpoena authority."

"The resolution would give the chair sole authority to issue literally hundreds of subpoenas without any agreement from the ranking member of any committee to vote on any specific subpoena," said Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the committee.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted last week to authorize subpoenas from individuals associated with the Russia probe. It is not clear how the two committees will work together with similar investigations and subpoenas.


[Jun 17, 2020] Sen. Graham on FBI misconduct: On the left they only care about getting Trump

Notable quotes:
"... Graham dragging his feet again. Swamp creatures everywhere. ..."
"... No one believes "I could wear a wire" Rosenstein didn't know what he was signing ..."
"... I was a bit concerned when I heard Lindsey Graham in essence exonerate Rosenstein from any guilt. ..."
Jun 17, 2020 | www.youtube.com

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, discusses the ongoing investigation into the Steele Dossier. #FoxNews


Ben Allmark , 4 days ago

Why is it Lindsay is always telling us the crimes have been committed but nobody's going to jail ? WHY

Travis Priest , 5 days ago

Graham dragging his feet again. Swamp creatures everywhere.

jim Murihiku , 4 days ago

Rosenstein knew exactly what he was doing, He's a liar. Jail time

Srikanth Paniker , 5 days ago

Lindsay Graham is weak and incompetent. He's useless despite having a powerful position.

Michael Jovich , 5 days ago

Senator "All Talk" Graham. Not sure why Hannity has this RINO on constantly.

Patton Was Right , 5 days ago

"WE DEFEATED THE WRONG ENEMY!" Now the enemy controls our media and government

Susan Swinskey , 4 days ago

No one believes "I could wear a wire" Rosenstein didn't know what he was signing

waQup , 5 days ago

I was a bit concerned when I heard Lindsey Graham in essence exonerate Rosenstein from any guilt. The investigation has only just begun. Anyone else get the feeling deals are being done. I mean Graham was in on it from the start wasn't he?

So He's obviously got some sort of immunity deal to be allowed any where near such a vitally important investigation.

So it will be interesting to see how they navigate around that one. Another big day tomorrow...I feel that General Flynn may have some interesting input a little bit further down the track. Patriots world wide. WWG1WGA.

[Jun 17, 2020] Trey Gowdy: Strzok s fingerprints are on every aspect of Russia probe

Notable quotes:
"... We know Stzrok is all over it but I fear they are looking at taking him down and sparing the other traitors. ..."
"... Strzok and Rosenstein ..the ugliest of the swamp creatures. ..."
"... Lisa Paige to Peter Strzok: "POTUS wants to know everything." ..."
Jun 10, 2020 | www.youtube.com

Valentin Casillas , 6 days ago

We need arrest to take place! The deep state needs to go down

Golden showers 4 liberals , 6 days ago

Trump didn't create the hate in the left , he simply exposed it!

Bambi Forester , 6 days ago

We are sick of hearing the crimes and no consequences. ARREST SOMEBODY ALREADY!

shep , 6 days ago

Take every last one of these treasonous DemoRats down!!

JET JET , 6 days ago

She says POSSIBLE spying, there was no possible!! THERE (WAS) SPYING AND THERE'S ((FACTS))) TO PROVE IT!!!

kerry the truth , 6 days ago

Talk talk no arrest. Do something! Arrest someone! Enough our country is literally burnning to the ground!

Candy Kang , 6 days ago

Obama was the LEAD CONSPIRATOR of this CRIME!!!

Dave Alexander , 6 days ago

Barr found out Obama & Killery masterminded this whole thing & Obama put HIS TRAITORS into the key positions.

Tony Colbourne , 6 days ago (edited)

We know Stzrok is all over it but I fear they are looking at taking him down and sparing the other traitors. Time will tell. In my opinion everyone involved was equally complicit. WWG1WGA UK

Philip McDonald , 6 days ago

Strzok and Rosenstein ..the ugliest of the swamp creatures.

NOTHING BURGER - CONFIRMED. , 6 days ago

PETER STRZOK , CREEPlEST MEME OF ALL TIME AWARD

MrAwak3 , 6 days ago

Trey you didn't do ANYTHING about it!!!! ALL TALK!!!! You were just on these committees as a gate keeper to ask the questions that would produce the pre-written responses. YOU ARE COMPROMISED! Everybody watching.... Trey Gowdy KNEW this was a hoax and DID NOTHING!

Vicki Vaught , 6 days ago

Brett isn't going to get any info out of Barr. I avoid Brett, Chris Wallace, and a few others on Fox.

william filiciello , 6 days ago

Endless investigations. When is someone gonna get arrested for an attempted overthrow of the President ?

Mark Suvanish , 6 days ago

All cops are bad -- -except Comey and crew....hmmmmmm. I gotta ponder that. 🤔

Russell Rideout , 6 days ago (edited)

Lisa Paige to Peter Strzok: "POTUS wants to know everything."

[Jun 16, 2020] Saagar Enjeti- Obamagate is real and the media can't just ignore it

They gaslighted the whole nation. Amazing achievement. In other words, they are a real criminal gang, a mafia. No questions about it. This is Nixon impeachment level staff. This are people that brought us Lybia, Syria: this senile Creepy Joe.
Jun 16, 2020 | www.youtube.com

Saagar Enjeti blasts former President Obama after it was revealed in transcripts he was the person who told then-deputy attorney general Sally Yates about Mike Flynn's intercepted phone call with the Russian ambassador, Joe Biden responds to Flynn claims on Good Morning America.

Maniachael Productions , 1 month ago

Lmao a war criminal complaining about the rule of law not being upheld

C.I.A. , 3 weeks ago

It's disgusting to me how news sources say that Obama gate isn't real.

[Jun 16, 2020] Saagar Enjeti- BOMBSHELL reveals Biden at center of Obamagate, media ignores

They gaslighted the whole nation. Amazing achievement. In other words, they are a real criminal gang, a mafia. No questions about it.
Jun 16, 2020 | www.youtube.com

Columbus1152 , 1 month ago

Dementia comes in handy at a time like this.

RayC1 , 1 month ago

Biden just described his entire political career, "I was there, but i had nothing to do with it"

Arthur Sprong , 1 month ago

He's not senile, he's getting ready to be "unfit for trial".

Charles Jannuzi , 1 month ago

Bad Brain Joe was Obomber's point man in the Ukraine coup and all the grifting and grafting that followed.

john smith , 1 month ago

"I know nothing about those moves to investigate Flynn." "These documents clearly outline that you were in a meeting at a specific time specifically about that." "OH! I'm sorry! I thought you asked if I was INVOLVED IN IT!"

Jeff Zekas , 1 month ago (edited)

The word is "entrapment" - Years ago, one of the officers in the investigations squad said to me, "How can you claim to be better than them, if you break the law to catch 'em?" - Now I understand what he was saying.

[Jun 16, 2020] Judge Sullivan created an awkward situation for the DOJ, Michael Flynn, and the Court of Appeals - Sic Semper Tyrannis

Jun 16, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

walrus , 16 June 2020 at 04:37 PM

The corrupt and despicable charade against Flynn conducted by at least the FBI and the so called courts of justice in the United States has destroyed any possible semblance of the idea that there is equal justice under the law or the laughable notion that anything remotely like a fair trial is available to anyone for any alleged offence at all.

The message contained in this prosecution and those of other Trump supporters is quite clear: any person who attempts to assist a political candidate not approved by so called liberals will be punished. Flynn is an example of what will happen to Trump backers in future.

I am amazed at the staying power of SST member Robert Willmann in even reporting this disgusting slow motion attempted lynching.

To put that another way, I now understand why suspects in the USA occasionally risk their lives by running from Police - they reason it is unlikely they will ever receive a fair trial.

The net effect of all these so called legal procedures is to destroy what little is left of America's international legal reputation that reached its highest point at the Nuremberg trials. That will not be to our advantage when, instead of shredding international treaties, we one day seek to negotiate the same.

Brian B , 16 June 2020 at 05:10 PM

The FBI is the secret police working on behalf of the interests of the oligarchs. The federal courts role is to implement and enforce the interests of the oligarchs. The Supreme Court's role is to come up with legal mumbo jumbo to justify this tyranny of the minority.

All the judges in this case (Sullivan, Wilkins, Rao) as merely proxy warriors, tools of the oligarchs. It's not coincidental they are also 'people of color'. This has been the m.o. of the oligarchs for over a hundred years. It was the Spingarn brothers (two lawyers from a rich Jewish family) who started the NAACP with their front man, the mixed race W.E.B. Du Bois. The first mission of the NAACP, and the task assigned to Du Bois, to destroy Booker T. Washington who had a large following in the black community and was advocating for more harmonious race relations. The oligarchs (Spingarns, et al.) running the NAACP needed to silence Washington because they wanted to create more racial division to gain power and subvert American culture. You can read more about this fascinating history in Catholic historian E. Michael Jones' "The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit" (Fidelity, 2008), pp. 679-715; 745-793; 831-843.

Here's a good interview where Jones touches on a lot of this in an interview with Dr. Kirk Meighoo (Indo Caribbean Diaspora News): https://youtu.be/gtdWbTkBQxk

[Jun 16, 2020] Ex-top FBI lawyer who took Steele dossier 'seriously' joins Twitter team

Jun 16, 2020 | www.washingtonexaminer.com

by Daniel Chaitin, Breaking News Editor & Jerry Dunleavy, Justice Department Reporter |

James Baker, who was general counsel for the bureau during the period surrounding the 2016 election, was welcomed by the social media giant's top lawyer Monday evening.

"Thrilled to welcome @thejimbaker to @Twitter as Deputy General Counsel. Jim is committed to our core principles of an open internet and freedom of expression, and brings experience navigating complex, global issues with a principled approach," said Twitter general counsel Sean Edgett.

"Thanks @edgett!! I'm very excited to join such a great team @Twitter doing such important work. Glad to be on board," Baker tweeted back.

Thanks @edgett !! I'm very excited to join such a great team @Twitter doing such important work. Glad to be on board. https://t.co/ypHOJNUtUD

-- Jim Baker (@thejimbaker) June 16, 2020

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/ex-top-fbi-lawyer-who-took-steele-dossier-seriously-joins-twitter

[Jun 14, 2020] FBI Knew Steele's Russia Research Connected To Clinton, Dems From Earliest Interactions

Jun 14, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

"The FBI agent who first interviewed Steele about his anti-Trump research in London on July 5, 2016 was aware immediately of a connection to Clinton..." Notes and emails that have been kept so far from Senate investigators show the FBI knew from its earliest interactions with Christopher Steele in July 2016 that his Russia research project on Donald Trump was connected to Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party .

The information, so far mentioned only glancingly and in footnotes of a Justice Department report, could provide the Senate Judiciary Committee with the most powerful evidence yet to confront witnesses about why the bureau concealed the political origins of Steele's work from the FISA court.

" So far the bureau is slow-walking this stuff, " a source familiar with senators' frustrations told Just the News. "We need to see these sort of documents before we question key witnesses."

Chairman Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) is seeking a vote later this week to authorize subpoenas that would compel the Christopher Wray-led FBI to produce witnesses and outstanding documents for the committee's investigation of the Russia investigators.

The effort to acquire the original source materials began last December after DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz released his explosive report blaming the FBI for 17 mistakes, omissions and acts of misconduct in seeking a FISA warrant against Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

While the headlines since that report have mostly focused on FISA abuses, Senate investigators have also zeroed in on a handful of little-noticed passages in Horowitz's narrative that reference original FBI source documents showing what agents and supervisors knew about Steele, the former MI6 agent, and the firm that hired him, Fusion GPS.

It wasn't until late October 2017 that the public and Congress first learned that the law firm Perkins Coie, on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign, hired Glenn Simpson's Fusion GPS research firm to have Steele delve into Trump's Russia connections .

And FBI officials have been vague in their explanations about when they knew Steele's research was tied to Clinton and the DNC and why they did not explicitly inform the FISA court that the Steele dossier used to secure the warrant was funded by Trump's election opponent.

But one passage and two footnotes in Horowitz's report that have largely escaped public attention suggest the FBI agent who first interviewed Steele about his anti-Trump research in London on July 5, 2016 was aware immediately of a connection to Clinton and that a separate office of the FBI passed along information from an informant by Aug. 2, 2016 that Simpson's Fusion GPS was connected to the DNC.

For instance, the agent in London contacted an Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) in the New York field office (NYFO) shortly after interviewing Steele and obtaining one of the anti-Trump memos that made up his dossier, according to information in Horowitz's report.

The agent sought advice July 13, 2016 on how to handle the sensitive election-year allegations from the supervisor in New York, where the FBI had already opened a probe of Page that would eventually be assumed by Washington headquarters.

"ASAC 1's notes from his July 13 call with Handling Agent 1 closely track the contents of Report 80, identify Simpson as a client of a law firm, and include the following: 'law firm works for the Republican party or Hillary and will use [the information described in Report 80] at some point,'" the Horowitz report stated. "ASAC 1 told us that he would not have made this notation if Handling Agent 1 had not stated it to him."

Footnote 223 in the report reveals a second line of evidence that came to the FBI from a confidential human source (CHS) suggesting the Steele-Simpson-Fusion project was tied to Democrats. That warning was immediately sent to Agent Peter Strzok, the case agent for the Crossfire Hurricane probe investigating whether Trump and Russia colluded to hijack the 2016 election.

"At approximately the same time that Handling Agent 1 was reporting information about Simpson to ASAC 1, an FBI agent from another FBI field office sent an email to his supervisor stating that he had been contacted by a former CHS who 'was contacted recently by a colleague who runs an investigative firm. The firm had been hired by two entities (the Democratic National Committee as well as another individual...not name[d]) to explore Donald J. Trump's longstanding ties to Russian entities.'"

"On or about August 2, 2016, this information was shared by a CD supervisor with the Section Chief of CD's Counterintelligence Analysis Section I (Intel Section Chief), who provided it that day to members of the Crossfire Hurricane team (then Section Chief Peter Strzok, SSA 1, and the Supervisory Intel Analyst,)" the footnote adds.

Senate investigators want to see the original emails and notes from these conversations as they plan to interrogate dozens of key witnesses in the Russia investigation about whether there was an intentional effort by he FBI to hide from the courts and Congress the flaws in their case, exculpatory evidence involving the Trump targets, and derogatory information about Steele's credibility.

In the end, Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence that any Americans, including anyone associated with the Trump campaign, colluded with Russia to influence the election.

And evidence that has since emerged shows the FBI determined early on that Steele's dossier included debunked, uncorroborated information and possible Russian disinformation aimed at smearing Trump , but agents proceeded anyway with their investigation.

The FBI notes and emails from summer 2016 are consistent with recent testimony that Steele gave in a civil case in London , where he testified he told the bureau his research and the Fusion GPS project was connected to Clinton .

" I presumed it was the Clinton campaign, and Glenn Simpson had indicated that . But I was not aware of the technicality of it being the DNC that was actually the client of Perkins Coie," Steele testified in March under questioning from lawyers for Russian bankers suing over his research.

Steele confirmed during that testimony that his notes of a 2016 FBI meeting showed he told agents about the Clinton connection.

Congressional investigators have now pieced together at least five instances early in the Russia case where the FBI was warned of the political origins and motives of Steele's work but failed to fully inform the courts.

Instead, the FBI's FISA warrant application told the judge Steele was working for a person interested in possibly defeating Trump but without disclosing it was the opposition research firm specifically hired by Clinton and the DNC through their law firm to find dirt on Trump in Russia.

Senate investigators are trying to determine whether that omission was part of a larger, intentional campaign to mislead the FISA court and Congress in order to keep the Russia investigation going despite a lack of evidence supporting the collusion theory.

" Look, we've got to get to the bottom of this, to find out how they ended up with this dossier, how it was believed to be accurate, when did they know it was not accurate? " explained Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) one of the key members of the Judiciary Committee.

[Jun 12, 2020] Russia, Russia, Russia - Obama Apparatchiks Blame Moscow For America's Riots

Jun 12, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Russia, Russia, Russia - Obama Apparatchiks Blame Moscow For America's Riots by Tyler Durden Thu, 06/11/2020 - 22:45 Authored by Phillip Giraldi via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

If one ventures into the vast wasteland of American television it is possible to miss the truly ridiculous content that is promoted as news by the major networks. One particular feature of media-speak in the United States is the tendency of the professional reporting punditry to go seeking for someone to blame every time some development rattles the National Security plus Wall Street bubble that we all unfortunately live in. The talking heads have to such an extent sold the conclusion that China deliberately released a lethal virus to destroy western democracies that no one objects when Beijing is elevated from being a commercial competitor and political adversary to an enemy of the United States. One sometimes even sees that it is all a communist plot. Likewise, the riots taking place all across the U.S. are being milked for what it's worth by the predominantly liberal media, both to influence this year's election and to demonstrate how much the news oligarchs really love black people.

As is often the case, there are a number of inconsistencies in the narrative. If one looks at the numerous photos of the protests in many parts of the country, it is clear that most of the demonstrators are white, not black, which might suggest that even if there are significant pockets of racism in the United States there is also a strong condemnation of that fact by many white people. And this in a country that elected a black man president not once, but twice, and that black president had a cabinet that included a large number of African-Americans.

Also, to further obfuscate any understanding of what might be taking place, the media and chattering class is obsessed with finding white supremacists as instigators of at least some of the actual violence. It would be a convenient explanation for the Social Justice Warriors that proliferate in the media, though it is supported currently by little actual evidence that anyone is exploiting right-wing groups.

Simultaneously, some on the right, to include the president, are blaming legitimately dubbed domestic terrorist group Antifa , which is perhaps more plausible, though again evidence of organized instigation appears to be on the thin side. Still another source of the mayhem apparently consists of some folks getting all excited by the turmoil and breaking windows and tossing Molotov cocktails, as did two upper middle class attorneys in Brooklyn last week.

Nevertheless, the search goes on for a guilty party. Explaining the demonstrations and riots as the result of the horrible killing of a black man by police which has revulsed both black and white Americans would be too simple to satisfy the convoluted yearnings of the likes of Wolf Blitzer and Rachel Maddow.

Which brings us to Russia. How convenient is it to fall back on Russia which, together with the Chinese, is reputedly already reported to be working hard to subvert the November U.S. election. And what better way to do just that than to call on one of the empty-heads of the Barack Obama administration, whose foreign policy achievements included the destruction of a prosperous Libya and the killing of four American diplomats in Benghazi, the initiation of kinetic hostilities with Syria, the failure to achieve a reset with Russia and the assassinations of American citizens overseas without any due process. But Obama sure did talk nice and seem pleasant unlike the current occupant of the White House.

The predictable Wolf Blitzer had a recent interview with perhaps the emptiest head of all the empowered women who virtually ran the Obama White House. Susan Rice was U.N. Ambassador and later National Security Advisor under Barack Obama. Before that she was a Clinton appointee who served as Undersecretary of State for African Affairs. She is reportedly currently being considered as a possible running mate for Joe Biden as she has all the necessary qualifications being a woman and black.

While Ambassador and National Security Advisor, Rice had the reputation of being extremely abrasive . She ran into trouble when she failed to be convincing in support of the Obama administration exculpatory narrative regarding what went wrong in Benghazi when the four Americans, to include the U.S. Ambassador, were killed.

In her interview with Blitzer, Rice said:

"We have peaceful protesters focused on the very real pain and disparities that we're all wrestling with that have to be addressed, and then we have extremists who've come to try to hijack those protests and turn them into something very different. And they're probably also, I would bet based on my experience, I'm not reading the intelligence these days, but based on my experience this is right out of the Russian playbook as well. I would not be surprised to learn that they have fomented some of these extremists on both sides using social media. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they are funding it in some way, shape, or form."

It should be noted that Rice, a devout Democrat apparatchik, produced no evidence whatsoever that the Russians were or have been involved in "fomenting" the reactions to the George Floyd demonstrations and riots beyond the fact that Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden all believe that Moscow is responsible for everything. Clinton in particular hopes that some day someone will actually believe her when she claims that she lost to Trump in 2016 due to Russia. Even Robert Mueller, he of the Russiagate Inquiry, could not come up with any real evidence suggesting that the relatively low intensity meddling in the election by the Kremlin had any real impact. Nor was there any suggestion that Moscow was actually colluding with the Trump campaign, nor with its appointees, to include National Security Advisor designate Michael Flynn.

Fortunately, no one took much notice of Rice based on her "experience," or her judgement insofar as she possesses that quality. Glenn Greenwald responded :

"This is fuxxing lunacy -- conspiratorial madness of the worst kind -- but it's delivered by a Serious Obama Official and a Respected Mainstream Newscaster so it's all fine This is Infowars-level junk. Should Twitter put a 'False' label on this? Or maybe a hammer and sickle emoji?"

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Maria Zakharova accurately described the Rice performance as a "perfect example of barefaced propaganda." She wrote on her Facebook page "Are you trying to play the Russia card again? You've been playing too long – come back to reality" instead of using "dirty methods of information manipulation" despite "having absolutely no facts to prove [the] allegations go out and face your people, look them in the eye and try telling them that they are being controlled by the Russians through YouTube and Facebook. And I will sit back and watch 'American exceptionalism' in action."

It should be assumed that the Republicans will be coming up with their own candidate for "fomenting" the riots and demonstrations. It already includes Antifa, of course, but is likely to somehow also involve the Chinese, who will undoubtedly be seen as destroying American democracy through the double whammy of a plague and race riots. Speaking at the White House, National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien warned about foreign incitement , including not only the Chinese, but also Iran and even Zimbabwe. And, oh yes, Russia.

One thing is for sure, no matter who is ultimately held accountable, no one in the Congress or White House will be taking the blame for anything.

[Jun 11, 2020] The color revolution against Trump including Flynn entrapment was all directed by President Obama -- Senator Rand Paul

Jun 11, 2020 | www.youtube.com

Rand Paul on heated Senate exchange with Dr. Fauci - YouTube

Ginette Jonas , 3 weeks ago

Asking Obama even under oath is a waste of breath. We all know he is a liar.

Matt B , 3 weeks ago

Asking obama a question and expecting a truthful answer is like asking for ice water in hell. It's never gonna happen.

[Jun 11, 2020] Trumped-Up chnges of Flynn as this was one of the cornerstone of Russiagate

Jun 11, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

"Trumped-Up": Former Judge's Flynn Filing Another Example Of "Irregularity" In The Age Of Rage by Tyler Durden Thu, 06/11/2020 - 10:59 Twitter Facebook Reddit Email Print

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Retired federal judge John Gleeson was recently appointed by U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan to argue against dismissal of the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and to advise him on whether the court should substitute its own charge of charge for Flynn for now claiming innocence.

I have been highly critical of Sullivan's orders and particularly the importation of third parties to make arguments that neither party supports in a criminal case.

https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.390.0_en.html#goog_1316842970

https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.390.0_en.html#goog_1769897594 NOW PLAYING

Flynn asks appeals court to toss criminal charges

Now Gleeson has filed a brief that confirms the worst fears that many of us had about his appointment. Gleeson assails what he called "a trumped-up accusation of government misconduct." The ultimate position advocated in Gleeson's arguments would be a nightmare for criminal defendants, criminal defense counsel and civil libertarians. Indeed, as discussed below, Gleeson was previously reversed as a judge for usurping the authority of prosecutors.

Gleeson actually makes the Red Queen in "Alice in Wonderland" look like an ACLU lawyer. After all she just called for "Sentence First–Verdict Afterward" Gleeson is dispensing with any need for verdict on perjury, just the sentence. However, since these arguments are viewed as inimical to the Trump Administration, many seem blind to the chilling implications .

In his 82-page filing Gleeson notably rejects the idea of a perjury charge, which I previously criticized as a dangerous and ridiculous suggestion despite the support from many legal analysts. He notes that such a move would be "irregular" and

"I respectfully suggest that the best response to Flynn's perjury is not to respond in kind. Ordering a defendant to show cause why he should not be held in contempt based on a perjurious effort to withdraw a guilty plea is not what judges typically do. To help restore confidence in the integrity of the judicial process, the Court should return regularity to that process."

This seems a carefully crafted way of saying that the many calls for a perjury charge are as out of line with prior cases as what these same critics allege was done by the Justice Department.

However, Gleeson is not striking an independent or principled position. Rather, he is suggesting that the Court simply treat Flynn as a perjurer, punish him as a perjurer, but not give him a trial as a perjurer. Thus, he is advocating that the court "should take Flynn's perjury into account in sentencing him on the offense to which he has already admitted guilty."

Thus, according to Gleeson, the Court should first sentence a defendant on a crime that the prosecutors no longer believe occurred in a case that prosecutors believe (and many of us have argued) was marred by their own misconduct. He would then punish the defendant further by treating his support for dismissal and claims of coercion as perjury. That according to former judge Gleeson is a return to "regularity." I have been a criminal defense attorney for decades and I have never even heard of anything like that. It is not "regular." It is ridiculous.

Gleeson himself came in for criticism in the filing by Flynn's counsel who note that the former judge appointed by Sullivan not only publicly advocated against Flynn's position but as a judge was chastised by the Second Circuit for misusing his position to grandstand in a case involving a deferred prosecution agreement. The defense cited HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 863 F.3d 125, 136 (2d Cir. 2017) where the Second Circuit reversed Gleeson for exaggerating his role in a way that "would be to turn the presumption of regularity on its head."

The similarities to the present case are notable, including arguments that Gleeson intruded upon prosecutorial discretion. The Second Circuit held:

"By sua sponte invoking its supervisory power at the outset of this case to oversee the government's entry into and implementation of the DPA, the district court impermissibly encroached on the Executive's constitutional mandate to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." U.S. Const. art. II, § 3. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Department of Justice is entitled to a presumption of regularity -- that is, a presumption that it is lawfully discharging its duties. Though that presumption can of course be rebutted in such a way that warrants judicial intervention, it cannot be preemptively discarded based on the mere theoretical possibility of misconduct. Absent unusual circumstances not present here, a district court's role vis-à-vis a DPA is limited to arraigning the defendant, granting a speedy trial waiver if the DPA does not represent an improper attempt to circumvent the speedy trial clock, and adjudicating motions or disputes as they arise."

The Court acknowledged that there may be cases warranting great judicial involvement. However, the court found that Gleeson had acted on his own presumptions and not evidence. It also reaffirmed that there is a presumption in favor of the prosecution that he ignored:

"The district court justified its concededly "novel" exercise of supervisory power in this context by observing that "it is easy to imagine circumstances in which a deferred prosecution agreement, or the implementation of such an agreement, so transgresses the bounds of lawfulness or propriety as to warrant judicial intervention to protect the integrity of the Court." HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 2013 WL 3306161, at *6. We agree that it is not difficult to imagine such circumstances. But the problem with this reasoning is that it runs headlong into the presumption of regularity that federal courts are obliged to ascribe to prosecutorial conduct and decisionmaking. That presumption is rooted in the principles that undergird our constitutional structure. In particular, "because the United States Attorneys are charged with taking care that the laws are faithfully executed, there is a `presumption of regularity support[ing] their prosecutorial decisions and, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties.'" United States v. Sanchez, 517 F.3d 651 , 671 (2d Cir. 2008) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 , 464, 116 S.Ct. 1480, 134 L.Ed.2d 687 (1996)). In resting its exercise of supervisory authority on hypothesized scenarios of egregious misconduct, the district court turned this presumption on its head. See HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 2013 WL 3306161, at *6 ("[C]onsider a situation where the current monitor needs to be replaced. What if the replacement's only qualification for the position is that he or she is an intimate acquaintance of the prosecutor proposing the appointment?" (citation omitted)).

Rather than presume "in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary" that the prosecutors administering the DPA were "properly discharg[ing] their official duties," the district court invoked its supervisory power -- and encroached on the Executive's prerogative -- based on the mere theoretical possibility that the prosecutors might one day abdicate those duties. Sanchez, 517 F.3d at 671 (internal quotation mark omitted)."

Gleeson can now argue that he found the case that he did not establish as a judge. However, his brief is filled with sweeping presumptions against the motivations and analysis of the Justice Department, even though many outsiders agree with that analysis. The Flynn case is based on statements that even the FBI agents reportedly did not believe were intentional lies. Moreover, there is a clear basis to question the materiality element to the criminal charge. People can disagree reasonably on both points, but that is the point. The Justice Department has decided that it agrees that the case is flawed in line with the analysis of various experts. The court might not agree with that interpretation and many other experts may vehemently oppose it. However, it is a legitimate legal argument that cannot be substituted by the Court for its own preferences.

None of this seems to penetrate the analysis of Gleeson who shows the same aggrandizement of judicial authority that got him reversed as a judge. He argues for a court potentially sending someone to jail when the prosecutors no longer believe he is guilty of a crime and believe that he was the victim of bias and abuse.

Imagine what that would portend for future criminal defendants who want to argue coercion and abuse. Their counsel would have to warn them that they could be sent to prison for a longer period for perjury even if the prosecutors agree with them. Moreover, Gleeson believes that they should not even be afforded a trial as perjurers, just treated as perjurers.

That is being claimed in the name of "regularity." Unfortunately, such analysis has become all too regular in this age of rage.

Here is the filing: Gleeson filing

[Jun 10, 2020] Eventually even the emperors were idiots. Some of them think they can compartmentalize competencies, so you see these absolutely castrated and chemically autistic nerds working the buttons in technical academia

Jun 10, 2020 | www.unz.com

anon8383892 , says: Show Comment June 10, 2020 at 5:53 pm GMT

@Alfa158 It won't work though. There isn't a significant generation of 'hyper-competent' people amidst a suppressed populace. Instead you get idiocracy, where even the elites show signs of mental impairment, increasingly as time goes by. The Romans were rendered idiotic by arbitrary and ruthless imperial autocracy, which scythed through families and ancient clans, leaving only careerist slaves in its wake.

Eventually even the emperors were idiots. Some of them think they can compartmentalize competencies, so you see these absolutely castrated and chemically autistic nerds working the buttons in technical academia. You can produce bureaucrats of technocracy this way, but nothing much new will come of it.

Elon Musk is not the most competent. He is the scion of a diamond magnate family if I'm not mistaken. He is a silly man, nothing against him, but most of us don't admire him all.

We feel sorry for people that have this kind of cultish infatuation with the man, his golf-carts, and space-rockets. He is complete with our own Marie Antoinette, Grimes, each an absolute clown, clown royals for a clown society. Idiocracy.

Hilarious to see Alex Jones pimping him as like a new Howard Hughes. Most of the alt press is fizzled, co-opted or neutralized in some way. Infatuation with big, great people, heroes from the heavens of the stars, is a pathology, whether it's directed at Trump or Bernie or whoever.

People need to cultivate the hero within, and generate the ground level sovereignty that could restore (from the earth and man up) a free republic. There are a lot of authority figures from the deathstar on Youtube telling us how they are patriots and are fighting back. May be. Could also be the enemy fucking with us. Really no way to know, which again, is a motivating factor for de-centralization and vesting sovereignty into free men, free communities, and up. The federal entity is necessary, but cannot hover self-sufficiently over a devastated (by corporate dictat -- for human resource extraction) populace. If the states withdraw their channeled sovereignty from the federal entity, it should collapse. Otherwise it is a foreign entity. To the extent we are ruled by a tiny cabal of vampires, we lose justification for the belief that our rulers are ours at all. Such an arrangement of power presents an attractive target (minimal points of failure) for a strategic adversarial compromise.

One reason I don't want people being anti-antifa, is I understand most of those people just want local self-governance. Food-not-bombs people mostly just want to have a nice little community garden and not be turned into slaves by the system. These are the 'anarchists'. I've met them, mostly they are not so bad. It's a lot of divide-and-conquer going on.

Apologies for the stream-of-consciousness; I've posted some of this before, just pounding on the nail.

[Jun 06, 2020] New questions about Obama s interest in Clinton probe

Now "Horrible Lisa" re-surfaced in MSNBC. Not surprising one bit. This is a deep state retirement package...
Notable quotes:
"... Barack Obama wanted to 'know everything' the FBI was 'doing' according to newly released text messages between FBI lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page ..."
Feb 07, 2018 | www.youtube.com

Barack Obama wanted to 'know everything' the FBI was 'doing' according to newly released text messages between FBI lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page ; reaction and analysis on 'The Five.'

Rick Spiedel , 2 years ago

Slime, slime and more slime. Obama headed up the whole thing. Zero integrity there.

The leaders of the Democratic Party, Barrak Obama, Hillary Clinton, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donna Brazile, Chuck Schummer, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Shiff and his sisters father-in-law George Soros.

Here is what this all boils down to. Hillary Clinton email to Donna Brazile, Oct., 17, 2016. "If that f*cking ba*tard wins, we're all going to hang from nooses! You better fix this sh*t!"

[Jun 06, 2020] Lisa Page Hired By NBC And MSNBC As Legal Analyst (No, Not The Onion!) by Jonathan Turley

This is just the Deep State retirement package.
So another rabid neocon is hired by neocon MSM and instantly was interviewed by neocon Madcow, blaming Russia for the coup d'état against Trump that Obama administration with her help launched. Nothing new, nothing interesting.
Notable quotes:
"... Page testified that even by May 2017, they did not find such evidence that "it still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing" to connect Trump and Russia. ..."
"... There was little reason to believe in this "insurance policy" given the absence of evidence. Yet, Page still viewed the effort led by Strzok as an indemnity in case of election. ..."
"... The Inspector General found that, soon after the first surveillance was ordered, FBI agents began to cast doubts on the veracity of the Steele document ..."
"... it was quickly established that no credible evidence existed to support the continuance of the investigation -- which Page called their "insurance policy." ..."
"... Page also left out her other emails including calling Trump foul names while praising Hillary Clinton and other opponents. Even if she were not involved in the ongoing controversy, her emails show her to be fervently opposed to both Trump and the Republicans. ..."
Jun 06, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Lisa Page, the former FBI lawyer who resigned in the midst of the Russian investigation scandal, has been hired a NBC and MSNBC as a legal analyst. The move continues a trend started by CNN in hiring Trump critics, including officials terminated for misconduct, to offer legal analysis on the Trump Administration. We have previously discussed the use by CNN of figures like Andrew McCabe to give legal analysis despite his being referred for possible criminal charges by the Inspector General for repeatedly lying to federal investigators. The media appears intent on fulfilling the narrative of President Trump that it is overly biased and hostile in its analysis. Indeed, it now appears a marketing plan that has subsumed the journalistic mission.

Page appeared with Rachel Maddow and began her work as the new legal analyst by discussing her own controversial work at the FBI. Page is still part of investigation by various committees and the investigation being conducted by U.S Attorney John Durham.

I have denounced President Trump for his repeated and often vicious references to Page's affair with fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok . There is no excuse for such personal abuse. I also do not view her emails as proof of her involvement in a deep-state conspiracy as opposed to clearly inappropriate and partisan communications for someone involved in the investigation. Indeed, Page did not appear a particularly significant figure in the investigation or even the FBI as a whole. She was primarily dragged into the controversy due to her relationship with Strzok.

However, Trump has legitimate reason to object (as he has) to this hiring as do those who expect analysis from experts without a personal stake in the ongoing investigations. It has long been an ethical rule in American journalism not to pay for interviews. Either NBC is paying for exclusive rights to Page in interviews like the one on Maddow's show or it is hiring an expert with a personal stake in these controversies to give legal analysis. Neither is a good option for a network that represented the gold standard in journalism with figures like John Chancellor, Edwin Newman, and Roger Mudd.

It is not that Page disagrees with the Administration on legal matters or these cases. It is the fact that she is personally involved in the ongoing stories and has shown intense and at times unhinged bias against Trump in communications with Strzok and others. She is the news story, or at least a significant part of it.

Andrew A. Weissmann has also been retained as a legal analyst by NBC and MSNBC. While Weissmann has been raised by Republicans as a lightening rod for his perceived partisan bias as a member of the Mueller team, he does not have the type of personal conflict or interest in these investigations. Weissmann is likely to be raised in the hearing over the next weeks into the Flynn case in terms of prosecutorial decisions. (It is worth noting that Fox hired Trey Gowdy at an analyst even though he would be commenting on matters that came before his committee in these investigations.) In terms of balance, however, the appearance of both Page and Weissmann giving analysis on the Administration's response to the protests is a bit jarring for some .

Page was an unknown attorney in the FBI before she was forced into the public eye due to her emails with Strzok. Her emails fueled the controversy over bias in the FBI. They were undeniably biased and strident including the now famous reference to the FBI investigation as "insurance" in case Trump was elected. In the email in August 2016, here's what Strzok wrote:

I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office [Andrew McCabe is the FBI deputy director and married to a Democratic Virginia State Senate candidate] for 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

What particularly concerns me is that Page has come up recently in new disclosures in the Flynn case . In newly released document is an email from former FBI lawyer Lisa Page to former FBI special agent Peter Strzok, who played the leadership role in targeting Flynn. In the email, Page suggests that Flynn could be set up by making a passing reference to a federal law that criminalizes lies to federal investigators. She suggested to Strzok that "it would be an easy way to just casually slip that in." So this effort was not about protecting national security or learning critical intelligence. As I have noted, the email reinforces other evidence that it was about bagging Flynn for the case in the legal version of a canned trophy hunt.

It appears that, on January 4, 2017, the FBI's Washington Field Office issued a "Closing Communication" indicating that the bureau was terminating "CROSSFIRE RAZOR" -- the newly disclosed codename for the investigation of Flynn. That is when Strzok intervened. The FBI had investigated Flynn and various databases and determined that "no derogatory information was identified in FBI holdings." Due to this conclusion, the Washington Field Office concluded that Flynn "was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case." On that same day, however, fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok instructed the FBI case manager handling CROSSFIRE RAZOR to keep the investigation open, telling him "Hey don't close RAZOR." The FBI official replied, "Okay." Strzok then confirmed again, "Still open right? And you're the case agent? Going to send you [REDACTED] for the file." The FBI official confirmed: "I have not closed it Still open." Strzok responded "Rgr. I couldn't raise [REDACTED] earlier. Pls keep it open for now."

Strzok also texted Page:

"Razor still open. :@ but serendipitously good, I guess. You want those chips and Oreos?" Page replied "Phew. But yeah that's amazing that he is still open. Good, I guess."

Strzok replied "Yeah, our utter incompetence actually helps us. 20% of the time, I'm guessing :)"

Page will be the focus of much of the upcoming inquiries both in Congress and the Justice Department as will CNN's legal analyst Andrew McCabe.

In her Maddow segment, Page attempts to defuse the "insurance policy" email as all part of her commitment to protecting the nation, not her repeatedly stated hatred for Trump. In what is now a signature for MSNBC, Maddow did not ask a single probative question but actually helped her frame the response. Even in echo journalistic circles, the echo between the two was deafening.

Page explained"

"It's an analogy. First of all, it's not my text, so I'm sort of interpreting what I believed he meant back three years ago, but we're using an analogy. We're talking about whether or not we should take certain investigative steps or not based on the likelihood that he's going to be president or not."

You have to keep in mind if President Trump doesn't become president, the national-security risk, if there is somebody in his campaign associated with Russia, plummets. You're not so worried about what Russia's doing vis-à-vis a member of his campaign if he's not president because you're not going to have access to classified information, you're not going to have access to sources and methods in our national-security apparatus. So, the 'insurance policy' was an analogy. It's like an insurance policy when you're 40. You don't expect to die when you're 40, yet you still have an insurance policy."

Maddow then decided to better frame the spin:

"So, don't just hope that he's not going to be elected and therefore not press forward with the investigation hoping, but rather press forward with the investigation just in case he does get in there."

Page simply responds " Exactly ."

Well, not exactly.

Page is leaving out that, as new documents show, there never was credible evidence of any Russian collusion. Recently, the Congress unsealed testimony from a long line of Obama officials who denied ever seeing such evidence, including some who publicly suggested that they had .

Indeed, Page testified that even by May 2017, they did not find such evidence that "it still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing" to connect Trump and Russia.

There was little reason to believe in this "insurance policy" given the absence of evidence. Yet, Page still viewed the effort led by Strzok as an indemnity in case of election.

The Inspector General found that, soon after the first surveillance was ordered, FBI agents began to cast doubts on the veracity of the Steele document and suggested it might be disinformation from Russian intelligence. The IG said that, due to the relatively low standard required for a FISA application, he could not say that the original application was invalid but that it was quickly established that no credible evidence existed to support the continuance of the investigation -- which Page called their "insurance policy."

Page also left out her other emails including calling Trump foul names while praising Hillary Clinton and other opponents. Even if she were not involved in the ongoing controversy, her emails show her to be fervently opposed to both Trump and the Republicans.

Bias however has become the coin of the realm for some networks. Why have echo journalism when you can have an analyst simply repeat her position directly? For viewers who become irate at the appearance of opposing views ( as vividly demonstrated in the recent apology of the New York Times for publishing a conservative opinion column ), having a vehemently biased and personally invested analyst is reassuring. It is not like Page will suddenly blurt out a defense of Flynn or Trump or others in the Administration.

With Page, NBC has crossed the Rubicon and left its objectivity scattered on the far bank.

we_the_people, 11 minutes ago (Edited)

Nothing says professional journalism like hiring a dirty whore who was an active participant in a coup to overthrow a duly elected President!

The level of insanity is truly amazing!

Heroism, 14 minutes ago

The MSM gets more Orwellian by the day, and today is like tomorrow.

More proof that corruption and deceit pay, big time. Surely, at some point viewers and voters

will say, "Enough!" and hit these purveyors of lies where it hurts--in the ratings and pocketbooks. Meanwhile,

the people will just willingly suffer..............

[Jun 06, 2020] Somebody Cooked Up The Plot The Hunt For The Origins Of The Russia Collusion Narrative

Jun 06, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

"Somebody Cooked Up The Plot": The Hunt For The Origins Of The Russia Collusion Narrative by Tyler Durden Fri, 06/05/2020 - 22:40 Authored by John Solomon via JustTheNews.com,

Hollywood once gave us the Cold War thriller called "The Hunt for Red October ." And now the U.S. Senate and its Republican committee chairmen in Washington have launched a different sort of hunt made for the movies.

Armed with subpoenas, Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Ron Johnson, R-Wis., want to interrogate a slew of Obama-era intelligence and law enforcement officials hoping to identify who invented and sustained the bogus Russia collusion narrative that hampered Donald Trump's early presidency.

And while Graham and Johnson aren't exactly Sean Connery and Alec Baldwin, they and their GOP cohorts have a theory worthy of a Tom Clancy novel-turned-movie: The Russia collusion investigation was really a plot by an outgoing administration to thwart the new president.

"What we had was a very quiet insurrection that took place," Sen. Marsha Blackburn, the Tennessee Republican, told Just the News on Thursday as she described the theory of Senate investigators. "And there were probably dozens of people at DOJ and FBI that knew what was going on.

"But they hate Donald Trump so much that they were willing to work under the cloak of law and try to use that to shield them so that they could take an action on their disgust," she added. "They wanted to prohibit him from being president. And when he won, they wanted to render him ineffective at doing his job."

For much of the last two years, the exact theory that congressional Republicans held about the bungled, corrupt Russia probe -- where collusion between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin was ultimately disproven and FBI misconduct was confirmed -- was always evolving.

But after explosive testimony this week from former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who openly accused the FBI of keeping him in the dark about flaws, failures and exculpatory evidence in the case, the GOP believes it may prove the Russia case was a conspiracy to use the most powerful law enforcement and intelligence tools in America to harm Trump.

Two years of declassified memos are now in evidence that show:

That is just a handful of the key evidentiary anchors of the storyline Republicans have developed. Now they want to know who helped carry out each of these acts.

"There are millions of Americans pretty upset about this," Graham said this week. "There are people on our side of the aisle who believe this investigation, Crossfire Hurricane, was one of the most corrupt, biased criminal investigations in the history of the FBI. And we'd like to see something done about it ."

Graham tried to take action to approve 50-plus subpoenas from the Senate Judiciary Committee to witnesses on Thursday but was forced to delay a week.

Johnson, meanwhile, successfully secured about three dozen subpoenas to get documents and interviews with key witnesses from his Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Evidence is growing, Johnson said, that there was not a "peaceful and cooperative" transition between the Obama and Trump administrations in 2017.

"The conduct we know that occurred during the transition should concern everyone and absolutely warrants further investigation," he said.

With Rosenstein's testimony now behind them, the senators have some lofty targets for interviews or testimony going forward, including fired FBI Director James Comey, his deputy Andrew McCabe, ex-CIA Director John Brennan, and the former chiefs of staff for President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.

Blackburn said during an interview with the John Solomon Reports podcast that the goal of the subpoenas and witnesses was simple: to identify and punish the cast of characters who sustained a Russia collusion narrative that was never supported by the evidence.

"Somebody cooked up the plot," she explained.

"Somebody gave the go-ahead to order, to implement it. Somebody did the dirty work and carried it out -- and probably a lot of somebodies. And what frustrates the American people is that nobody has been held accountable.

"Nobody has been indicted. Nobody has been charged, and they're all getting major book deals and are profiting by what is criminal activity, if you look at the statutes that are on the book, and if you say we're going to abide by the rule of law and be a nation of laws."

For Blackburn, identifying and punishing those responsible is essential for two goals: to deter anyone in the future from abusing the FBI and FISA process again and to ensure Americans there isn't a two-tiered system of justice in America.

"I think when you Google [Russia collusion] in future years, you're going to see a screenshot of this cast of characters that cooked this up, because it is the ultimate plot," Blackburn said.

[Jun 06, 2020] MSNBC hires controversial ex-FBI lawyer Lisa Page as legal analyst

Jun 06, 2020 | www.foxnews.com

MSNBC announced on Friday that it has hired former FBI lawyer Lisa Page as an NBC News and MSNBC national security and legal analyst.

On Friday night, President Trump blasted MSNBC's latest hiring decision.

"You must be kidding??? This is a total disgrace!" Trump tweeted.

Page made her debut as an MSNBC analyst during "Deadline: White House" alongside former Mueller probe prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who appears to have been rehired by the network after they severed ties after it was announced he was hosting a Biden fundraiser, which was ultimately canceled.

Both Page and Weissmann offered legal analysis on the ongoing feud between President Trump and Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser over the presence of outside troops.

BROADCAST NETS SPEND OVER 700 MINUTES ON GEORGE FLOYD PROTESTS, 5 MINUTES ON RIOT DEATHS

Page is best known for her publicized text exchanges with her lover, ex-FBI agent Peter Strzok, which revealed extreme animosity towards Trump during the 2016 election and created the perception that their political views fueled the Russia investigation.

The texts that sounded the alarm for GOP lawmakers was Strzok's reference to an "insurance policy" that was discussed at Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe's office. Page denied that meant the FBI had plotted to remove Trump if he won the election.

Last December, Page broke her silence and made her television debut on MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show," where she was asked about the "insurance policy" text.

NY TIMES EDITOR BARI WEISS SAYS THERE'S A 'CIVIL WAR' WITHIN PAPER AMID TOM COTTON UPROAR

"It's an analogy," Page explained. "First of all, it's not my text, so I'm sort of interpreting what I believed he meant back three years ago, but we're using an analogy. We're talking about whether or not we should take certain investigative steps or not based on the likelihood that he's going to be president or not."

She continued, "You have to keep in mind ... if President Trump doesn't become president, the national-security risk, if there is somebody in his campaign associated with Russia, plummets. You're not so worried about what Russia's doing vis-à-vis a member of his campaign if he's not president because you're not going to have access to classified information, you're not going to have access to sources and methods in our national-security apparatus. So, the 'insurance policy' was an anology. It's like an insurance policy when you're 40. You don't expect to die when you're 40, yet you still have an insurance policy."

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow chimed in, "So, don't just hope that he's not going to be elected and therefore not press forward with the investigation hoping, but rather press forward with the investigation just in case he does get in there."

"Exactly," Page replied.

... ... ...

Fox News' Brian Flood contributed to this report.

[Jun 06, 2020] The Worse the Better Why Antifa Wants Trump to Win by James Pinkerton

Jun 04, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

many thoughtful observers on the right -- including Ross Douthat , Rod Dreher , and Dan McCarthy -- have pointed out that the current protesting and rioting is likely to help Donald Trump and the Republicans. That is, the ongoing violence, fomented by leftist elements, including Black Lives Matter and Antifa, could boomerang against Joe Biden and his Democrats.

However, the planted assumption here is that the vandals and looters want Joe Biden to win. And that's not so obvious. Indeed, maybe the truth is just the reverse.

To be sure, the protesters and looters all hate Donald Trump. And yet actions speak louder than words, and their actions on the street suggest a kind of anti-matter affection for the Bad Orange Man. That is, each act of violence obscures the memory of George Floyd, who died at the knee of a Minneapolis policeman, and raises the prospect of a national backlash against both peaceful protestors and violent looters, offering a ray of hope for Trump.

Indeed, Douthat quotes Princeton political scientist Omar Wasow, whose research shows that back in the 1960s, peaceful civil rights protests helped the Democrats, while violent protests (also known as riots) hurt the Democrats. In Wasow's words, "proximity to black-led nonviolent protests increased white Democratic vote-share whereas proximity to black-led violent protests caused substantively important declines." And that's how Republican Richard Nixon defeated Democrat Hubert Humphrey in 1968.

We might add that Humphrey was a lot like Biden. Both were gabby senators turned vice presidents, regarded as reliable liberals, not as hard-edged leftists.

So now we're starting to see where Biden, a pillar of the smug liberal establishment -- he once told a group of donors that if he's elected, "nothing would fundamentally change" -- veers away from the far-left ideologues amidst the mobs.

Let's let Andy Ngo –who has shed blood , literally, while chronicling bullyboy leftists -- define the ideology of Antifa and Black Lives Matter: "At its core, BLM is a revolutionary Marxist ideology. Alicia Garza, Opal Tometi and Patrisse Cullors, BLM's founders, are self-identified Marxists who make no secret of their worship of communist terrorists and fugitives, like Assata Shakur. They want the abolition of law enforcement and capitalism. They want regime change and the end of the rule of law. Antifa has partnered with Black Lives Matter, for now, to help accelerate the breakdown of society."

We can observe that by "regime change," these revolutionary leftists don't mean replacing Trump with Biden -- they mean replacing capitalism and the Constitution. In the meantime, if one looks at a Twitter feed identified by Ngo as an Antifa hub, It's Going Down , one sees plenty of anti-Trump rhetoric, along with general hard leftism, but nothing in support of Biden.

However, here's something interesting: The Biden campaign shows no small degree of support for the street radicals. As Reuters reported on May 30,

"At least 13 Biden campaign staff members posted on Twitter on Friday and Saturday that they made donations to the Minnesota Freedom Fund, which opposes the practice of cash bail, or making people pay to avoid pre-trial imprisonment. The group uses donations to pay bail fees in Minneapolis."

We might observe that these 13 employees posted their pro-rioter sympathies on Twitter; in other words, not only did they make no effort to hide their donations, but they also actively bragged about them.

It could be argued, of course, that these are just 13 vanguard employees out of a campaign staff that numbers in the hundreds, maybe even thousands. And yet as the Reuters piece adds, Team Biden is not practicing political distancing from its in-house radicals: "Biden campaign spokesman Andrew Bates said in a statement to Reuters that the former vice president opposes the institution of cash bail as a 'modern day debtors prison.'"

When pressed by Reuters -- which is not exactly Fox News in its editorial stance -- the official spox for Middle Class Joe was unwilling to say more: "The campaign declined to answer questions on whether the donations were coordinated within the campaign, underscoring the politically thorny nature of the sometimes violent protests."

So we can see: The Biden campaign is trying to maintain its equipoise between liberals and mobs, even as the former is bleeding into the latter. Indeed, a look at Biden's Twitter feed shows the same port-side balancing act. On May 30, for instance, he tweeted , "If we are complacent, if we are silent, we are complicit in perpetuating these cycles of violence. None of us can turn away. We all have an obligation to speak out."

There's enough ambiguity here, as well as in his other tweets, to leave everyone parsing, and guessing, as to what, exactly, Biden is saying -- except, as he said on June 2, that he opposes the use of chokeholds to restrain violent suspects, and also opposes more equipment for the police. The only other thing we know for sure is that he hasn't tweeted an iota of specific sympathy for the people other than George Floyd who have died in the recent violence. One such is Patrick Underwood , an African American employee of the Federal Protective Service; he was shot and killed in Oakland, Calif. on May 29.

Yet while the Biden campaign attempts to keep its relationship with Antifa and its ilk fuzzy, other Democrats have made themselves clear. For instance, in 2018, then-Congressman Keith Ellison tweeted out a photograph of himself holding a copy of a book, Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, which the radical-chic types at The New Yorker described as "A how-to for would-be activists, and a record of advice from anti-Fascist organizers past and present." Ellison is now the attorney general for the state of Minnesota.

And on May 31, Ellison's son, Jeremiah, a Minneapolis city councilman, tweeted , "I hereby declare, officially, my support for ANTIFA."

Still, if the Democrats can't quite quit Antifa, most are smart enough to recognize the danger of being too closely associated with hooligans and radicals. Moreover, they need some theory of the case they wish to make, which is that they loudly support the protests, even as they mumble about the violence.

And Democrats have found their favored argument -- the one that conveniently takes them off the hook. Indeed, it's an argument they increasingly deploy to explain everything bad that happens: The Russians did it.

Thus on May 31, former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice said on CNN of the tumult, "In my experience, this is right out of the Russian playbook."

We might allow that it's possible, even probable, that the Russian government has been taking delight in this spate of violence in America. And it's similarly probable that the governments of China, Iran, and Venezuela, too, have been pleased, to say nothing of varying portions of the public in every country. And so sure, more than a few tweets and Facebook posts have probably resulted -- after all, stories ripping the U.S. were right there, for instance, on the front page of China's Global Times .

Still, it's ridiculous to think that hundreds of thousands -- maybe millions -- of Americans are taking their cues from a foreign power; we've got plenty of home-grown radicalism and anger.

Yet even so, the Democrats have persisted in their Russia-dunnit narrative, because it serves their political, and perhaps psychological, need -- the need to externalize criminal behavior. In other words, don't blame us for the killings and lootings -- blame Moscow.

Okay, so back to Antifa and Black Lives Matter. The left wing of the Democratic Party -- including elements within the Biden campaign -- might like them, but there's no evidence that they like Democrats back.

Indeed, if the violence keeps up, it will become obvious that the leftist radicals are not trying to help Biden. To put it another way, the rads would become the objective allies (a political science term connoting an ironic congruence of interest) of Trump.

To be sure, right now, Trump is running five or six points behind Biden in the RealClearPolitics polling average . And yet, just as Dreher, Douthat, and McCarthy suggest, if the violence continues and Trump goes firm while Biden stays mushy, that could change.

Indeed, as we think of genuine radicalism, we would do well to look beyond the parochial confines of American politics, Democrat vs. Republican. Instead, we might ponder the epic panorama of leftist history, which offers radicals so much more inspiration than historically centrist America.

For instance, we might look to Russia. But not to the Russia of Vladimir Putin , but rather, to the Russia of Vladimir Lenin .

In the early 20th century, Lenin's Bolsheviks, awaiting their revolutionary moment, operated according to a simple slogan: "The worse the better." That is, the enemy of Bolshevism was incremental reform, or progress of any kind; the reds wanted conditions to get so bad as to "justify" a communist revolution. And that's what Lenin and his comrades got in October 1917, when they seized power in the midst of the calamities of World War One.

Yes, of course, the communists made conditions worse, not better, for ordinary Russians. And yet things weren't worse for Lenin and his Bolsheviks -- they were now in power. So today, that's the sort of dream that inspires Antifa radicals.

To be sure, an America dominated by Antifa and Black Lives Matter is a distant prospect. But radicals figure that four more years of Trump in the White House will move the nation to even higher levels of chaos -- and thus move them closer to power.

With all that in prospect for radicals -- that is, the worse, the better -- the prospect of Joe Biden losing this year is a small price to pay. Actually, for them, it's no price at all.

In the meantime, for America, there is no better. Only worse.

[Jun 03, 2020] The Senate Should Focus On What The Flynn Transcripts Do Not Contain... Starting With A Crime

Jun 03, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

The Senate Should Focus On What The Flynn Transcripts Do Not Contain... Starting With A Crime by Tyler Durden Tue, 06/02/2020 - 22:45 Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Yesterday, the attorney hired by Judge Emmet Sullivan responded on his behalf to defend his controversial orders in the case to invite third parties to argue the merits of the motion to dismiss as well as raising his option to substitute his own criminal charge of perjury against Flynn. The Justice Department responded with a 45-page filing to a three-judge appeals court panel.

The attention will now focus on the appearance tomorrow of former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in the Senate. For me, the most pertinent question is why this investigation continued past December and seemed to become to a search for a crime rather than the investigation of any crime or collusion with Russia.

"Remember Ambassador, you're not talking to a diplomat, you're talking to a soldier."

When President Trump 's incoming national security adviser, Michael Flynn , said those words to then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, he also spoke to American intelligence agents listening in on the call. For three years, congressional Democrats have assured us Flynn's calls to Kislyak were so disturbing that they set off alarms in the closing days of the Obama administration.

They were right. The newly released transcripts of Flynn's calls are deeply disturbing -- not for their evidence of criminality or collusion but for the total absence of such evidence. The transcripts, declassified Friday, strongly support new investigations by both the Justice Department and by Congress, starting with next week's Senate testimony by former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

It turns out Flynn's calls are not just predictable but even commendable at points. When the Obama administration hit the Russians with sanctions just before leaving office, the incoming Trump administration sought to avoid a major conflict at the very start of its term. Flynn asked the Russian to focus on "common enemies" in order to seek cooperation in the Middle East. The calls covered a variety of issues, including the sanctions.

What was not discussed was any quid pro quo or anything untoward or unlawful. Flynn stated what was already known to be Trump policy in seeking a new path with Russia. Flynn did not offer to remove sanctions but, rather, encouraged the Russians to respond in a reciprocal, commensurate manner if they felt they had to respond.

The calls, and Flynn's identity, were leaked by as many as nine officials as the Obama administration left office -- a serious federal crime, given their classified status . The most chilling aspect of the transcripts, however, is the lack of anything chilling in the calls themselves. Flynn is direct with Kislyak in trying to tone down the rhetoric and avoid retaliatory moves. He told Kislyak, "l am a very practical guy, and it's about solutions. It's about very practical solutions that we're -- that we need to come up with here." Flynn said he understood the Russians might wish to retaliate for the Obama sanctions but encouraged them not to escalate the conflict just as the Trump administration took office.

Kislyak later spoke with Flynn again and confirmed that Moscow agreed to tone down the conflict in the practical approach laid out by Flynn. The media has focused on Flynn's later denial of discussing sanctions; the transcripts confirm he did indeed discuss sanctions. However, the Justice Department has not sought to dismiss criminal charges against him because he told the truth but because his statements did not meet a key element of materiality for the crime and were the result of troubling actions by high-ranking officials.

The real question is why the FBI continued to investigate Flynn in the absence of any crime or evidence of collusion. In December 2016, investigators had found no evidence of any crime by Flynn. They wanted to shut down the investigation; they were overruled by superiors, including FBI special agent Peter Strzok, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Director James Comey. Strzok told the investigators to keep the case alive, and McCabe is described as "cutting off" another high-ranking official who questioned the basis for continuing to investigate Flynn. All three officials were later fired, and all three were later found by career officials to have engaged in serious misconduct as part of the Russia investigation.

Recently disclosed information revealed that Comey and President Obama discussed using the Logan Act as a pretense for a criminal charge. The Logan Act criminalizes private negotiations with foreign governments; it is widely viewed as unconstitutional and has never been used successfully against any U.S. citizen since the earliest days of the Republic. Its use against the incoming national security adviser would have been absurd. Yet, that unconstitutional crime was the only crime Comey could come up with, long before there was a false statement by Flynn regarding his calls.

Not until February 2017 did Comey circumvent long-standing protocols and order an interview with Flynn. Comey later bragged that he "probably wouldn't have gotten away with it" in other administrations, but he sent "a couple guys over" to question Flynn, who was settling into his new office as national security adviser. We learned recently that Strzok discussed trying to get Flynn to give false or misleading information in that interview, to enable a criminal charge, and that FBI lawyer Lisa Page suggested agents "just casually slip" in a reference to the criminal provision for lying and then get Flynn to slip up on the details.

Flynn did slip up. While investigators said they were not convinced he intentionally lied, he gave a false statement. Later, special counsel Robert Mueller charged Flynn with that false statement, to pressure him into cooperating; Flynn fought the case into virtual bankruptcy but agreed to plead guilty when Mueller threatened to prosecute his son, too.

The newly released transcripts reveal the lack of a foundation for that charge. Courts have held that the materiality requirement for such a charge requires that misstatements be linked to the particular "subject of the investigation." The Justice Department found that the false statement in February 2017 was not material "to any viable counterintelligence investigation -- or any investigation, for that matter -- initiated by the FBI." In other words, by that time, these FBI officials had no crime under investigation but were, instead, looking for a crime. The question is: Why?

So the transcripts confirm there never was a scintilla of criminal conduct or evidence of collusion against Flynn before or during these calls. Indeed, there was no viable criminal investigation to speak of when Comey sent "a couple guys over" to entrap Flynn; they already had the transcripts and the knowledge that Flynn had done nothing wrong. Nevertheless, facing the release of these transcripts, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) bizarrely maintained that "Flynn posed a severe counterintelligence risk" because he could be blackmailed over his false statement.

Putting aside the lack of prior evidence of criminality, Schiff ignores that there were transcripts to prevent such blackmail. Indeed, in the interview, Flynn indicated he assumed there was a transcript, and leaked media reports indicated that various officials were familiar with the content of the calls. The key to blackmail would have been for the Russians to have information that others did not have.

Ironically, in his calls with Kislyak, Flynn expressly sought a more frank, honest relationship with Russia. He told Kislyak "we have to stop talking past each other on -- so that means that we have to understand exactly what it is that we want to try to achieve, okay?" That is a question that should now be directed at the FBI, to understand what it was trying to achieve by continuing an investigation long after it ran out of crimes to investigate.

[Jun 02, 2020] Susan Rice Suggests Russians Fomented Floyd Protests, Violence Across U.S. Obama s former national security adviser offered no evidence for her bizarre claim by Barbara Boland

So one of key players of Russiagate gaslighting and Flynn entrapment trying the same dirty trick again. Nice...
Notable quotes:
"... "We have peaceful protesters focused on the very real pain and disparities that we're all wrestling with that have to be addressed, and then we have extremists who've come to try to hijack those protests and turn them into something very different. And they're probably also, I would bet based on my experience, I'm not reading the intelligence these days, but based on my experience this is right out of the Russian playbook as well." ..."
"... "I would not be surprised to learn that they have fomented some of these extremists on both sides using social media. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they are funding it in some way, shape, or form." ..."
Jun 01, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

President Barack Obama's former national security adviser Susan Rice suggested without evidence that the Russians could be behind the violent demonstrations that have taken place across the U.S. following the death of George Floyd.

Speaking to CNN's Wolf Blitzer Sunday, Rice said:

"We have peaceful protesters focused on the very real pain and disparities that we're all wrestling with that have to be addressed, and then we have extremists who've come to try to hijack those protests and turn them into something very different. And they're probably also, I would bet based on my experience, I'm not reading the intelligence these days, but based on my experience this is right out of the Russian playbook as well."

"I would not be surprised to learn that they have fomented some of these extremists on both sides using social media. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they are funding it in some way, shape, or form."

Rice admits she's not reading the intelligence anymore, so what makes her think the Russians are behind this?

She doesn't offer much more in the way of evidence for her assertion, other than that the Russians are the Democrats' always-present bogeyman, ever ready from behind their poorly translated social media posts to unleash mayhem upon the U.S.

Ever since the election of President Donald Trump, Democrats have blamed Russians for the outcome of the 2016 election.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller found evidence that Russian-linked accounts spent a small amount of money placing social media ads for the purpose of influencing the 2016 election, but there's nothing to suggest their efforts were successful. The Department of Justice abruptly dropped its prosecution of a Russian-based troll farm, days before trial. Mueller also did not find evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia during the 2016 election.

Although the claims of Russian "collusion" in the 2016 election were eventually found to be nearly totally baseless, Rice's new narrative, that Russians support 2020's post-Floyd rioting, appears to be even more fact-threadbare.

Rice's claim drew criticism from across the political spectrum.

Eoin Higgens, a senior editor at Common Dreams, tweeted "you cannot make this sh– up. F -- - deranged" while former U.S. attorney Andrew McCarthy tweeted "there she goes again."

There's a reason Rice's claim was not taken seriously -- besides the lack of evidence for the Russian meddling narrative that has dominated the nation's political life since 2016, there's also the sheer ineptitude of the actual Russian trolling and ads themselves.

Just look at this ad the Russians funded from the 2016 election cycle for a taste of how convincing those Russians and their social media campaigns can be:


Feral Finster 19 hours ago

Predictable as a stopped clock.
Bureaucrat 19 hours ago • edited
I haven't seen condemnation across the political spectrum. There are a few hard-left progressives like Aaron Mate, Matt Taibbi, and Glenn Greenwald of course, but they have always hated the RussiaGate conspiracy. I won't be holding my breath for any of the #Resistance puppets castigate Rice. They can't, because #RussiaGate is foundational to their existence.
Connecticut Farmer Bureaucrat 2 hours ago
"...#RussiaGate is foundational to their existence."

It's the only hat rack that they have, otherwise they would be left with having to blame themselves for running the wrong horse in 2016.

Scroop Moth 18 hours ago
Y'all are really confusing me! During the civil rights marches, conservatives warned people that the "agitators" were Russian tools. Now, you say that's crazy talk!.

Rice asserts that civic agitation is ". . .right out of the Russian playbook. . ." Let's presume she's had a peek into the Russia playbook. Her statement can be falsified by the good fact checkers at this website!

Speaking for myself, I wouldn't be more surprised than Rice to learn that Russia is still in the outside agitator business. Just a suggestion, of course. Someone as patriotic as Rice really should check it out.

Connecticut Farmer Scroop Moth 2 hours ago
"Russia is still in the outside agitator business."

So is the United States (check out the Russian election of 1996). We're not as good as the Russians though.

Gerald Arcuri 17 hours ago
Why would anyone listen to what Susan Rice has to say about matters of national security?
Alex (the one that likes Ike) 17 hours ago
The saddest thing is that she's been too lazy to come up even with the most jury-rigged conspiracy theory as to why Russians would need it, despite the fact that emotional reaction-oriented rhetorical turds to... sculpture such a theory (albeit a very debunkable one) are floating on the surface. A most deplorable intellectual sloth. What to expect from neolibs/neocons, though? They're always like that. Say some folderol - and then go hiding in the kind Grandpa Bolton's venerable moustɑche.
Timothy Herring 16 hours ago
Wild speculation needs no evidence.
MPC Timothy Herring 15 hours ago
People like her are about to get their due, by being baselessly accused of being Chinese agents.
AdmBenson 13 hours ago
I don't know which idea is more laughable - Black Americans are so lacking in agency that they aren't even responsible for their own protests, or, the Russians are so diabolical that they can turn anyone and everyone into the Manchurian Candidate.

More likely, Susan Rice can't admit that her woke ideology has limitations. She needs a scapegoat so badly that she'll babble any nonsense to accuse one. Hard to believe she was once the National Security Adviser.

ZizaNiam 12 hours ago
I read on a libertarian oriented forum that the current protests are actually being done by the Chinese. Apparently, the Soviets (Russians) instigated the riots in the late 60s.
Slappyhappy 9 hours ago
Where are all the stars you ask" afterwards they will come out with concerts on TV, speeches big speeches that they real do care you hear me, PC BS they will look tragic this time, all the makeup in the world won;t hide their deception, arrogance, utter idiocy in White Towers.
JPH 4 hours ago
Transcripts of under oath statements before the House Intelligence committee revealed neither Susan Rice nor other Obama administration officials had any evidence of Russian meddling in 2016. Of course all proceeded with spreading baseless inuendo for years before and afterwards.

So if not under oath anything Susan Rice alleges is simply not worth listening to.

Miamijac 2 hours ago
civic agitation is ". . .right out of the Russian playbook. . ." Were they responsible for the Boston Tea Party too?
Wallstreet Panic 2 hours ago
Seems like so many presidents have been led into terrible foreign policy decisions by their Blob advisors...Obama by Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and Hillary; Dubya by Cheney and Rumsfield; Carter by Zbiggy, Ford and Nixon (both who should have known better) by Kissinger.
L RNY 2 hours ago
Susan Rice is more ignorant and has far lower intelligence than I ever suspected or she is playing politics and lying. The Russians have no motive. The Russians have no hand to play. The Chinese who have bribed a long list of democratic politicians have a very significant motive and a major hand to play in fomenting riots and race animosity...as a means to influence the November election away from Trump to Biden.

[Jun 01, 2020] More Evidence of the Fraud Against General Michael Flynn by Larry C Johnson

Highly recommended!
Looks like regular consultation between Russians and incoming administration to me. Also it was lame duck President who unilaterally decided to up his ante against Russians (criminally gaslighting the US public), expelled Russian diplomats to make the gaslighting more plausible, and seized Russian diplomatic property in violation of international norms. It was Obama who unleashed FBI dogs like Strzok and McCabe on Trump.
Russia later retaliated in a very modest way without seizing any US property, they just cut the level of the USA diplomatic personnel in Russia to the level of Russian personnel in the USA.
Notable quotes:
"... To summarize--a total of eight different calls between Kislyak and Flynn were recorded between December 22, 2016 and January 19, 2017. Five of the eight calls were initiated by Ambassador Kislyak -- Mike Flynn only called Kislyak three times and two of those were in response to calls from Kislyak, who requested a call back or left a message. ..."
Jun 01, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

More Evidence of the Fraud Against General Michael Flynn by Larry C Johnson

I never ceased to be amazed at the dishonesty and laziness of the media when it comes to reporting anything about Michael Flynn and the astonishing miscarriage of justice in bringing charges against him. The documents declassified and released by the DNI last Friday exonerate General Flynn and expose the FBI and the Mueller team as gargantuan liars. Even though Friday's release of the declassified summaries and transcripts was overshadowed quickly by rioting in Minnesota (you know, if it bleeds and burns it is the lede), the documents reveal General Flynn as the consummate professional keen on serving his country and the Russian Ambassador as disgusted by the petulance and arrogance of the Obama administration.

The declassified material released by newly installed Director for National Intelligence actually consists of two different sets of documents--First, there are five summaries of conversations for 22, 23, 29 (two on the 29th) December 2016 and 5 January. Second, there are the full transcripts of the conversations for December 23, December 29, December 31 in 2016 and January 12 and January 19, 2017.

To summarize--a total of eight different calls between Kislyak and Flynn were recorded between December 22, 2016 and January 19, 2017. Five of the eight calls were initiated by Ambassador Kislyak -- Mike Flynn only called Kislyak three times and two of those were in response to calls from Kislyak, who requested a call back or left a message.

Here are the specifics of those calls.


Alan , 30 May 2020 at 09:44 PM

This is also very interesting:

"Before General Flynn's voce message turns on, there is an open line, barely audible chat.
Someone asks Chernyshev, "Which agency are we talking about?" Chernyshev asks as to
confirm if he understands the question and responds in the same time: "Which Agency hackers
did the hacking? Believe me, Americans did hacked this all."

Petrel , 30 May 2020 at 10:56 PM
The full exchange between General Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak throws much light on the subsequent Sunday morning mis-speaking by the Vice-President Pence.

From the first telephone call, Flynn tells Kislyak that President-elect Trump will only be inaugurated 3-weeks hence. Therefore Trump in late-December cannot formally make foreign policy decisions immediately.

In a later exchange about Russia's proposed Astana Peace Conference to de-escalate ISIS activity In Syria, Flynn responds that Russia has Trump's backing to begin preparations with the Syrians, Turks et al. On his part, Flynn will begin pencilling-in who would be on a future US delegation.

It goes without saying that Vice President-elect Pence, during this period had a full-time job marshaling the Transition and may not have been in the loop on these tentative Russian peace initiatives. When asked on a Sunday morning talk show, Pence could correctly say President Trump had no "official communications" with the Kremlin. But to later trash & demand Flynn's dismissal for "lying to him" about the informal phone calls was inappropriate.

Pence could easily have told Americans that President-elect Trump was establishing informal relations, through multiple phone calls, with world leaders and he, Pence, was not party to all of them. No one in the fledgling Trump Administration was lying to him.

anon , 31 May 2020 at 12:25 AM
Hi Larry.why not tackle this knot from the Russian end.Russia has been fighting in Syria since jisr al shugour massacre in the groves.There naval base on the med was threatened and Gazprom stood to lose control of energy resources flowing out of the me too Europe.That has now been achieved.Not only that but Wagner group are in Libyan with Russian air support.From that point of view what was Flynn's role in this
Mathias Alexander , 31 May 2020 at 02:50 AM
" amazed at the dishonesty and laziness of the media". Dishonesty and laziness are the norm in the media.
English Outsider , 31 May 2020 at 06:06 AM

That was one superb summary.

I wonder sometimes whether the new administration, from Trump downwards, realised just what they were up against after that unexpected election victory.

h , 31 May 2020 at 12:02 PM
Time will tell but something tells me the release of the Kislyak-Flynn transcripts/FBI cuts is also related to Boente's forced resignation. Here's sundance's take - it's a long read btw - https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/05/30/boom-dana-boente-removed-fbi-chief-legal-counsel-forced-to-resign/

And yes, the hacking comment is fascinating on so many levels. It's just kinda left hanging out there all by itself, eh?

And a quick off-topic thank you to the Col for posting the Lara Logan clip. All efforts hunting for it yesterday failed. She nailed it.

JerseyJeffersonian , 31 May 2020 at 01:15 PM
English Outsider,

Yes, I think that evidence thus far revealed suggests that the sedition was far along, and this even before Trump's victory - an insurance policy, if you will, and way beyond any opposition research, as much of the "information", if not at root fabricated, was otherwise illegally gathered.

And immediate that election victory, things went into overdrive as the seditionists' panicked, doubling and tripling down on their illegal actions to frame a projected impeachment narrative as their next tactic. I hesitate to call it their next strategy, as it was too knee jerk to be characterized in that fashion.

So, no, I think that the new Trump administration had little idea of just how this transition of administration was, counter to most prior precedents, planned to be undermined with the full intent to invalidate the election of President Trump, and if possible, to overturn it .

This was sedition on multiple levels, crimes deliberately embarked upon to destroy the Constitution and the Republic by any means that these traitors deemed efficacious.

May they all rot in Hell.

blue peacock , 31 May 2020 at 04:48 PM
Petrel,

I believe Trump knew he was being spied on as Adm. Rogers informed him and thereafter he moved his transition organization away from Trump Tower.

In any case why did Trump throw Flynn under the bus? In hindsight that was a huge mistake. Another huge mistake in hindsight was not cleaning house at the DOJ, FBI and the intel agencies early. That allowed Rosenstein and Wray to get Mueller going and created the pretext of the investigation to bury all the incriminating evidence. Trump never declassified anything himself which he could have and broke open the plot. He then gave Barr all classification authority who sat on it for a year. Look how fast Ric Grenell declassified stuff. There was no "sources & methods" the usual false justification.

It is unconscionable how severely Flynn was screwed over. Why is Wray still there? How many of the plotter cohort still remain?

[Jun 01, 2020] More Evidence of the Fraud Against General Michael Flynn by Larry C Johnson

Highly recommended!
Looks like regular consultation between Russians and incoming administration to me. Also it was lame duck President who unilaterally decided to up his ante against Russians (criminally gaslighting the US public), expelled Russian diplomats to make the gaslighting more plausible, and seized Russian diplomatic property in violation of international norms. It was Obama who unleashed FBI dogs like Strzok and McCabe on Trump.
Russia later retaliated in a very modest way without seizing any US property, they just cut the level of the USA diplomatic personnel in Russia to the level of Russian personnel in the USA.
Jun 01, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

More Evidence of the Fraud Against General Michael Flynn by Larry C Johnson

I never ceased to be amazed at the dishonesty and laziness of the media when it comes to reporting anything about Michael Flynn and the astonishing miscarriage of justice in bringing charges against him. The documents declassified and released by the DNI last Friday exonerate General Flynn and expose the FBI and the Mueller team as gargantuan liars. Even though Friday's release of the declassified summaries and transcripts was overshadowed quickly by rioting in Minnesota (you know, if it bleeds and burns it is the lede), the documents reveal General Flynn as the consummate professional keen on serving his country and the Russian Ambassador as disgusted by the petulance and arrogance of the Obama administration.

The declassified material released by newly installed Director for National Intelligence actually consists of two different sets of documents--First, there are five summaries of conversations for 22, 23, 29 (two on the 29th) December 2016 and 5 January. Second, there are the full transcripts of the conversations for December 23, December 29, December 31 in 2016 and January 12 and January 19, 2017.

To summarize--a total of eight different calls between Kislyak and Flynn were recorded between December 22, 2016 and January 19, 2017. Five of the eight calls were initiated by Ambassador Kislyak -- Mike Flynn only called Kislyak three times and two of those were in response to calls from Kislyak, who requested a call back or left a message.

Here are the specifics of those calls.


Alan , 30 May 2020 at 09:44 PM

This is also very interesting:

"Before General Flynn's voce message turns on, there is an open line, barely audible chat.
Someone asks Chernyshev, "Which agency are we talking about?" Chernyshev asks as to
confirm if he understands the question and responds in the same time: "Which Agency hackers
did the hacking? Believe me, Americans did hacked this all."

Petrel , 30 May 2020 at 10:56 PM
The full exchange between General Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak throws much light on the subsequent Sunday morning mis-speaking by the Vice-President Pence.

From the first telephone call, Flynn tells Kislyak that President-elect Trump will only be inaugurated 3-weeks hence. Therefore Trump in late-December cannot formally make foreign policy decisions immediately.

In a later exchange about Russia's proposed Astana Peace Conference to de-escalate ISIS activity In Syria, Flynn responds that Russia has Trump's backing to begin preparations with the Syrians, Turks et al. On his part, Flynn will begin pencilling-in who would be on a future US delegation.

It goes without saying that Vice President-elect Pence, during this period had a full-time job marshaling the Transition and may not have been in the loop on these tentative Russian peace initiatives. When asked on a Sunday morning talk show, Pence could correctly say President Trump had no "official communications" with the Kremlin. But to later trash & demand Flynn's dismissal for "lying to him" about the informal phone calls was inappropriate.

Pence could easily have told Americans that President-elect Trump was establishing informal relations, through multiple phone calls, with world leaders and he, Pence, was not party to all of them. No one in the fledgling Trump Administration was lying to him.

anon , 31 May 2020 at 12:25 AM
Hi Larry.why not tackle this knot from the Russian end.Russia has been fighting in Syria since jisr al shugour massacre in the groves.There naval base on the med was threatened and Gazprom stood to lose control of energy resources flowing out of the me too Europe.That has now been achieved.Not only that but Wagner group are in Libyan with Russian air support.From that point of view what was Flynn's role in this
Mathias Alexander , 31 May 2020 at 02:50 AM
" amazed at the dishonesty and laziness of the media". Dishonesty and laziness are the norm in the media.
English Outsider , 31 May 2020 at 06:06 AM

That was one superb summary.

I wonder sometimes whether the new administration, from Trump downwards, realised just what they were up against after that unexpected election victory.

h , 31 May 2020 at 12:02 PM
Time will tell but something tells me the release of the Kislyak-Flynn transcripts/FBI cuts is also related to Boente's forced resignation. Here's sundance's take - it's a long read btw - https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/05/30/boom-dana-boente-removed-fbi-chief-legal-counsel-forced-to-resign/

And yes, the hacking comment is fascinating on so many levels. It's just kinda left hanging out there all by itself, eh?

And a quick off-topic thank you to the Col for posting the Lara Logan clip. All efforts hunting for it yesterday failed. She nailed it.

JerseyJeffersonian , 31 May 2020 at 01:15 PM
English Outsider,

Yes, I think that evidence thus far revealed suggests that the sedition was far along, and this even before Trump's victory - an insurance policy, if you will, and way beyond any opposition research, as much of the "information", if not at root fabricated, was otherwise illegally gathered.

And immediate that election victory, things went into overdrive as the seditionists' panicked, doubling and tripling down on their illegal actions to frame a projected impeachment narrative as their next tactic. I hesitate to call it their next strategy, as it was too knee jerk to be characterized in that fashion.

So, no, I think that the new Trump administration had little idea of just how this transition of administration was, counter to most prior precedents, planned to be undermined with the full intent to invalidate the election of President Trump, and if possible, to overturn it .

This was sedition on multiple levels, crimes deliberately embarked upon to destroy the Constitution and the Republic by any means that these traitors deemed efficacious.

May they all rot in Hell.

blue peacock , 31 May 2020 at 04:48 PM
Petrel,

I believe Trump knew he was being spied on as Adm. Rogers informed him and thereafter he moved his transition organization away from Trump Tower.

In any case why did Trump throw Flynn under the bus? In hindsight that was a huge mistake. Another huge mistake in hindsight was not cleaning house at the DOJ, FBI and the intel agencies early. That allowed Rosenstein and Wray to get Mueller going and created the pretext of the investigation to bury all the incriminating evidence. Trump never declassified anything himself which he could have and broke open the plot. He then gave Barr all classification authority who sat on it for a year. Look how fast Ric Grenell declassified stuff. There was no "sources & methods" the usual false justification.

It is unconscionable how severely Flynn was screwed over. Why is Wray still there? How many of the plotter cohort still remain?

[Jun 01, 2020] Documentary Evidence of the Fraud Against General Michael Flynn by Larry C Johnson

This is just another confirmation of the feeling that the USA political elite is not only split, but has been on the downward spiral for some time
May 30, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com
I never ceased to be amazed at the dishonesty and laziness of the media when it comes to reporting anything about Michael Flynn and the astonishing miscarriage of justice in bringing charges against him. The documents declassified and released by the DNI last Friday exonerate General Flynn and expose the FBI and the Mueller team as gargantuan liars. Even though Friday's release of the declassified summaries and transcripts was overshadowed quickly by rioting in Minnesota (you know, if it bleeds and burns it is the lede), the documents reveal General Flynn as the consummate professional keen on serving his country and the Russian Ambassador as disgusted by the petulance and arrogance of the Obama administration.

The declassified material released by newly installed Director for National Intelligence actually consists of two different sets of documents--First, there are five summaries of conversations for 22, 23, 29 (two on the 29th) December 2016 and 5 January. Second, there are the full transcripts of the conversations for December 23, December 29, December 31 in 2016 and January 12 and January 19, 2017.

To summarize--a total of eight different calls between Kislyak and Flynn were recorded between December 22, 2016 and January 19, 2017. Five of the eight calls were initiated by Ambassador Kislyak--Mike Flynn only called Kislyak three times and two of those were in response to calls from Kislyak, who requested a call back or left a message.

Here are the specifics of those calls.

December 22, 2016--This call apparently was made by Michael Flynn to the Russians, responding to a request from President-elect Trump to ask Russia to not support the Egyptian UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel. (Note--Flynn made calls to most members of the UN Security Council).

December 23, 2016--Ambassador Kislyak calls Michael Flynn to report on his conversation with President Putin regarding the previous day's request. Michael Flynn emphasizes to Kislyak that the mutual goal is/should be stability in the Middle East. Flynn tells Kislyak, "We will not achieve stability in the Middle East without working with each other against this radical Islamist crowd." Kislyak remarks, "responding to your telephone call, and our conversations we will try to help to postpone the vote and to allow for consultations."

December 29, 2016--Kislyak calls Flynn and leaves a simple message, "need to talk."

December 29, 2016--Michael Flynn returns Kislyak's phone call.

First, Kislyak wants to discuss the Middle East policy. The Russians want to convey to the President-elect that the Russians will not be supporting the American colleagues at the Security Council. Flynn says it is good.

Second, the Russians are very interesting with working with the President-elect's team to help the peace process in Syria.

Third, the Kremlin would like to . . . have a first conversation on January 21st between the presidents. Putin's idea is to congratulate Trump and discuss issues. . . . Flynn tells Kislyak: Do not allow this administration to box us in right now! . . . . depending on what actions the Obama Administrations takes over this current issue of the cyber stuff, . . . they're gonna dismiss some number of Russians out of the country, I understand all that . . . I know you have to have some sort of action, but to only make it reciprocal; don't go any further than you have to because I don't want us to get into something that have to escalate to tit-for-tat. . . . I really do not want us to get into the situation where we everybody goes back and forth and everybody had to be a tough guy here. We don't need that right now. We need cool heads to prevail. And we need to be very steady about what we are going to do because we have absolutely a common threat in the Middle East.

December 31, 2016--Russian Ambassador Kislyak calls General Flynn. Kislyak tells Flynn, "And I just wanted to tell you that we found that these actions [were] targeted not only against Russia, but also against the president elect. . . . and with all our rights to responds we have decided not to act now because, its because the Obama people are dissatisfied that they lost the elections and, and its very deplorable. . . . Flynn responded, "we are not going to agree on everything, you know that, but I think that we have a lot of things in common. A lot. And we have to figure out how to achieve those things, . . .and be smart about it and keep the temperature down globally, as well as not just here in the United States and also over in Russia.

January 5, 2017--Lt. General Mike FLYNN phones Ambassador Sergey KISLYAK to express his condolences on the death of GRU Director Igor SERGUN, who died unexpectedly today from unknown causes.

January 12, 2017--Mike Flynn returns Kislyak's phone call and discusses possible conference on Syria in Astana, Kazakstan.

January 19, 2017--Kislyak leaves voicemail for Flynn, inquiring about scheduling of a phone call between Putin and Trump after the inauguration.

Now, let us take a new look at the Mueller team's Statement of Offense . The Mueller team got a key fact wrong. According to the Statement of Offense:

b. On or about December 28, 2016, the Russian Ambassador contacted FLYNN.

Nope. The date was 29 December 2016. Screwing up a date is not an end-of-the-world mistake, but it is inexcusable nonetheless.

Let me remind you what Michael Flynn told FBI Agents Strzok and Pientka when they asked if he "might have asked Kislyak not to escalate the situation, to keep the Russian response reciprocal." Flynn said, according to the second draft of the FBI 302 recounting the conversation, "NOT REALLY, I DON'T REMEMBER."

You can read for yourself Flynn's entire exchange with Kislyak. It covered a variety of topics. It was not the only issue Flynn was dealing with as the incoming National Security Advisor. He had lots of conversations, not only with Kislyak, but with other diplomats from other countries. The fact that he did not precisely remember what he said to Kislyak should not be surprising.

The real question is why did the FBI withhold the transcript of this conversation? They could have said, "here is the transcript of your conversation with Ambassador Kislyak, is that an accurate account?" But they did not. I defy any of you to recall with 100% accuracy a conversation you had with someone almost a month earlier.

The most fascinating revelation from this transcripts is Ambassador Kislyak stating that Russia was aware of the Obama Administration's efforts to portray normal diplomatic contacts between Moscow and the Trump campaign as something nefarious and that Obama was targeting Trump. Kislyak said:

"And I just wanted to tell you that we found that these actions [were] targeted not only against Russia, but also against the president elect."

Kislyak and his bosses understood perfectly that the Obama team was attempting a silent coup and were willing to risk conflict with Russia in order to sell that lie. This is beyond outrageous on the part of Obama and his crew of white collared criminals. It is sedition. It is treason.

No honest person can read these transcripts without acknowledging that Flynn spoke as a diplomat intent on serving the interests of America. He was not engaged in treachery, as alleged by the corrupt Judge Emmett Sullivan. In fact, Flynn held his tongue with regard to the Obama crew. He could have trashed them and spoke ill of them. But he did not.

These transcripts show Flynn as a man of honor. A genuine professional. They also expose the fraud perpetrated on the American public by an FBI and Special Prosecutor intent on smearing Flynn as acting on behalf of the Russians. Michael Flynn did no such thing.


Alan , 30 May 2020 at 09:44 PM

This is also very interesting:

"Before General Flynn's voce message turns on, there is an open line, barely audible chat.
Someone asks Chernyshev, "Which agency are we talking about?" Chernyshev asks as to
confirm if he understands the question and responds in the same time: "Which Agency hackers
did the hacking? Believe me, Americans did hacked this all."

Petrel , 30 May 2020 at 10:56 PM
The full exchange between General Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak throws much light on the subsequent Sunday morning mis-speaking by the Vice-President Pence.

From the first telephone call, Flynn tells Kislyak that President-elect Trump will only be inaugurated 3-weeks hence. Therefore Trump in late-December cannot formally make foreign policy decisions immediately.

In a later exchange about Russia's proposed Astana Peace Conference to de-escalate ISIS activity In Syria, Flynn responds that Russia has Trump's backing to begin preparations with the Syrians, Turks et al. On his part, Flynn will begin pencilling-in who would be on a future US delegation.

It goes without saying that Vice President-elect Pence, during this period had a full-time job marshaling the Transition and may not have been in the loop on these tentative Russian peace initiatives. When asked on a Sunday morning talk show, Pence could correctly say President Trump had no "official communications" with the Kremlin. But to later trash & demand Flynn's dismissal for "lying to him" about the informal phone calls was inappropriate.

Pence could easily have told Americans that President-elect Trump was establishing informal relations, through multiple phone calls, with world leaders and he, Pence, was not party to all of them. No one in the fledgling Trump Administration was lying to him.

anon , 31 May 2020 at 12:25 AM
Hi Larry.why not tackle this knot from the Russian end.Russia has been fighting in Syria since jisr al shugour massacre in the groves.There naval base on the med was threatened and Gazprom stood to lose control of energy resources flowing out of the me too Europe.That has now been achieved.Not only that but Wagner group are in Libyan with Russian air support.From that point of view what was Flynn's role in this

[May 31, 2020] Both exclusion of Russian diplomats and the political assassination of Gen. Flynn were parts of a plot to prevent the shifting from a pro-China/anti-Russia policy to a pro-Russia/China-as-actual-competitor policy under a DJT presidency.

May 31, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

NemesisCalling , May 31 2020 18:08 utc | 32

Another is the political assassination of Gen. Flynn. There was indeed a coordinated conspiracy to find a scapegoat to prevent the shifting from a pro-China/anti-Russia policy to a pro-Russia/China-as-actual-competitor policy under a DJT presidency.

If you think none of the above carry any weight and you could play a game of shuttlecock with them not caring which is brought forth, then you might think along Jackrabbit's lines that the DJT-phenomenon is complete bullshit.

I would argue that the line that DJT is some working-class hero is probably bullshit, but when it comes to two warring factions of elites fighting over the direction of America, the struggle right now is very real.

[May 31, 2020] Russiagate is a clash between the old-guard/money represented currently by Trump and allied with him anti-globalist nationalists, and, on the other side, garden-variety globalists and neolibs including the new-money represented by big-tech billionaires, investment banks, private equity, CIA, the State Department and a part of MIC as well as the dominant in Democratic party Clinton wing

Notable quotes:
"... What is happening now is the exact same thing as Hong Kong. In any given instance of mass revolt, you have two warring factions, usually funded at the top by diametrically opposed elites. ..."
"... In Hong Kong, it is pro-western, old-guard/money versus Chinese new-guard. ..."
"... Look at the degree of organization (or lack thereof) which was able to politically assassinate Gen. Flynn! You had the dem establishment and billionaires like the Clintons, Obama-faction sycophants all the way up to the top. ..."
May 31, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

NemesisCalling , May 31 2020 17:45 utc | 26

@ vk 23

You are completely wrong, of course. What is happening now is the exact same thing as Hong Kong. In any given instance of mass revolt, you have two warring factions, usually funded at the top by diametrically opposed elites.

In Hong Kong, it is pro-western, old-guard/money versus Chinese new-guard. In America, we have the old-guard/money represented currently by the DJT-phenomenon, meaning Anti-globalist nationalists, and, on the other side, you have new-money internationalists and neolibs represented by billionaires, big-tech, the democratic party and garden-variety globalists.

Look at the degree of organization (or lack thereof) which was able to politically assassinate Gen. Flynn! You had the dem establishment and billionaires like the Clintons, Obama-faction sycophants all the way up to the top.

You think that this event is entirely grassroots? Give me a f*cking break, vk. You are such a blatantly obvious Chinese shill, no doubt probably employed by globalist entities, that the fact you are unable to employ an effective and probable analysis on these current "protests" reaffirm to me exactly what you are and what you stand for.


Blue Dotterel , May 31 2020 17:55 utc | 27

@NemesisCalling | May 31 2020 17:45 utc | 26

You could also have the same oligarchs funding both sides in a divide and conquer strategy. This is a common strategy that has been used in Turkey among others in the runup to the 1980 coup. It was also used by the US and Israel in their funding of both sides in the Iran/Iraq war in the 80s.

In the former it was used to ramp up violence to justify a military coup. That is very probable here, except that martial law might be the objective. Similar to the Iran/Iraq, the stoking of violence between liberals and conservatives may simply be to wear them out for when the economy truly tanks to justify in the minds of the sheeple a greater oppression of demonstrations in future.

Abe , May 31 2020 18:05 utc | 30
US is becoming like Israel even more. Considering same people rule both countries, and same people train cops in both of them, is it surprising 99%-ers in US are becoming treated like Palestinians?

[May 30, 2020] Obama possibly wanted a hot Russians confrontation incident to land on Trump Desk the same day Obama moved out and Trump moved in

Margot Cleveland ( @ProfMJCleveland ) "What Flynn didn't say is treason, but Obama saying he'll have more flexibility after the election is diplomacy. "
May 30, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Margot Cleveland @ProfMJCleveland
What Flynn didn't say is treason, but Obama saying he'll have more flexibility after the election is diplomacy.

Deap , 30 May 2020 at 01:51 AM

Some of the key parts of their conversation, with commentary, are in this Twitter thread from Margot Cleveland:
https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1266483118099378176

Posted by: Keith Harbaugh | 29 May 2020 at 09:06 PM

Scenario: Obama wanted a hot Russians confrontation incident to land on the Resolute Desk the same day Obama moved out and Trump moved in. But the Russians did not take Obama's bait after expelling the Russians for" election interference"..

Why not - something is up - snoop on Flynn to find out - is Trump cutting a side deal with Putin, and/or violating the Logan Act - gotcha either way, So Obama thinks. Which was never his strong suit.

Marc b. , 30 May 2020 at 10:59 AM
So Flynn is gone and who benefits? The Israelis got their capitol and the word 'occupied' decoupled from territories, which they didn't need Flynn for, and the common enemy policy against ISIS and Astana/Syria peace plan are both dead.

[May 29, 2020] Andrew Weisdman, the attack dog of Mueller investigation, fundraiser links Creepy Joe to Russiagate and Mueller

May 29, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

The Biden campaign has quietly canceled a fundraiser headlined by Andrew Weissman - former special counsel Robert Mueller's 'attack dog' lawyer who hand-picked the so-called '13 angry Democrats.'

Weissman, who attended Hillary Clinton's election night party in 2016, donated to Obama and the DNC, yet somehow conducted an unbiased investigation that turned up snake-eyes, was set to do a June 2 "fireside chat" with Biden , according to the WSJ , which notes that the fundraiser was pulled right after it was posted late last week - shortly after the Trump campaign began to latch onto it.

Yes, there's more value in keeping the lie going that the mueller special counsel hasn't already been established beyond any doubt as a fraudulent and deeply unethical partisan takedown scheme against Trump https://t.co/5wuFYpgggr https://t.co/mxaHomTaQO

-- Buck Sexton (@BuckSexton) May 29, 2020

Weissman - known as the "architect" of the case against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort - notably reached out to a Ukrainian oligarch for dirt on Trump and his team days after FBI agent Peter Strzok texted "There's no big there there" regarding the Trump investigation in exchange for 'resolving the Firtash case' in Chicago, in which he was charged in 2014 with corruption and bribery linked to a US aerospace deal.

According to investigative journalist John Solomon, Firtash turned down Weissman's offer because he didn't have credible information or evidence against Trump , Manafort, or anyone else.

[May 28, 2020] AG Barr Asks Kavanaugh-Connected US Attorney To Probe Obamagate 'Unmaskings'

May 28, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

US Attorney for West Texas John Bash has been asked by AG Bill Bar to review the Obama administration's 'unmasking' practices from before and after the 2016 presidential election, according Fox News , citing the DOJ.

Meanwhile, DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec told Fox News ' "Hannity" on Wednesday that US Attorney John Durham is also looking into the "unmasking," but that Bash has been assigned to dig deeper .

"Unmasking inherently isn't wrong, but certainly, the frequency, the motivation and the reasoning behind unmasking can be problematic, and when you're looking at unmasking as part of a broader investigation-- like John Durham's investigation-- looking specifically at who was unmasking whom, can add a lot to our understanding about motivation and big picture events," said Kupec.

Unmasking is a tool frequently used during the course of intelligence work and occurs after U.S. citizens' conversations are incidentally picked up in conversations with foreign officials who are being monitored by the intelligence community. The U.S. citizens' identities are supposed to be protected if their participation is incidental and no wrongdoing is suspected. However, officials can determine the U.S. citizens' names through a process that is supposed to safeguard their rights . In the typical process, when officials are requesting the unmasking of an American, they do not necessarily know the identity of the person in advance.

Republicans became highly suspicious of the number of unmasking requests made by the Obama administration concerning Flynn, and have questioned whether other Trump associates were singled out. - Fox News

In short, Bash - a trusted operator within the Trump administration - will dig even deeper into the Obama administration's use of unmasking against its political opponents.

[May 28, 2020] These FBI Docs Put Barack Obama In The Middle Of The 'Obamagate' Narrative

Looks like Strzok and Page played larger role in Obamagate/Russiagate then it was assumed initially
Notable quotes:
"... Just 17 days before President Trump took office in January 2017, then-FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok texted bureau lawyer Lisa Page, his mistress, to express concern about sharing sensitive Russia probe evidence with the departing Obama White House. ..."
"... Strzok related Priestap's concerns about the potential the evidence would be politically weaponized if outgoing Director of National Intelligence James Clapper shared the intercept cuts with the White House and President Obama, a well-known Flynn critic. ..."
"... "He, like us, is concerned with over sharing," Strzok texted Page on Jan. 3, 2017, relating his conversation with Priestap. ..."
"... The investigators are trying to determine whether Obama's well-known disdain for Flynn, a career military intelligence officer, influenced the decision by the FBI leadership to reject its own agent's recommendation to shut down a probe of Flynn in January 2017 and instead pursue an interview where agents might catch him in a lie. ..."
"... "The evidence connecting President Obama to the Flynn operation is getting stronger," one investigator with direct knowledge told me. ..."
"... Former Whitewater Independent Counsel Robert Ray said Friday that the Flynn matter was at the very least a "political scandal of the highest order" and could involve criminal charges if evidence emerges that officials lied or withheld documents to cover up what happened. ..."
"... "I imagine there are people who are in the know who may well have knowingly withheld information from the court and from defense counsel in connection with the Michael Flynn prosecution," Ray told Fox News . ..."
"... April 2014: Flynn is forced out as the chief of DIA by Obama after clashing with the administration over the Syrian civil war, the rise of ISIS, and other policies. The Obama administration blames his management style for the departure. ..."
"... Jan. 3, 2017: Strzok and Page engage in the text messages about Obama's daily briefing and the concerns about giving the Flynn intercept cuts to the White House. ..."
"... Jan. 4, 2017: Lead agent in Flynn Crossfire Razor probe prepares closing memo recommending the case be shut down for lack of derogatory evidence. Strzok texts agent asking him to stop the closing memo because the "7th floor" leadership of the FBI is now involved. ..."
"... Jan. 5, 2017: Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates attends Russia briefing with Obama at the White House and is stunned to learn Obama already knows about the Flynn-Kislyak intercept . Then-FBI Director James Comey claims Clapper told the president, but Clapper has denied telling Obama. ..."
"... Investigators are trying to determine whether Obama asked for the Flynn intercept or it was offered to him and by whom. They also want to know how many times Comey and Obama talked about Flynn in December 2016 and January 2017. ..."
"... "We need to determine what motivated the FBI on Jan. 4, 2017 to overrule its own agent who believed Flynn was innocent and the probe should be closed," one investigator said. ..."
"... Obama weaponized everything he could, ..."
"... The idea that Obama was the center of anything is misdirection. The 'deep state,' as much as I loathe the term, is nothing but State clerks bent by their sense of self importance, venality in the adherence to 'rules,' and motivated by either their greed or their indignation that their status position is merely relative. ..."
"... The Flynn persecution is just the tip of the iceberg of corruption, illegal surveillance, perjury, money laundering, skimming and sedition. ..."
"... One can only imagine all the times Obama weaponized the intelligence agencies against his political opponents that will never be exposed ..."
"... John and Sarah Carter have knocked it out of the park since the Obama attempted coup started. ..."
"... In Watergate, the underlying crime was "Nixon spied on the Democrats". Everything else was just a question of who did what, and how much. ..."
"... How come there's never any mention of "London Collusion", as if UK interference in U.S. politics and society is quite alright -- even when it's highly detrimental? ..."
"... Brennan went over and met with MI-6 right about the time that Trump announced his candidacy. I think the whole Russia-Collusion thing was their idea and they put Brennan on to it. Set it all up for him, complete with a diagram so he wouldn't **** it up. That's what MI-6 does. ..."
"... MI-6, like Christopher Steele, hated Trump because they BADLY want World Government. Have been sabotaging Brexit for years. ..."
"... It's easier for me to imagine Obama as puppet than a ringleader. He always seemed to be a fake, manufactured sort of person. As if he was focus-group-tested and approved. ..."
May 28, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by John Solomon via JustTheNews.com,

Agents fretted sharing Flynn intel with departing Obama White House would become fodder for 'partisan axes to grind.'

Just 17 days before President Trump took office in January 2017, then-FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok texted bureau lawyer Lisa Page, his mistress, to express concern about sharing sensitive Russia probe evidence with the departing Obama White House.

Strzok had just engaged in a conversation with his boss, then-FBI Assistant Director William Priestap, about evidence from the investigation of incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, codenamed Crossfire Razor, or "CR" for short.

The evidence in question were so-called "tech cuts" from intercepted conversations between Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, according to the texts and interviews with officials familiar with the conversations.

Strzok related Priestap's concerns about the potential the evidence would be politically weaponized if outgoing Director of National Intelligence James Clapper shared the intercept cuts with the White House and President Obama, a well-known Flynn critic.

"He, like us, is concerned with over sharing," Strzok texted Page on Jan. 3, 2017, relating his conversation with Priestap.

"Doesn't want Clapper giving CR cuts to WH. All political, just shows our hand and potentially makes enemies."

Page seemed less concerned, knowing that the FBI was set in three days to release its initial assessment of Russian interference in the U.S. election.

"Yeah, but keep in mind we were going to put that in the doc on Friday, with potentially larger distribution than just the DNI," Page texted back.

Strzok responded, "The question is should we, particularly to the entirety of the lame duck usic [U.S Intelligence Community] with partisan axes to grind."

That same day Strzok and Page also discussed in text messages a drama involving one of the Presidential Daily Briefings for Obama.

"Did you follow the drama of the PDB last week?" Strzok asked.

"Yup. Don't know how it ended though," Page responded.

"They didn't include any of it, and Bill [Priestap] didn't want to dissent," Strzok added.

"Wow, Bill should make sure [Deputy Director] Andy [McCabe] knows about that since he was consulted numerous times about whether to include the reporting," Page suggested.

You can see the text messages recovered from Strzok's phone here.

The text messages, which were never released to the public by the FBI but were provided to this reporter in September 2018, have taken on much more significance to both federal and congressional investigators in recent weeks as the Justice Department has requested that Flynn's conviction be thrown out and his charges of lying to the FBI about Kislyak dismissed.

U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen of Missouri (special prosecutor for DOJ), the FBI inspection division, three Senate committees and House Republicans are all investigating the handling of Flynn's case and whether any crimes were committed or political influence exerted.

The investigators are trying to determine whether Obama's well-known disdain for Flynn, a career military intelligence officer, influenced the decision by the FBI leadership to reject its own agent's recommendation to shut down a probe of Flynn in January 2017 and instead pursue an interview where agents might catch him in a lie.

They also want to know whether the conversation about the PDB involved Flynn and "reporting" the FBI had gathered by early January 2017 showing the incoming national security adviser was neither a counterintelligence nor a criminal threat.

"The evidence connecting President Obama to the Flynn operation is getting stronger," one investigator with direct knowledge told me.

"The bureau knew it did not have evidence to justify that Flynn was either a criminal or counterintelligence threat and should have shut the case down. But the perception that Obama and his team would not be happy with that outcome may have driven the FBI to keep the probe open without justification and to pivot to an interview that left some agents worried involved entrapment or a perjury trap."

The investigator said more interviews will need to be done to determine exactly what role Obama's perception of Flynn played in the FBI's decision making.

Recently declassified evidence show a total of 39 outgoing Obama administration officials sought to unmask Flynn's name in intelligence interviews between Election Day 2016 and Inauguration Day 2017, signaling a keen interest in Flynn's overseas calls.

Former Whitewater Independent Counsel Robert Ray said Friday that the Flynn matter was at the very least a "political scandal of the highest order" and could involve criminal charges if evidence emerges that officials lied or withheld documents to cover up what happened.

"I imagine there are people who are in the know who may well have knowingly withheld information from the court and from defense counsel in connection with the Michael Flynn prosecution," Ray told Fox News .

"If it turns out that that can be proved, then there are going to be referrals and potential false statements, and/or perjury prosecutions to hold those, particularly those in positions of authority, accountable," he added.

Investigators have created the following timeline of key events through documents produced piecemeal by the FBI over two years:

Investigators are trying to determine whether Obama asked for the Flynn intercept or it was offered to him and by whom. They also want to know how many times Comey and Obama talked about Flynn in December 2016 and January 2017.

"We need to determine what motivated the FBI on Jan. 4, 2017 to overrule its own agent who believed Flynn was innocent and the probe should be closed," one investigator said.


arrowrod , 26 minutes ago

Grenell comes in for a month, releases a **** load of "secret poop", then is replaced.

President Trump should fire the head of the FBI and replace with Grenell. I know, too easy.

"Expletive deleted", (I'm looking for new cuss words) the FBI and DOJ appear to be a bunch of stumble bum hacks, yet continue to get away with murder.

Schiff, lied and lied, but had immunity, because anything said on the house floor is safe from prosecution. Yet, GOP congress critters didn't go on the house floor and read the transcript from the testimony of the various liars.

"Rebellion to tyranny is obedience to God."-ThomasJefferson , 3 hours ago

Obama weaponized everything he could, including race, gender, religion, truth, law enforcement, judiciary, news industry, intelligence community, international allies and foes.

The most corrupt administration in the history of the republic. The abuse of power is mind numbing.

Only one way to rectify the damage the Obama administration has done to the USA is to systematically undo every single thing they touched.

Decimus Lunius Luvenalis , 3 hours ago

The idea that Obama was the center of anything is misdirection. The 'deep state,' as much as I loathe the term, is nothing but State clerks bent by their sense of self importance, venality in the adherence to 'rules,' and motivated by either their greed or their indignation that their status position is merely relative.

Soloamber , 3 hours ago

The motive was to get Flynn fired and lay the ground work to impeach Trump . The problem is Flynn actually did nothing wrong but he was targeted , framed , and blackmailed into claiming he lied over nothing illegal .

They destroyed his reputation , they financially ruined him and once they did that the sleazy prosecutors ran like rabbits . The judge is so in the bag , he bullied Flynn with implied threats about treason . The Judge is going to get absolutely fragged . Delay delay delay but the jig is up .

DOJ says case dropped and the Judge wants to play prosecutor . The Judge should be investigated along with the other criminals who framed Flynn . Who is the judge tied to ? Gee I wonder .

Nature_Boy_Wooooo , 4 hours ago

"As long as I'm alive the Republican party won't let anything happen to you."

"Thanks John McCain!......now let's set the trap."

"Let's do it Barry."

THORAX , 4 hours ago

The Flynn persecution is just the tip of the iceberg of corruption, illegal surveillance, perjury, money laundering, skimming and sedition.

subgen , 4 hours ago

One can only imagine all the times Obama weaponized the intelligence agencies against his political opponents that will never be exposed

sborovay07 , 5 hours ago

John and Sarah Carter have knocked it out of the park since the Obama attempted coup started. CNN should give their fake Pulitzers too the two reporters who told the truth. It been like the tree that falls in the forest. However, once the arrests start more people will see the tree that fell. These treasonists need to pay for their crimes Bigly.

Omni Consumer Product , 4 hours ago

There's too much spookology here for a jury - much less the public - to decipher.

You need a smoking gun, like a tape of Obama saying "I want General Flynn assassinated because Orange Man Bad".

In Watergate, the underlying crime was "Nixon spied on the Democrats". Everything else was just a question of who did what, and how much.

That's what is need here to swell the mass of public opinion. Of course, leftwing true believers of "the Resistance" will never accept it, but that is what is needed to convince the significant minority of more centrist Americans who haven't made a final decision yet.

Lux , 5 hours ago

How come there's never any mention of "London Collusion", as if UK interference in U.S. politics and society is quite alright -- even when it's highly detrimental?

fackbankz , 5 hours ago

The Crown took us over in 1913. We're just the muscle.

Lord Raglan , 5 hours ago

Brennan went over and met with MI-6 right about the time that Trump announced his candidacy. I think the whole Russia-Collusion thing was their idea and they put Brennan on to it. Set it all up for him, complete with a diagram so he wouldn't **** it up. That's what MI-6 does.

MI-6, like Christopher Steele, hated Trump because they BADLY want World Government. Have been sabotaging Brexit for years.

Brennan's just not smart or creative enough to have figured out the Hoax on his own. He's certainly corrupt enough.

flashmansbroker , 4 hours ago

More likely, the Brits were asked to do a favor.

Steele Hammorhands , 5 hours ago

It's easier for me to imagine Obama as puppet than a ringleader. He always seemed to be a fake, manufactured sort of person. As if he was focus-group-tested and approved.

Side Note: Does anyone remember when Obama referred to himself as "the first US president from Kenya" and then laughed about it?

The First Sitting American President to Come From Kenya

[May 27, 2020] Brennan ears over Guccifer 2.0 mask -- CIA is the most probable origin of Gussifer 2.0

If DNC was hack not a leak, then NSA would have all information about the hack.
May 27, 2020 | consortiumnews.com

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j1qOs0dE4I


P. Michael Garber , May 26, 2020 at 22:21

I'm afraid it won't matter how thorough the alternative media debunking of Russiagate becomes – as long as mainstream media sticks to the story, the neoliberal majority will too, because it is like catnip to them, absolving responsibility for the defeat, casting Clinton as the victim of an evil foreign despot, and delegitimizing Trump. Truth is tossed to the wind by this freight train of powerful interests.

I have little hope Barr and Durham will indict anyone high level.

Ray twice mentioned something about Sanders getting hosed again in the 2020 primary. I thought it seemed weird how suddenly the primary was declared "over." If there is evidence of DNC shenanigans in 2020, that would be a very interesting and timely topic.

Mark McCarty , May 25, 2020 at 21:25

On June 12, Assange announces Wikileaks will soon be releasing "emails pertinent to Hillary". On June 14th, Crowdstrike announces: someone, probably the Russians, has hacked the DNC and taken a Trump opposition research document; the very next day, G2.0 makes his first public appearance and posts the DNC's Trump oppo research document, with "Russian fingerprints" intentionally implanted in its metadata. (We now know that he had actually acquired this from PODESTA's emails, where it appears as an attachment – oops!) Moreover, G2.0 announces that he was the source of the "emails pertinent to Hillary" – DNC emails – that Assange was planning to release.

This strongly suggests that the G2.0 persona was working in collusion with Crowdstrike to perpetrate the hoax that the GRU had hacked the DNC to provide their emails to Wikileaks. Consistent with this, multiple cyberanalyses point to G2.0 working at various points In the Eastern, Central, and Western US time zones. (A mere coincidence that the DNC is in the eastern zone, and that Crowdstrike has offices in the central and western zones?)

If Crowdstrike honestly believed that the DNC had been hacked by the GRU, would there have been any need for them to perpetrate this fraud?

It is therefore reasonable to suspect, as Ray McGovern has long postulated, that Crowdstrike may have FAKED a GRU hack, to slander Russia and Assange, while distracting attention from the content of the released emails.

As far as we know, the only "evidence" that Crowdstrike has for GRU being the perpetrator of the alleged hack is the presence of "Fancy Bear" malware on the DNC server. But as cyberanalysts Jeffrey Carr and George Eliason have pointed out, this software is also possessed by Ukrainian hackers working in concert with Russian traitors and the Atlantic Council – with which the founders of Crowdstrike are allied.

Here's a key question: When Assange announced the impending release of "emails pertinent to Hillary" on June 12, how did Crowdstrike and G2.0 immediately know he was referring to DNC emails? Many people – I, for example – suspected he was referring to her deleted Secretary of State emails.

Here's a reasonable hypothesis – Our intelligence agencies were monitoring all communications with Wikileaks. If so, they could have picked up the communications between SR and Wikileaks that Sy Hersh's FBI source described. They then alerted the DNC that their emails were about to leaked to Wikileaks. The DNC then contacted Crowdstrike, which arranged for a "Fancy Bear hack" of the DNC servers. Notably, cyberanalysts have determined that about 2/3 of the Fancy Bear malware found on the DNC servers had been compiled AFTER the date that Crowdstrike was brought in to "roust the hackers".

Of course, this elaborate hoax would have come to grief if the actual leaker had come forward. Which might have had something to do with the subsequent "botched robbery" in which SR was slain.

Tim , May 25, 2020 at 20:33

How does the murder of the DNC staffer fit in?

Linda Wood , May 26, 2020 at 23:00

DNC staffer Seth Rich was murdered on July 10, 2016, amid contoversy over who provided DNC emails to Wikileaks and over a pending lawsuit concerning voter suppression during the 2016 primaries. Wikileaks offered a $20,000 reward for information about his murder, leading some to believe he was their source for the DNC emails. He was reported to have been a potential witness in the voter suppression lawsuit filed the day after his death.

mockingbirdpaper (dot) com/content/local-activist-files-suit-access-exit-polling-data-dead-witness-blocks-path-truth

[May 27, 2020] Obama/Brennan duo via Peter Strzok initiated anti-Trump witch hunt starting #Obamagate. Republicans supported this witch hunt. Trey Gowdy proved to be one of them and as such is a part of Obamagate scandal by Thomas Farnan

Obama ears protrude above this whole revaval of McCarthysim. he should end like the senator McCarthy -- disgraced. And the damage caused by RussiaGate was already done and is irrevocable.
May 27, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
Trump's Keyboard Warriors Get The Story While The Legacy Media Ignores #Obamagate Zero Hedge

Submitted by Thomas Farnan

CrowdStrike – the forensic investigation firm hired by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to inspect its computer servers in 2016 – admitted to Congressional investigators as early as 2017 that it had no direct evidence of Russian hacking, recently declassified documents show.

CrowdStrike's president Shawn Henry testified, "There's not evidence that [documents and emails] were actually exfiltrated [from the DNC servers]. There's circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated." This was a crucial revelation because the thousand ships of Russiagate launched upon the positive assertion that CrowdStrike had definitely proven a Russian hack. This sworn admission has been hidden from the public for over two years, and subsequent commentary has focused on that singular outrage.

The next deductive step, though, leads to an equally crucial point: Circumstantial evidence of Russian hacking is itself flimsy and collapses when not propped up by a claim of conclusive forensic testing.

THE COVER UP.

On March 19, 2016, Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta, surrendered his emails to an unknown entity in a "spear phishing" scam. This has been called a "hack," but it was not. Instead, it is was the sort of flim-flam hustle that happens to gullible dupes on the internet.

The content of the emails was beyond embarrassing. They showed election fraud and coordination with the media against the candidacy of Bernie Sanders. The DNC and the Clinton campaign needed a cover story.

There already existed in Washington brooding suspicion that Vladimir Putin was working to influence elections in the West. The DNC and the Clinton campaign set out to retrofit that supposition to explain the emails.

On January 16, 2016, a silk-stocking Washington D.C. think tank, The Atlantic Council (remember that name), had issued a dispatch under the banner headline: "US Intelligence Agencies to Investigate Russia's Infiltration of European Political Parties."

The lede was concise: "American intelligence agencies are to conduct a major investigation into how the Kremlin is infiltrating political parties in Europe, it can be revealed."

There followed a series of pull quotes from an article that appeared in the The Telegraph , including that "James Clapper, the US Director of National Intelligence" was investigating whether right wing political movements in Europe were sourced in "Russian meddling."

The dispatch spoke of "A dossier" that revealed "Russian influence operations" in Europe. This was the first time trippy words like "Russian meddling" and "dossier" would appear together in the American lexicon.

Most importantly, the piece revealed the Obama administration was spying on conservative European political parties. This means, almost necessarily under the Five Eyes Agreement , foreign agents were returning the favor and spying on the Trump campaign.

Blaming Russia would be a handy way to deal with the Podesta emails. The problem was the technologically impossibility of identifying the perpetrator in a phishing scheme. The only way to associate Putin with the emails was circumstantially. The DNC retained CrowdStrike to provide assistance.

On June 12, 2016, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced : "We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton . . . We have emails pending publication."

Two days later, CrowdStrike fed the Washington Post a story , headlined, "Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump."

The improbable tale was that the Russians had hacked the DNC computer servers and got away with some opposition research on Trump. The article quoted CrowdStrike's chief technology officer and co-founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, who also happens to be a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.

The next day, a new blog – Guccifer 2.0 – appeared on the internet and announced:

Worldwide known cyber security company CrowdStrike announced that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) servers had been hacked by "sophisticated" hacker groups.

I'm very pleased the company appreciated my skills so highly))) But in fact, it was easy, very easy.

Guccifer may have been the first one who penetrated Hillary Clinton's and other Democrats' mail servers. But he certainly wasn't the last. No wonder any other hacker could easily get access to the DNC's servers.

Shame on CrowdStrike: Do you think I've been in the DNC's networks for almost a year and saved only 2 documents? Do you really believe it?

Here are just a few docs from many thousands I extracted when hacking into DNC's network.

Guccifer 2.0 posted hundreds of pages of Trump opposition research allegedly hacked from the DNC and emailed copies to Gawker and The Smoking Gun . In raw form, the opposition research was one of the documents obtained in the Podesta emails, with a notable difference: It was widely reported the document now contained " Russian fingerprints ."

The document had been cut and pasted into a separate Russian Word template that yielded an abundance of Russian "error "messages . In the document's metadata was the name of the Russian secret police founder, Felix Dzerzhinsky, written in the Russian language. The three-parenthesis formulation from the original post ")))" is the Russian version of a smiley face used commonly on social media. In addition, the blog's author deliberately used a Russian VPN service visible in its emails even though there would have been many options to hide national affiliation.

CrowdStrike would later test the computers and declare this to be the work of sophisticated Russian spies. Alperovitch described it as, " skilled operational tradecraft ."

There is nothing skilled, though, in ham-handedly disclosing a Russian identity on the internet when trying to hide it. The more reasonable inference is that this was a set-up. It certainly looks like Guccifer 2.0 suddenly appeared in coordination with the Washington Post 's article that appeared the previous day.

THE FRAME UP.

Knowing as we now do that CrowdStrike never corroborated a hack by forensic analysis, the reasonable inference is that somebody was trying to frame Russia. Most likely, the entities that spent three years falsely leading the world to believe that direct evidence of a hack existed – CrowdStrike and the DNC – were the ones involved in the frame-up.

Lending weight to this theory: at the same moment CrowdStrike was raising a false Russian flag, a different entity, Fusion GPS – also paid by the DNC – was inventing a phony dossier that ridiculously connected Trump to Russia.

Somehow, the ruse worked.

Rather than report the content of the incriminating emails, the watchdog press instead reported CrowdStrike's bad explanation: that Putin-did-it.

Incredibly, Trump was placed on the defensive for email leaks that showed his opponent fixing the primaries. His campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, was forced to resign because a fake ledger suddenly appeared out of Ukraine connecting him to Russia.

Trump protested by stating the obvious: the federal government has "no idea" who was behind the hacks. The FBI and CIA called him a liar, issuing a " Joint Statement " that cited Guccifer 2.0, suggesting 17 intelligence agencies agree that it was the Russians.

Hillary Clinton took advantage of this "intelligence assessment" in the October debate to portray Trump as Putin's stooge"

"We have 17, 17 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. I find that deeply disturbing," said Clinton.

The media's fact checkers excoriated Trump for lying. This was the ultimate campaign dirty trick: a joint operation by the intelligence agencies and the media against a political candidate. It has since been learned that the "17 intelligence agencies" claptrap was always false . Those responsible for the exaggeration were James Clapper, James Comey and John Brennan.

Somehow, Trump won anyway.

Those who assert that it is a "conspiracy theory" to say that CrowdStrike would fabricate the results of computer forensic testing to create a false Russian flag should know that it was caught doing exactly that around the time it was inspecting the DNC computers.

On Dec. 22, 2016, CrowdStrike caused an international stir when it claimed to have uncovered evidence that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery computer app to help pro-Russian separatists. Voice of America later determined the claim was false , and CrowdStrike retracted its finding. Ukraine's Ministry of Defense was forced to eat crow and admit that the hacking never happened. If you wanted a computer testing firm to fabricate a Russian hack for political reasons in 2016, CrowdStrike was who you went out and hired.

Perhaps most insidiously, the Obama administration played the phony Russian interference card during the transition to try to end Trump's presidency before it started. As I wrote in December 2017:

Michael Flynn was indicted for a conversation he had with the Russian ambassador on December 28, 2016, seven weeks after the election.

That was the day after the outgoing president expelled 35 Russian diplomats -- including gardeners and chauffeurs -- for interfering in the election. Yes, that really happened.

The Obama administration had wiretapped Flynn's conversation with the ambassador, hoping to find him saying something they could use to support their wild story about collusion.

The outrage, for some reason, is not that an outgoing administration was using wiretaps to listen in on a successor's transition. It is that Flynn might have signaled to the Russians that the Trump administration would have a different approach to foreign policy.

How dare Trump presume to tell an armed nuclear state to stand down because everyone in Washington was in a state of psychological denial that he was elected?

Let's establish one thing early here: It is okay for an incoming administration to communicate its foreign policy preferences during a transition even if they differ from the lame duck administration .

.If anything, Flynn was too reserved in his conversation with the Russian ambassador. He should have said, "President-elect Trump believes this Russian collusion thing is a fantasy and these sanctions will be lifted on his first day in office."

That would have been perfectly legal. It also happens to be what FBI Director Comey and the rest were hoping Flynn would do. They wanted to get a Trump official on tape making an accommodation to the Russians.

The accommodation would then be cited to suggest a quid pro quo that proved the nonexistent collusion. Instead, Flynn was uncharacteristically noncommittal in his conversation with the ambassador. Drat!

They did have a transcript of what he said, though. This is where the tin-pot dictator behavior of Comey is fully displayed. He invited Flynn to be interviewed by the FBI, supposedly about Russian collusion to steal the election.

If you're Flynn, you say, "Sure, I want to tell you 15 different ways that there was no collusion and when do you want to meet."

What Flynn did not know was that the purpose of the interview had nothing to do with the election. It would be a test pitting Flynn's memory against the transcript.

Think about that for a moment. Comey did not need to ask Flynn what was said in the conversation with the ambassador -- he had a transcript. The only reason to ask Flynn about it was to cross him up.

That is the politicization of the FBI. It is everything Trump supporters rail against when they implore him to drain the swamp. The inescapable conclusion is that the FBI set a trap for the incoming national security advisor to affect the foreign policy of the newly elected president.

Flynn made the mistake of not being altogether clear about what he had discussed with the ambassador. In his defense, he did not believe he was sitting there to tell the FBI how the Trump administration was dealing with Russia going forward. The conversation was supposed to be about the election.

He certainly did not think the FBI would unmask his comments in a FISA wiretap and compare them to his answers. That would be illegal.

Exhibit 5 to the DOJ's recent Motion to Dismiss the Flynn indictment confirms the Obama administration's bad faith in listening in on his conversation with the ambassador. The plotters admit , essentially, that they looked at the transcript to see whether Flynn said anything that caused Russia to stand-down. Had General Flynn promised to lift the sanctions, the Obama administration would have claimed it was the pro quo that went with the quid of Putin's interference.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/KeSHRR5bMr0

After Trump's inauguration, the FBI and Justice Department launched a special counsel investigation that accepted, as a given, CrowdStrike's dubious conclusion that Russia had interfered in the election. The only remaining question was whether Trump himself colluded in the interference. There followed a two-year inquiry that did massive political damage to Trump and the movement that put him in office.

Tucker Carlson rightly made Trey Gowdy squirm recently for Republican acquiescence in the shoddy underpinnings of the Russia hoax. It was not only Gowdy, though. Establishment politicians and pundits have been all too willing for years to wallow in fabricated Russian intrigue , at the expense of the Trump presidency.

This perfectly illustrates Republican perfidy: Gifted with undeserved victory in a generational realignment that they were dragged to kicking and screaming, they proceed to question its source and validity. Because if Trump was a product of KGB- esque intrigue, then Hillary was a victim of meddling. Trump was a hapless beneficiary. The deplorables were not only racist losers, they were also Putin's unwitting stooges.

As I first noted in December 2016, the Washington establishment deliberately set out to fan Russian anxiety to conduct war against the Trump administration. Perhaps it is time to admit that those of us chided as " crazies " who doubted Russian interference – including Trump himself – were right all along.

In the after-action assessment of what went wrong, it should be noted that non-insiders are the ones who have called this from the beginning, in places like here , here , here , here , and here . That is partly what the president means when he Tweets support for his " keyboard warriors ." As Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany pointed out on Friday, the White House press corps has completely missed the story.

Thank you to all of my great Keyboard Warriors. You are better, and far more brilliant, than anyone on Madison Avenue (Ad Agencies). There is nobody like you!

-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 15, 2020

This scandal is huge, much bigger than Watergate, and compromising in its resolution is destructive. If Republicans continue to stupidly concede phony Russian intrigue , the plotters will say they were justified to investigate it.

The recent CrowdStrike testimony drop ended any chance at middle ground. This was a rank political operation and indicting a few FBI agents is not going to resolve anything.

CrowdStrike's circumstantial evidence that launched this probe is ridiculous. We'll soon know if the Durham investigation has the will to defy powerful insiders of both parties and say so.

[May 26, 2020] Saagar Enjeti EXPOSES Russiagate Liar's Dem Candidacy -- Evelyn Farkas

Fantastic interview. all Obama gang should be prosecuted for their attempt of coup d'état. Farkas behaviors looks like standard operating procecure for the neocon scum
That an effective but dirty trick on the part of this neocon prostitute Evelyn Farkas : "Putin want me to lose, send me some money"
May 26, 2020 | www.youtube.com

Steve Conrad , 1 week ago

Farkas is running primarily for the same reason that Andy mccabes wife ran - so she can pick up her payment from the dnc in the form of campaign contributions. It's money laundering

Clinton Flynn , 1 week ago

Farkas is so toxic her eyes are trying to escape.

Greg James , 1 week ago

Will Mika have her back on and ask Farkas why she lied to her, and made her look like a fool?

Haters WannaHate , 1 week ago

Calling Russia-gaters conspiracy theorists is an insult to conspiracy theorists.

J Rosa , 1 week ago

Call these Russian haters Xenophobic and see their denials.

None , 1 week ago (edited)

Boom 12:03 Yes Saagar, that's what I was hollering! This is far more insidious. There was NO ONE in power that believed birtherism whereas the entire National Security apparatus pushed this bogus coup on the President. The NSA, CIA, FBI, and media were all complicit. Do not let Krystal get away with a false equivalence. She is bullshitting. Chuck Schumer even threatened Trump on national television saying that the intelligence agencies have six ways til Sunday to take you down.

George Johnson , 1 week ago

Military Industrial Complex Media only propagandizes.

Rene Flores, Sr. , 1 week ago

Obamagate is no longer a conspiracy theory. If you still believe it is you need new news sources

Chris Opall , 1 week ago

"Full service economy". Krystal nailed it.

Brian Malone , 1 week ago (edited)

The bottom line is millions brainwashed Democrats believe her, so it is as good as the truth.

charlie brown , 1 week ago

"Panties on fire" Farkas's nose grew 8 inches on my screen. DNC and lame left media are serial fairy tale story tellers.

JD PartyHat , 1 week ago

obama is evil because of his pushing american imperialism.

Tim Brady , 1 week ago (edited)

I wish Farcas had spent a bit more time talking on MSNBC , I'm sure she would have coughed up more material. I would also like to see her texts and phone calls received after that a appearance, I'm sure some Obama people were pulling their hair out as she was spilling the whole scenario and called her immediately after.

M , 6 days ago

I think Saagar is fantastic. He's like a softcore version of Tucker Carlson.

Cynthia Johnson , 1 week ago

Russiagate was built on the willingness of a lot of people to believe the worst about Trump. That's it. Which honestly says more about the narrow-mindedness of Trump haters than it does about Trump himself. Whatever Trump is or isn't, and I'm no Trump supporter though I never got seduced into hating him, the one truth to come out of this is that his haters don't care about evidence, or the rule of law, or even common sense.

Hav G Reso HGR , 1 week ago

So if Farkas says she was raped, someone will say "believe all women". BS.

Michael , 1 week ago

If Russian interference was as de-stabilizing to our democracy as these people would have led us to believe, then, how de-stabilizing would carelessly weaponizing it potentially be? These people have no place in government or any form of public discourse. They are a malignancy.

[May 24, 2020] Guccifer 2.0 was always John Brennan 1.0

Highly recommended!
Images deleted.
False flag operation by CIA or CrowdStrike as CIA constructor: CIA ears protrude above Gussifer 2.0 hat.
Notable quotes:
"... Guccifer 2.0 fabricated evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC (using files that were really Podesta attachments) . ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0’s Russian breadcrumbs mostly came from deliberate processes & needless editing of documents . ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0’s Russian communications signals came from the persona choosing to use a proxy server in Moscow and choosing to use a Russian VPN service as end-points (and they used an email service that forwards the sender’s IP address, which made identifying that signal a relatively trivial task.) ..."
"... A considerable volume of evidence pointed at Guccifer 2.0’s activities being in American timezones (twice as many types of indicators were found pointing at Guccifer 2.0’s activities being in American timezones than anywhere else). ..."
"... The American timezones were incidental to other activities (eg. blogging , social media , emailing a journalist , archiving files , etc) and some of these were recorded independently by service providers. ..."
"... A couple of pieces of evidence with Russian indicators present had accompanying locale indicators that contradicted this which suggested the devices used hadn’t been properly set up for use in Russia (or Romania) but may have been suitable for other countries (including America) . ..."
"... On the same day that Guccifer 2.0 was plastering Russian breadcrumbs on documents through a deliberate process, choosing to use Russian-themed end-points and fabricating evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC, the operation attributed itself to WikiLeaks. ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0 chose to use insecure communications to ask WikiLeaks to confirm receipt of “DNC emails” on July 6, 2016. Confirmation of this was not provided at that time but WikiLeaks did confirm receipt of a “1gb or so” archive on July 18, 2016. ..."
"... The alleged GRU officer we are told was part of an operation to deflect from Russian culpability suggested that Assange “may be connected with Russians”. ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0 fabricated evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC, covered itself (and its files) in what were essentially a collection of “Made In Russia” labels through deliberate processes and decisions made by the persona, and, then, it attributed itself to WikiLeaks with a claim that was contradicted by subsequent communications between both parties. ..."
"... While we are expected to accept that Guccifer 2.0’s efforts between July 6 and July 18 were a sincere effort to get leaks to WikiLeaks, considering everything we now know about the persona, it seems fair to question whether Guccifer 2.0’s intentions towards WikiLeaks may have instead been malicious. ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0 was always John Brennan 1.0 ..."
"... Was Guccifer II part of the Stefan Halper organization that lured Papadopoulos and maliciously maligned others? ..."
"... I believe Guccifer 2.0 was created by the CIA to falsely pin blame on the Russians for info that Seth Rich gave to WikiLeaks. Read for yourself: http://g-2.space/ ..."
May 24, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Tim Leonard via ConsortiumNews.com,

Why would an alleged GRU officer - supposedly part of an operation to deflect Russian culpability - suggest that Assange “may be connected with Russians?”

In December, I reported on digital forensics evidence relating to Guccifer 2.0 and highlighted several key points about the mysterious persona that Special Counsel Robert Mueller claims was a front for Russian intelligence to leak Democratic Party emails to WikiLeaks:

On the same day that Guccifer 2.0 was plastering Russian breadcrumbs on documents through a deliberate process, choosing to use Russian-themed end-points and fabricating evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC, the operation attributed itself to WikiLeaks.

This article questions what Guccifer 2.0’s intentions were in relation to WikiLeaks in the context of what has been discovered by independent researchers during the past three years.

Timing

On June 12, 2016, in an interview with ITV’s Robert Peston, Julian Assange confirmed that WikiLeaks had emails relating to Hillary Clinton that the organization intended to publish. This announcement was prior to any reported contact with Guccifer 2.0 (or with DCLeaks).

On June 14, 2016, an article was published in The Washington Post citing statements from two CrowdStrike executives alleging that Russian intelligence hacked the DNC and stole opposition research on Trump. It was apparent that the statements had been made in the 48 hours prior to publication as they referenced claims of kicking hackers off the DNC network on the weekend just passed (June 11-12, 2016).

On that same date, June 14, DCLeaks contacted WikiLeaks via Twitter DM and for some reason suggested that both parties coordinate their releases of leaks. (It doesn’t appear that WikiLeaks responded until September 2016).

On June 15, 2016, Guccifer 2.0 appeared for the first time. He fabricated evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC (using material that wasn’t from the DNC), used a proxy in Moscow to carry out searches (for mostly English language terms including a grammatically incorrect and uncommon phrase that the persona would use in its first blog post) and used a Russian VPN service to share the fabricated evidence with reporters. All of this combined conveniently to provide false corroboration for several claims made by CrowdStrike executives that were published just one day earlier in The Washington Post.

[CrowdStrike President Shawn Henry testified under oath behind closed doors on Dec. 5, 2017 to the U.S. House intelligence committee that his company had no evidence that Russian actors removed anything from the DNC servers. This testimony was only released earlier this month.]

First Claim Versus First Contact

On the day it emerged, the Guccifer 2.0 operation stated that it had given material to WikiLeaks and asserted that the organization would publish that material soon:

By stating that WikiLeaks would “publish them soon” the Guccifer 2.0 operation implied that it had received confirmation of intent to publish.

However, the earliest recorded communication between Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks didn’t occur until a week later (June 22, 2016) when WikiLeaks reached out to Guccifer 2.0 and suggested that the persona send any new material to them rather than doing what it was doing:

[Excerpt from Special Counsel Mueller’s report. Note: “stolen from the DNC” is an editorial insert by the special counsel.]

If WikiLeaks had already received material and confirmed intent to publish prior to this direct message, why would they then suggest what they did when they did? WikiLeaks says it had no prior contact with Guccifer 2.0 despite what Guccifer 2.0 had claimed.

Needing To Know What WikiLeaks Had

Fortunately, information that gives more insight into communications on June 22, 2016 was made available on April 29, 2020 via a release of the Roger Stone arrest warrant application.

Here is the full conversation on that date (according to the application):

@WikiLeaks: Do you have secure communications?

@WikiLeaks: Send any new material here for us to review and it will have a much higher impact than what you are doing. No other media will release the full material.

@GUCCIFER_2: what can u suggest for a secure connection? Soft, keys, etc? I’m ready to cooperate with you, but I need to know what’s in your archive 80gb? Are there only HRC emails? Or some other docs? Are there any DNC docs? If it’s not secret when you are going to release it?

@WikiLeaks: You can send us a message in a .txt file here [link redacted]

@GUCCIFER_2: do you have GPG?

Why would Guccifer 2.0 need to know what material WikiLeaks already had? Certainly, if it were anything Guccifer 2.0 had sent (or the GRU had sent) he wouldn’t have had reason to inquire.

The more complete DM details provided here also suggest that both parties had not yet established secure communications.

Further communications were reported to have taken place on June 24, 2016:

@GUCCIFER_2: How can we chat? Do u have jabber or something like that?

@WikiLeaks: Yes, we have everything. We’ve been busy celebrating Brexit. You can also email an encrypted message to office@wikileaks.org. They key is here.

and June 27, 2016:

@GUCCIFER_2: Hi, i’ve just sent you an email with a text message encrypted and an open key.

@WikiLeaks: Thanks.

@GUCCIFER_2: waiting for ur response. I send u some interesting piece.

Guccifer 2.0 said he needed to know what was in the 88GB ‘insurance’ archive that WikiLeaks had posted on June 16, 2016 and it’s clear that, at this stage, secure communications had not been established between both parties (which would seem to rule out the possibility of encrypted communications prior to June 15, 2016, making Guccifer 2.0’s initial claims about WikiLeaks even more doubtful).

Claims DCLeaks Is A Sub-Project Of WikiLeaks

On June 27, 2016, in an email chain to the Smoking Gun (exposing Guccifer 2.0 apparently being in the Central US timezone), Guccifer 2.0 claimed that DCLeaks was a “sub-project” of WikiLeaks.

There’s no evidence to support this. “Envoy le” is also a mistake as standard French emails read: “Envoye le.” Claims allegedly made by Guccifer 2.0 in a Twitter DM to DCLeaks on September 15, 2016 suggest that he knew this was nonsense:

There was no evidence of WikiLeaks mentioning this to Guccifer 2.0 nor any reason for why WikiLeaks couldn’t just send a DM to DCLeaks themselves if they had wanted to.

(It should also be noted that this Twitter DM activity between DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 is alleged by Mueller to be communications between officers within the same unit of the GRU, who, for some unknown reason, decided to use Twitter DMs to relay such information rather than just communicate face to face or securely via their own local network.)

Guccifer 2.0 lied about DCLeaks being a sub-project of WikiLeaks and then, over two months later, was seen trying to encourage DCLeaks to communicate with WikiLeaks by relaying an alleged request from WikiLeaks that there is no record of WikiLeaks ever making (and which WikiLeaks could have done themselves, directly, if they had wanted to).

The ‘About 1GB’ / ‘1Gb or So’ Archive

On July 4, 2016, Guccifer 2.0 contacted WikiLeaks:

@GUCCIFER_2: hi there, check up r email, waiting for reply.

This was followed up on July 6, 2016 with the following conversation:

@GUCCIFER_2: have you received my parcel?

@WikiLeaks: Not unless it was very recent. [we haven’ t checked in 24h].

@GUCCIFER_2: I sent it yesterday, an archive of about 1 gb. via [website link]. and check your email.

@WikiLeaks: Wil[l] check, thanks.

@GUCCIFER_2: let me know the results.

@WikiLeaks: Please don’t make anything you send to us public. It’s a lot of work to go through it and the impact is severely reduced if we are not the first to publish.

@GUCCIFER_2: agreed. How much time will it take?

@WikiLeaks: likely sometime today.

@GUCCIFER_2: will u announce a publication? and what about 3 docs sent u earlier?

@WikiLeaks: I don’t believe we received them. Nothing on ‘Brexit’ for example.

@GUCCIFER_2: wow. have you checked ur mail?

@WikiLeaks: At least not as of 4 days ago . . . . For security reasons mail cannot be checked for some hours.

@GUCCIFER_2: fuck, sent 4 docs on brexit on jun 29, an archive in gpg ur submission form is too fucking slow, spent the whole day uploading 1 gb.

@WikiLeaks: We can arrange servers 100x as fast. The speed restrictions are to anonymise the path. Just ask for custom fast upload point in an email.

@GUCCIFER_2: will u be able to check ur email?

@WikiLeaks: We’re best with very large data sets. e.g. 200gb. these prove themselves since they’re too big to fake.

@GUCCIFER_2: or shall I send brexit docs via submission once again?

@WikiLeaks: to be safe, send via [web link]

@GUCCIFER_2: can u confirm u received dnc emails?

@WikiLeaks: for security reasons we can’ t confirm what we’ve received here. e.g., in case your account has been taken over by us intelligence and is probing to see what we have.

@GUCCIFER_2: then send me an encrypted email.

@WikiLeaks: we can do that. but the security people are in another time zone so it will need to wait some hours.

@WikiLeaks: what do you think about the FBl’ s failure to charge? To our mind the clinton foundation investigation has always been the more serious. we would be very interested in all the emails/docs from there. She set up quite a lot of front companies. e.g in sweden.

@GUCCIFER_2: ok, i’ll be waiting for confirmation. as for investigation, they have everything settled, or else I don’t know how to explain that they found a hundred classified docs but fail to charge her.

@WikiLeaks: She’s too powerful to charge at least without something stronger. s far as we know, the investigation into the clinton foundation remains open e hear the FBI are unhappy with Loretta Lynch over meeting Bill, because he’s a target in that investigation.

@GUCCIFER_2: do you have any info about marcel lazar? There’ve been a lot of rumors of late.

@WikiLeaks: the death? [A] fake story.

@WikiLeaks: His 2013 screen shots of Max Blumenthal’s inbox prove that Hillary secretly deleted at least one email about Libya that was meant to be handed over to Congress. So we were very interested in his co-operation with the FBI.

@GUCCIFER_2: some dirty games behind the scenes believe Can you send me an email now?

@WikiLeaks: No; we have not been able to activate the people who handle it. Still trying.

@GUCCIFER_2: what about tor submission? [W]ill u receive a doc now?

@WikiLeaks: We will get everything sent on [weblink].” [A]s long as you see \”upload succseful\” at the end. [I]f you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the DNC is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after.

@GUCCIFER_2: ok. I see.

@WikiLeaks: [W]e think the public interest is greatest now and in early october.

@GUCCIFER_2: do u think a lot of people will attend bernie fans rally in philly? Will it affect the dnc anyhow?

@WikiLeaks: bernie is trying to make his own faction leading up to the DNC. [S]o he can push for concessions (positions/policies) or, at the outside, if hillary has a stroke, is arrested etc, he can take over the nomination. [T]he question is this: can bemies supporters+staff keep their coherency until then (and after). [O]r will they dis[s]olve into hillary’ s camp? [P]resently many of them are looking to damage hilary [sic] inorder [sic] to increase their unity and bargaining power at the DNC. Doubt one rally is going to be that significant in the bigger scheme. [I]t seems many of them will vote for hillary just to prevent trump from winning.

@GUCCIFER_2: sent brexit docs successfully.

@WikiLeaks: :))).

@WikiLeaks: we think trump has only about a 25% chance of winning against hillary so conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting.

@GUCCIFER_2: so it is.

@WikiLeaks: also, it’ s important to consider what type of president hillary might be. If bernie and trump retain their groups past 2016 in significant number, then they are a restraining force on hillary.

[Note: This was over a week after the Brexit referendum had taken place, so this will not have had any impact on the results of that. It also doesn’t appear that WikiLeaks released any Brexit content around this time.]

On July 14, 2016, Guccifer 2.0 sent an email to WikiLeaks, this was covered in the Mueller report:

It should be noted that while the attachment sent was encrypted, the email wasn’t and both the email contents and name of the file were readable.

The persona then opted, once again, for insecure communications via Twitter DMs:

@GUCCIFER_2: ping. Check ur email. sent u a link to a big archive and a pass.

@WikiLeaks: great, thanks; can’t check until tomorrow though.

On July 17, 2016, the persona contacted WikiLeaks again:

@GUCCIFER_2: what bout now?

On July 18, 2016, WikiLeaks responded and more was discussed:

@WikiLeaks: have the 1 Gb or so archive.

@GUCCIFER_2: have u managed to extract the files?

@WikiLeaks: yes. turkey coup has delayed us a couple of days. [O]therwise all ready[.]

@GUCCIFER_2: so when r u about to make a release?

@WikiLeaks: this week. [D]o you have any bigger datasets? [D]id you get our fast transfer details?

@GUCCIFER_2: i’ll check it. did u send it via email?

@WikiLeaks: yes.

@GUCCIFER_2: to [web link]. [I] got nothing.

@WikiLeaks: check your other mail? this was over a week ago.

@GUCCIFER_2:oh, that one, yeah, [I] got it.

@WikiLeaks: great. [D]id it work?

@GUCCIFER_2:[I] haven’ t tried yet.

@WikiLeaks: Oh. We arranged that server just for that purpose. Nothing bigger?

@GUCCIFER_2: let’s move step by step, u have released nothing of what [I] sent u yet.

@WikiLeaks: How about you transfer it all to us encrypted. [T]hen when you are happy, you give us the decrypt key. [T]his way we can move much faster. (A]lso it is protective for you if we already have everything because then there is no point in trying to shut you up.

@GUCCIFER_2: ok, i’ll ponder it

Again, we see a reference to the file being approximately one gigabyte in size.

Guccifer 2.0’s “so when r u about to make a release?” seems to be a question about his files. However, it could have been inferred as generally relating to what WikiLeaks had or even material relating to the “Turkey Coup” that WikiLeaks had mentioned in the previous sentence and that were published by the following day (July 19, 2016).

The way this is reported in the Mueller report, though, prevented this potential ambiguity being known (by not citing the exact question that Guccifer 2.0 had asked and the context immediately preceding it.

Four days later, WikiLeaks published the DNC emails.

Later that same day, Guccifer 2.0 tweeted: “@wikileaks published #DNCHack docs I’d given them!!!”.

Guccifer 2.0 chose to use insecure communications to ask WikiLeaks to confirm receipt of “DNC emails” on July 6, 2016. Confirmation of this was not provided at that time but WikiLeaks did confirm receipt of a “1gb or so” archive on July 18, 2016.

Guccifer 2.0’s emails to WikiLeaks were also sent insecurely.

We cannot be certain that WikiLeaks statement about making a release was in relation to Guccifer 2.0’s material and there is even a possibility that this could have been in reference to the Erdogan leaks published by WikiLeaks on July 19, 2016.

Ulterior Motives?

While the above seems troubling there are a few points worth considering:

Considering all of this and the fact Guccifer 2.0 effectively covered itself in “Made In Russia” labels (by plastering files in Russian metadata and choosing to use a Russian VPN service and a proxy in Moscow for it’s activities) on the same day it first attributed itself to WikiLeaks, it’s fair to suspect that Guccifer 2.0 had malicious intent towards WikiLeaks from the outset.

If this was the case, Guccifer 2.0 may have known about the DNC emails by June 30, 2016 as this is when the persona first started publishing attachments from those emails.

Seth Rich Mentioned By Both Parties

WikiLeaks Offers Reward

On August 9, 2016, WikiLeaks tweeted:

ANNOUNCE: WikiLeaks has decided to issue a US$20k reward for information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich.

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) August 9, 2016

In an interview with Nieuwsuur that was posted the same day, Julian Assange explained that the reward was for a DNC staffer who he said had been “shot in the back, murdered”. When the interviewer suggested it was a robbery Assange disputed it and stated that there were no findings.

When the interviewer asked if Seth Rich was a source, Assange stated, “We don’t comment on who our sources are”.

When pressed to explain WikiLeaks actions, Assange stated that the reward was being offered because WikiLeaks‘ sources were concerned by the incident. He also stated that WikiLeaks were investigating.

Speculation and theories about Seth Rich being a source for WikiLeaks soon propagated to several sites and across social media.

Guccifer 2.0 Claims Seth Rich As His Source

On August 25, 2016, approximately three weeks after the reward was offered, Julian Assange was due to be interviewed on Fox News on the topic of Seth Rich.

On that same day, in a DM conversation with the actress Robbin Young, Guccifer 2.0 claimed that Seth was his source (despite previously claiming he obtained his material by hacking the DNC).

Why did Guccifer 2.0 feel the need to attribute itself to Seth at this time?

[Note: I am not advocating for any theory and am simply reporting on Guccifer 2.0’s effort to attribute itself to Seth Rich following the propagation of Rich-WikiLeaks association theories online.]

Special Counsel Claims

In Spring, 2019, Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who was named to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. general election, delivered his final report.

It claimed:

Guccifer 2.0 contradicted his own hacking claims to allege that Seth Rich was his source and did so on the same day that Julian Assange was due to be interviewed by Fox News (in relation to Seth Rich).

No communications between Guccifer 2.0 and Seth Rich have ever been reported.

Suggesting Assange Connected To Russians

In the same conversation Guccifer 2.0 had with Robbin Young where Rich’s name is mentioned (on August 25, 2016), the persona also provided a very interesting response to Young mentioning “Julian” (in reference to Julian Assange):

The alleged GRU officer we are told was part of an operation to deflect from Russian culpability suggested that Assange “may be connected with Russians”.

Guccifer 2.0’s Mentions of WikiLeaks and Assange

Guccifer 2.0 mentioned WikiLeaks or associated himself with their output on several occasions:

  1. June 15, 2016: claiming to have sent WikiLeaks material on his blog.
  2. June 27, 2016: when he claimed DCLeaks was a sub-project of WikiLeaks.
  3. July 13, 2016: Joe Uchill of The Hill reported that Guccifer 2.0 had contacted the publication and stated: “The press gradually forget about me, [W]ikileaks is playing for time and have some more docs.”
  4. July 22nd, 2016: claimed credit when WikiLeaks published the DNC leaks.
  5. August 12, 2016: It was reported in The Hill that Guccifer 2.0 had released material to the publication. They reported: “The documents released to The Hill are only the first section of a much larger cache. The bulk, the hacker said, will be released on WikiLeaks.”
  6. August 12, 2016: Tweeted that he would “send the major trove of the #DCCC materials and emails to #wikileaks“.
  7. September 15, 2016: telling DCLeaks that WikiLeaks wanted to get in contact with them.
  8. October 4, 2016: Congratulating WikiLeaks on their 10th anniversary via its blog. Also states: “Julian, you are really cool! Stay safe and sound!”. (This was the same day on which Guccifer 2.0 published his “Clinton Foundation” files that were clearly not from the Clinton Foundation.)
  9. October 17, 2016: via Twitter, stating “i’m here and ready for new releases. already changed my location thanks @wikileaks for a good job!”

Guccifer 2.0 also made some statements in response to WikiLeaks or Assange being mentioned:

  1. June 17, 2016: in response to The Smoking Gun asking if Assange would publish the same material it was publishing, Guccifer 2.0 stated: “I gave WikiLeaks the greater part of the files, but saved some for myself,”
  2. August 22, 2016: in response to Raphael Satter suggesting that Guccifer 2.0 send leaks to WikiLeaks, the persona stated: “I gave wikileaks a greater part of docs”.
  3. August 25, 2016: in response to Julian Assange’s name being mentioned in a conversation with Robbin Young, Guccifer 2.0 stated: “he may be connected with Russians”.
  4. October 18, 2016: a BBC reported asked Guccifer 2.0 if he was upset that WikiLeaks had “stole his thunder” and “do you still support Assange?”. Guccifer 2.0 responded: “i’m glad, together we’ll make America great again.”.

Guccifer 2.0 fabricated evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC, covered itself (and its files) in what were essentially a collection of “Made In Russia” labels through deliberate processes and decisions made by the persona, and, then, it attributed itself to WikiLeaks with a claim that was contradicted by subsequent communications between both parties.

Guccifer 2.0 then went on to lie about WikiLeaks, contradicted its own hacking claims to attribute itself to Seth Rich and even alleged that Julian Assange “may be connected with Russians”.

While we are expected to accept that Guccifer 2.0’s efforts between July 6 and July 18 were a sincere effort to get leaks to WikiLeaks, considering everything we now know about the persona, it seems fair to question whether Guccifer 2.0’s intentions towards WikiLeaks may have instead been malicious.


xxx 2 minutes ago (Edited)

Everything involving the Russian hoax was set up by the Deep States around the world. Implicate, discredit and destroy all those like Rich, Assange, Flynn and those who knew the truth. Kill the messenger....literally.

xxx 10 minutes ago

here's what really happened:

an American hacker breached Podesta's gmail on March 13 2016 and then uploaded it to Wikileaks via Tor sometime between April and May.

the NSA and CIA have hacked into Wikileaks' Tor file server to watch for new leaks to stay ahead of them to prepare. they saw Podesta's emails leaked and launched a counter infowar operation.

Brennan's CIA created the Guccifer 2.0 persona, with phony Russian metadata artifacts, using digital forgery techniques seen in Vault7. Crowdstrike was already on the premises of DNC since 2015, with their overly expensive security scanner watching the DNC network. Crowdstrike had access to any DNC files they wanted. CIA, FBI and Crowdstrike colluded to create a fake leak of DNC docs through their Guccifer 2.0 cutout. they didn't leak any docs of high importance, which is why we never saw any smoking guns from DNC leaks or DCLeaks.

you have to remember, the whole point of this CIAFBINSA operation has nothing to do with Hillary or Trump or influencing the election. the point was to fabricate criminal evidence to use against Assange to finally arrest him and extradite him as well as smear Wikileaks ahead of the looming leak of Podesta's emails.

if CIAFBINSA can frame Assange and Wikileaks as being criminal hackers and/or Russian assets ahead of the Podesta leaks, then they can craft a narrative for the MSM to ignore or distrust most of the Podesta emails. and that is exactly what happened, such as when Chris Cuomo said on CNN that it was illegal for you to read Wikileaks, but not CNN, so you should let CNN tell you what to think about Wikileaks instead of looking at evidence yourself.

this explains why Guccifer 2.0 was so sloppy leaving a trail of Twitter DMs to incriminate himself and Assange along with him.

if this CIAFBINSA entrapment/frame operation ever leaks, it will guarantee the freedom of Assange.

xxx 11 minutes ago

According to Wikipedia, "Guccifer" is Marcel Lazar Lehel, a Rumanian born in 1972, but "Guccifer 2.0" is someone else entirely.

Is that so?

xxx 20 minutes ago (Edited)

The guy from Cyrptome always asserted Assange was some type of deep state puppet, that he was connected somehow. This wouldn't be news to me and its probably why he was scared as hell. The guy is as good as dead, like S. Hussein. Seth Rich was just a puppet that got caught in the wrong game. He was expendable obviously too because well he had a big mouth, he was expendable from the beginning. Somebody mapped this whole **** out, thats for sure.

xxx 28 minutes ago

I am sick and tired of these Deep State and CIA-linked operations trying to put a wrench in the prosecution of people who were engaged in a coup d'etat.

xxx 29 minutes ago

********

xxx 33 minutes ago

At this point what difference does it make? We are all convinced since 2016. It is not going to convince the TDS cases roaming the wilderness.

No arrests, no subpoenas, no warrants, no barging in at 3 am, no perp walks, no tv glare...

Pres. Trump is playing a very risky game. Arrest now, or regret later. And you won't have much time to regret.

The swamp is dark, smelly and deep,

And it has grudges to keep.

xxx 37 minutes ago

Meanwhile- Guccifer 1.0 is still?

- In prison?

- Released?

- 48 month sentence in 2016. Obv no good behavior.

Nice article. Brennan is the dolt he appears.

xxx 41 minutes ago

+1,000 on the investigative work and analyzing it.

Sadly, none of the guilty are in jail. Instead. Assange sits there rotting away.

xxx 44 minutes ago

Why would an alleged GRU officer - supposedly part of an operation to deflect Russian culpability - suggest that Assange "may be connected with Russians?"

Because the AXIS powers of the CIA, Brit secret police and Israeli secret police pay for the campaign to tie Assange to the Russians...

xxx 45 minutes ago

@realDonaldTrump

A lot of interest in this story about Psycho Joe Scarborough. So a young marathon runner just happened to faint in his office, hit her head on his desk, & die? I would think there is a lot more to this story than that? An affair? What about the so-called investigator? Read story!

xxx 45 minutes ago

Why make it harder than it is? Guccifer II = Crowdstrike

xxx 51 minutes ago

Guccifer 2.0 was always John Brennan 1.0

xxx 58 minutes ago (Edited)

Was Guccifer II part of the Stefan Halper organization that lured Papadopoulos and maliciously maligned others?

xxx 1 hour ago

"His name was Seth Rich." The unofficial motto of ZeroHedge...

xxx 1 hour ago

James Guccifer Clapper.

xxx 1 hour ago

Mossad. And their subsidiary CIA.

xxx 1 hour ago

Crowd Strike CEO'S admission under oath that they had no evidence the DNC was hacked by the Russians should make the Russian Hoax predicate abundantly clear.

Justice for Seth Rich!

xxx 1 hour ago

Any influence Assange had on the election was so small that it wouldn't move the needle either way. The real influence and election tampering in the US has always come from the scores of lobbyists and their massive donations that fund the candidates election runs coupled with the wildly inaccurate and agenda driven collusive effort by the MSM. Anyone pointing fingers at the Russians is beyond blind to the unparalleled influence and power these entities have on swaying American minds.

xxx 1 hour ago

ObamaGate.

xxx 1 hour ago (Edited)

Uugh ONCE AGAIN... 4chan already proved guccifer 2.0 was a larp, and the files were not "hacked", they were leaked by Seth Rich. The metadata from the guccifer files is different from the metadata that came from the seth rich files. The dumb fuckers thought they were smart by modifying the author name of the files to make it look like it came from a russian source. They were so ******* inept, they must have forgot (or not have known) to modify the unique 16 digit hex key assigned to the author of the files when they were created..... The ones that seth rich copied had the system administrators name (Warren Flood) as the author and the 16 digit hex key from both file sources were the same - the one assigned to warren flood.

Really sloppy larp!!!

xxx 1 hour ago

This link has all the detail to show Guccifer 2.0 was not Russia. I believe Guccifer 2.0 was created by the CIA to falsely pin blame on the Russians for info that Seth Rich gave to WikiLeaks. Read for yourself: http://g-2.space/

xxx 1 hour ago

This is what people are. Now the species has more power than it can control and that it knows what to do with.

What do you think the result will be?

As for these games of Secret - it's more game than anything truly significant. The significant exists in the bunkers, with the mobile units, in the submarines. Et. al.

But this is a game in which some of the players die - or wish they were dead.

xxx 1 hour ago

And.....?

Public figures and political parties warrant public scrutiny. And didn't his expose in their own words expose the democrats, the mass media, the bureaucracy to the corrupt frauds that they are?

xxx 1 hour ago

Other than the fact that they didn't steal the emails (unless you believe whistleblowers are thief's, one mans source is another mans thief, it's all about who's ox is being gored and you love "leaks" don't you? As long as they work in your favor. Stop with the piety.

xxx 15 minutes ago

That's not the story at all. Did you just read this article?

The democrats were super duper corrupt (before all of this).

They fucked around to ice Bernie out of the primary.

A young staffer Seth Rich knew it and didn't like it. He made the decision to leak the info to the most reputable org for leaks in the world Wikileaks.

IF the DNC had been playing fair, Seth Rich wouldn't have felt the need to leak.

So, the democrats did it to themselves.

And then they created Russiagate to cover it all up.

And murdered a young brave man ... as we know.

xxx 1 hour ago

Assange, another problem Trump failed to fix.

xxx 1 hour ago

Sounds like it came from the same source as the Trump dossier ... MI5.

[May 24, 2020] Obamagate as the reaction of managerial class neoliberals on the crisis of neoliberalism

Highly recommended!
May 24, 2020 | angrybearblog.com

likbez , May 24, 2020 8:22 pm

While Flynn is a questionable figure with his Iran warmongering and the former tenure as a Turkey lobbyist, it is important to understand that in Kislyak call he mainly played the role of Israel lobbyist. This important fact was carefully swiped under the carpet by FBI honchos.

Only the second and less important part of the call (the request to Russia to postpone the reaction after the Obama expulsion of diplomats) was related to Russia. Not sure it was necessary: Russia probably understood that this was a provocation and would wait for the dust to settle in any case. Revenge is a dish that is better served cold. Later Russia used this as a pretext to equalize the number of US diplomats in Russia with the number of Russian diplomat in the USA which was a knockdown for any color revolution plans in this country: people with the knowledge of the country and connections to its neoliberal fifth column were sent packing.

But Russian neoliberal compradors were decimated earlier after EuroMaydan in Kiev, so this was actually a service to the USA allowing to save the USA same money (as Trump acknowledged)

Also strange how former chief of DIA fell victim of such a crude trap administered by a second, if nor third rate person -- Strzok. Looks like he was already on the hook and, as such, defenseless for his Turkey lobbing efforts. Which makes Comey-McCabe attempt to entrap him look like a shooing fish in the tank.

Note to managerial class neoliberals (PMC). Your Russiagate stance is to be expected and has nothing to do with virtue.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/05/22/why-russiagate-still-matters/

it was the urban and suburban PMC that gets its news from the establishment press -- the New York Times, Washington Post and NPR, that believed and supported the story.

[May 24, 2020] Guccifer 2.0's Hidden Agenda : looks like Gussifer 2.0 was a false flag operation designed to smear WikiLeaks and distract from the content of the stolen by Seth Rich or some other insider DNC emails

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... With the entirety of Russigate finally collapsing under the enormous weight and stench of its own BS, the picture that is beginning to emerge for me is one of an insider deep-state psy-op designed to cover for the crimes committed by the DNC, the Clinton Foundation and the 2016 Hillary campaign; kill for the foreseeable future any progressive threat to the neo-liberal world order; and take down a president that the bipartisan DC and corporate media elite fear and loathe. And why do they fear him? Because he is free to call them out on certain aspects of their criminality and corruption, and has. ..."
"... Hubris, cynicism and a basic belief in the stupidity of the US public all seem to have played a part in all this, enabled by a corporate media with a profit motive and a business model that depends on duping the masses. ..."
"... Anyone who still believes in democracy in the USA has his head in the sand (or someplace a lot smellier). ..."
"... The corruption in the USA is wide and deep and trump is NOT draining the swamp. ..."
"... A further point: the Mueller report insinuates that G2.0 had transferred the DNC emails to Wikileaks as of July 18th, and Wikileaks then published them on July 22nd. This is absurd for two reasons: There is no way in hell that Wikileaks could have processed the entire volume of those emails and attachments to insure their complete authenticity in 4 days. ..."
"... Indeed, when Crowdstrike's Shawn Henry had been chief of counterintelligence under Robert Mueller, he had tried to set Assange up by sending Wikileaks fraudulent material; fortunately, Wikileaks was too careful to take the bait. ..."
May 24, 2020 | consortiumnews.com

Daniel P , May 23, 2020 at 13:34

Fascinating, important and ultimately deeply disturbing. This is why I come to Consortium News.

With the entirety of Russigate finally collapsing under the enormous weight and stench of its own BS, the picture that is beginning to emerge for me is one of an insider deep-state psy-op designed to cover for the crimes committed by the DNC, the Clinton Foundation and the 2016 Hillary campaign; kill for the foreseeable future any progressive threat to the neo-liberal world order; and take down a president that the bipartisan DC and corporate media elite fear and loathe. And why do they fear him? Because he is free to call them out on certain aspects of their criminality and corruption, and has.

Hubris, cynicism and a basic belief in the stupidity of the US public all seem to have played a part in all this, enabled by a corporate media with a profit motive and a business model that depends on duping the masses.

Anonymous , May 22, 2020 at 12:01

These convos alone look like a script kiddie on IRC doing their low functioning version of sock puppetry. Didn't know anyone at all fell for that

Ash , May 22, 2020 at 17:21

Because smooth liars in expensive suits told them it was true in their authoritative TV voices? Sadly they don't even really need to try hard anymore, as people will evidently believe anything they're told.

Bob Herrschaft , May 22, 2020 at 12:00

The article goes a long way toward congealing evidence that Guccifer 2.0 was a shill meant to implicate Wikileaks in a Russian hack. The insinuation about Assange's Russian connection was over the top if Guccifer 2.0 was supposed to be a GRU agent and the mention of Seth Rich only contradicts his claims.

OlyaPola , May 22, 2020 at 10:40

Spectacles are popular.Although less popular, the framing and derivations of plausible belief are of more significance; hence the cloak of plausible denial over under-garments of plausible belief, in facilitation of revolutions of immersion in spectacles facilitating spectacles' popularity.

Some promoters of spectacles believe that the benefits of spectacles accrue solely to themselves, and when expectations appear to vary from outcomes, they resort to one-trick-ponyness illuminated by peering in the mirror.

Skip Scott , May 22, 2020 at 08:35

This is a great article. I think the most obvious conclusion is that Guccifer 2.0 was a creation to smear wikileaks and distract from the CONTENT of the DNC emails. The MSM spent the next 3 years obsessed by RussiaGate, and spent virtually no effort on the DNC and Hillary's collusion in subverting the Sander's campaign, among other crimes.

I think back to how many of my friends were obsessed with Rachel Madcow during this period, and how she and the rest of the MSM served the Empire with their propaganda campaign. Meanwhile, Julian is still in Belmarsh as the head of a "non-state hostile intelligence service," the Hillary camp still runs the DNC and successfully sabotaged Bernie yet again (along with Tulsi), and the public gets to choose between corporate sponsored warmonger from column A or B in 2020.

Anyone who still believes in democracy in the USA has his head in the sand (or someplace a lot smellier).

Guy , May 22, 2020 at 12:19

Totally agree .The corruption in the USA is wide and deep and trump is NOT draining the swamp.

Cal Lash , May 22, 2020 at 01:20

I take it the mentioned time zones are consistent with Langley.

treeinanotherlife , May 22, 2020 at 00:34

"Are there only HRC emails? Or some other docs? Are there any DNC docs?"

G2 is fishing to see if Wiki has DNC docs. Does not say "any DNC docs I sent you". And like most at time thought Assange's "related to hillary" phrase likely (hopefully for some) meant Hillary's missing private server emails. For certain G2 is not an FBI agent>s/he knows difference between HRC and DNC emails.

Thank you for fantastic work.

Mark McCarty , May 21, 2020 at 22:24

A further point: the Mueller report insinuates that G2.0 had transferred the DNC emails to Wikileaks as of July 18th, and Wikileaks then published them on July 22nd. This is absurd for two reasons: There is no way in hell that Wikileaks could have processed the entire volume of those emails and attachments to insure their complete authenticity in 4 days.

Indeed, it is reasonable to expect that Wikileaks had been processing those emails since at least June 12, when Assange announced their impending publication. (I recall waiting expectantly for a number of weeks as Wikileaks processed the Podesta emails.) Wikileaks was well aware that, if a single one of the DNC emails they released had been proved to have been fraudulent, their reputation would have been toast. Indeed, when Crowdstrike's Shawn Henry had been chief of counterintelligence under Robert Mueller, he had tried to set Assange up by sending Wikileaks fraudulent material; fortunately, Wikileaks was too careful to take the bait.

Secondly, it is inconceivable that a journalist as careful as Julian would, on June 12th, have announced the impending publication of documents he hadn't even seen yet. And of course there is no record of G2.0 having had any contact with Wikileaks prior to that date.

It is a great pleasure to see "Adam Carter"'s work at long last appear in such a distinguished venue as Consortium News. It does credit to them both.

Skip Edwards , May 22, 2020 at 12:33

How can we expect justice when there is no justification for what is being done by the US and British governments to Julian Assange!

[May 23, 2020] The irony of Brenana behaviour: the former CIA Director shouting every other day that the duly elected POTUS is treasonous and much be removed from office by any means necessary. The pot calling the kettle black

May 23, 2020 | www.unz.com

BL , says: Show Comment May 23, 2020 at 1:51 pm GMT

@Realist Quite right. I should have written that sentence differently in that by "like Brennan," I meant an individual allowed to rise by obtaining compromising information on everyone, most especially his intelligence colleagues.

Our system abhors such an arrogation of power or at least it used to. Not to put too fine a point on it but that's what happens when you construct a surveillance state and then turn it over to filth like Brennan.

This really isn't very complicated. It's utterly untenable in our great republic to have the former CIA Director shouting every other day that the duly elected POTUS is treasonous and much be removed from office by any means necessary.

It's impossible to overstate how serious this situation is when those who are needed on the side of our republic and legitimate constitutional authority are distracting with squeaks about Michael Ledeen's daughter no less.

I'm not laying this all at Brennan's door. Like Beria, his presence at the pinnacle of power was more symptom than cause. He's no evil genius which, when you think about it, makes the continued craven obedience to him by Democrats, RINO Republicans, Allied Media and, yes, most who were in the IC, that much more pathetic.

[May 23, 2020] "Obamagate" claims spark new round in internal US political warfare by Patrick Martin

May 23, 2020 | www.wsws.org

A second Senate panel, the Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, is working on a similar timetable, with plans to issue a report before the November 3 presidential vote. It began Thursday to discuss subpoenas of former top Obama administration and national security officials, with a vote set for June 4 to give Graham broad subpoena power.

Graham has suggested he will call, among others, former FBI Director James Comey, his former deputy Andrew McCabe, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough. At least initially, Graham has downplayed calls by Trump for issuing subpoenas to Obama and Biden.

The initial focus of the Judiciary Committee will be the case of retired General Michael Flynn, who resigned in February 2017 as Trump's national security adviser and later pled guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with then-Russian Ambassador to the US Sergey Kislyak.

Over the past month, the Flynn case has become the war cry of Trump and his ultra-right backers at Breitbart News, Fox News and among congressional Republicans. They claim that Flynn was the victim of a "perjury trap" set up by Comey at the instigation of Obama and Biden to disrupt the incoming Trump administration.

Attorney General William Barr intervened to quash the sentencing of Flynn on perjury charges, taking the unprecedented action of dropping prosecution on charges to which Flynn had twice pled guilty before a federal judge. That judge, Emmett Sullivan, is now considering whether to allow the dropping of the charges and has asked for outside groups to file friend-of-the-court pleadings on the question.

The Senate investigations accelerated after a Tuesday meeting between Trump and leading Senate Republicans, at which he demanded they "get tough" against the Democrats by issuing subpoenas and holding televised hearings during the summer.

On the same day, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell abandoned his previous reluctance to hold such hearings, declaring that the Obama administration had used "the awesome power of the federal government to pry into their political rivals."

"An American citizen's campaign for the American presidency was treated like a hostile foreign power by our own law enforcement," he said, "in part because a Democrat-led executive branch manipulated documents, hid contrary evidence, and made a DNC-funded dossier a launchpad for an investigation."

... ... ...

The fall election campaign sparked an internal conflict within the FBI between pro-Trump and pro-Clinton factions. On October 7, the "intelligence community" issued a warning that Russia was seeking to intervene in the election on behalf of Trump. Then, on October 29, Comey released his notorious letter to Congress announcing the reopening of the FBI's investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state. This unprecedented action, in violation of Justice Department rules against interfering with an election, arguably tipped the outcome to Trump, given his narrow margins in industrial states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

After Trump's surprise election victory, the attention of the intelligence agencies and the Obama administration shifted to Flynn, Trump's top foreign policy aide and his choice to become White House national security adviser. Obama warned Trump against naming Flynn, who had been fired in 2014 as part of an internal conflict within the intelligence establishment, with Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan pressing for his dismissal.

On December 29, 2016, Obama imposed stiff diplomatic sanctions on the Russian government, expelling a large number of its representatives in the United States on the spurious grounds that he was "retaliating" for Russian interference in the US presidential election. In fact, there has never been any evidence that Russian actions consisted of anything more than purchasing a few Facebook ads, for less than $100,000, trivial in comparison to the $5 billion expended by the campaigns for Trump and Clinton.

Immediately after Obama's announcement of sanctions, Flynn called the Russian ambassador to the United States, Kislyak, to urge the Putin government not to respond in kind, assuring him that the incoming Trump administration would review the matter afresh. Such contacts are routine during any transition between outgoing and incoming US administrations, but Flynn apparently considered the content of the discussions to be politically embarrassing and lied about them when interviewed by FBI agents.

On January 5, 2017, Obama and his closest aides were briefed by the intelligence agencies on the anti-Russia investigation, on the eve of a similar briefing delivered to President-elect Trump in New York City. It appears that Obama was less enthusiastic about the targeting of Flynn than the security chiefs, including Clapper and Comey, and Flynn continued to receive full briefings from the outgoing national security adviser, Susan Rice.

On January 12, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, a regular conduit for the intelligence agencies, made public the December 29 Flynn-Kislyak phone call, touching off the chain of events that led to Flynn's firing a month later. It is perhaps ironic, in view of the current "Obamagate" campaign, that Ignatius voiced the then-common view in the "intelligence community" that Obama was dragging his feet on the anti-Russia campaign. His column was headlined, "Why Did Obama Dawdle on Russian Hacking?"

These apparently tactical differences led Comey to send FBI agents to the White House on January 24, 2017 to interview Flynn about his conversations with Kislyak without notifying the Department of Justice, in violation of the usual protocol, because Acting Attorney General Sally Yates reportedly shared Obama's concern that too direct an attack on Flynn and Trump might backfire.

Besides the various Senate investigations, the Department of Justice is conducting its own review of the origins of the Russia investigation, which led ultimately to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller. This review, headed by US Attorney John Durham, is expected to include testimony under oath from the same set of former Obama aides who are to be subpoenaed by the Senate.

[May 22, 2020] Wray's Review Of FBI's Flynn Probe Is The Fox Guarding The Hen House

May 22, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Wray's Review Of FBI's Flynn Probe "Is The Fox Guarding The Hen House" by Tyler Durden Fri, 05/22/2020 - 20:05 Authored by Sara Carter,

FBI Director Christopher Wray announced Friday that he has ordered the bureau to conduct an internal review of its handling of the probe into former national security adviser Michael Flynn , which has led to his years long battle in federal court.

It's like the fox guarding the hen house.

Wray's decision to investigate also comes late. The bureau's probe only comes after numerous revelations that former senior FBI officials and agents involved in Flynn's case allegedly engaged in misconduct to target the three star general, who became President Donald Trump's most trusted campaign advisor.

Despite all these revelations, Wray has promised that the bureau will examine whether any employees engaged in misconduct during the court of the investigation and "evaluate whether any improvements in FBI policies and procedures need to be made." Based on what we know, how can we trust an unbiased investigation from the very bureau that targeted Flynn.

Let me put it to you this way, over the past year Wray has failed to cooperate with congressional investigations. In fact, many Republican lawmakers have called him out publicly on the lack of cooperation saying, he cares more about protecting the bureaucracy than exposing and resolving the culture of corruption within the bureau.

Wray's Friday announcement, is in my opinion, a ruse to get lawmakers off his back.

How can we trust that Wray's internal investigation will expose what actually happened in the case of Flynn, or any of the other Trump campaign officials that were targeted by the former Obama administration's intelligence and law enforcement apparatus.

It's Wray's FBI that continues to battle all the Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act requests regarding the investigation into Flynn, along with any requests that would expose information on the Russia hoax investigation. One in particular, is the request to obtain all the text messages and emails sent and received by former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

The FBI defended itself in its Friday announcement saying that in addition to its own internal review, it has already cooperated with other inquiries assigned by Attorney General William Barr. But still Wray has not approved subpoena's for employees and others that lawmakers want to interview behind closed doors in Congress.

The recent documented discoveries by the Department of Justice make it all the more imperative that an outside review of the FBI's handling of Flynn's case is required. Those documents, which shed light on the actions by the bureau against Flynn, led to the DOJ's decision to drop all charges against him. It was, after all, DOJ Attorney Jeffery Jensen who discovered the FBI documents regarding Flynn that have aided his defense attorney Sidney Powell in getting the truth out to they American people.

Powell, like me, doesn't believe an internal review is appropriate.

"Wow? And how is he going to investigate himself," she questioned in a Tweet. "And how could anyone trust it? FBI Director Wray opens internal review into how bureau handled Michael Flynn case."

WOW? And how is he going to investigate himself? And how could anyone trust it?
FBI Director Wray opens internal review into how bureau handled Michael Flynn case https://t.co/AeE0yL46W6 #FBICorruption #Clapper #Brennan #NSA #spying
Widespread illegal monitoring by #Obama admin

-- Sidney Powell 🇺🇸⭐⭐⭐ (@SidneyPowell1) May 22, 2020

Last week, this reporter published the growing divide between Congressional Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee and Wray. The lawmakers have accused Wray of failing to respond to numerous requests to speak with FBI Special Agent Joe Pientka, who along with former FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, conducted the now infamous White House interview with Flynn on Jan. 24, 2017.

Further, the lawmakers have also requested to speak with the FBI's former head of the Counterintelligence Division , Bill Priestap, whose unsealed handwritten notes revealed the possible 'nefarious' motivations behind the FBI's investigation of Flynn.

"Michael Flynn was wronged by the FBI," said a senior Republican official last week, with direct knowledge of the Flynn investigation.

"Sadly Director Wray has shown little interest in getting to the bottom of what actually happened with the Flynn case. Wray's lackadaisical attitude is an embarrassment to the rank and file agents at the bureau, whose names have been dragged through the mud time and time again throughout the Russia-gate investigation. Wray needs to wake up and work with Congress. If he doesn't maybe it's time for him to go. "

Powell argued that Flynn had pleaded guilty because his former Special Counsel Robert Mueller, along with his prosecutors, threatened to target his son. Those prosecutors also coerced Flynn, whose finances were depleted by his previous defense team. Mueller's team got Flynn to plead guilty to lying to the FBI about a phone conversation he had with the former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition period. However, the agents who interviewed him did not believe he was lying.

Currently the DOJ's request to dismiss the case is now pending before federal Judge Emmet Sullivan. Sullivan has failed to grant the DOJ's request to dismiss the case and because of that Powell has filed a writ of mandamus to the U.S. D.C. Court of Appeals seeking the immediate removal of Sullivan, or to dismiss the prosecution as requested by the DOJ.

[May 22, 2020] System Update with Glenn Greenwald - The Murderous History and Deceitful Function of the CIA

May 22, 2020 | www.youtube.com

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity The CIA’s Murderous Practices, Disinformation Campaigns, and Interference in

In the weeks before the 2016 presidential election, the most powerful former leaders of the Central Intelligence Agency did everything they could to elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump. President Obama’s former acting CIA chief Michael Morrell published a full-throated endorsement of Clinton in the New York Times and claimed “Putin ha[s] recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation,” while George W. Bush’s post-9/11 CIA and NSA Chief, Gen. Michael Hayden, writing in the Washington Post, refrained from endorsing Clinton outright but echoed Morrell by accusing Trump of being a “useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow” and sounding “a little bit the conspiratorial Marxist.” Meanwhile, the intelligence community under James Clapper and John Brennan fed morsels to both the Obama DOJ and the US media to suggest a Trump/Russia conspiracy and fuel what became the Russiagate investigation.

In his extraordinary election-advocating Op-Ed, Gen. Hayden, Bush/Cheney’s CIA Chief, candidly explained the reasons for the CIA’s antipathy for Trump: namely, the GOP candidate’s stated opposition to allowing CIA regime change efforts in Syria to expand as well as his opposition to arming Ukrainians with lethal weapons to fight Russia (supposedly “pro-Putin” positions which, we are now all supposed to forget, Obama largely shared).

As has been true since President Harry Truman’s creation of the CIA after World War II, interfering in other countries and dictating or changing their governments — through campaigns of mass murder, military coups, arming guerrilla groups, the abolition of democracy, systemic disinformation, and the imposition of savage despots — is regarded as a divine right, inherent to American exceptionalism. Anyone who questions that or, worse, opposes it and seeks to impede it (as the CIA perceived Trump was) is of suspect loyalties at best.

The CIA’s antipathy toward Trump continued after his election victory. The agency became the primary vector for anonymous, illegal leaks designed to depict Trump as a Kremlin agent and/or blackmail victim. It worked to ensure the leak of the Steele dossier that clouded at least the first two years of Trump’s presidency. It drove the scam Russiagate conspiracy theories. And before Trump was even inaugurated, open warfare erupted between the president-elect and the agency to the point where Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer explicitly warned Trump on the Rachel Maddow Show that he was risking full-on subversion of his presidency by the agency:

Democrats, early in Trump’s presidency, saw clearly that the CIA had become one of Trump’s most devoted enemies, and thus began viewing them as a valuable ally. Leading out-of-power Democratic foreign policy elites from the Obama administration and Clinton campaign joined forces not only with Bush/Cheney neocons but also former CIA officials to create new foreign policy advocacy groups designed to malign and undermine Trump and promote hawkish confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia. Meanwhile, other ex-CIA and Homeland Security officials, such as John Brennan and James Clapper, became beloved liberal celebrities by being hired by MSNBC and CNN to deliver liberal-pleasing anti-Trump messaging that, on a virtually daily basis, masqueraded as news.

Fair Use Excerpt. Read the rest here.


Arthur Davis , 1 day ago

All covered extensively in Killing Hope , U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, by William Blum

Timothy Lee , 22 hours ago

Oliver Stone's "The Untold History of the US" opened up my eyes to how shameful our history really is. The American Empire is no better then Great Britain, the very power this country was supposed to rise above.

Mehdi Hosseini , 1 day ago

When a system is fully controlled by the big corporation/money every action and move must serve it's master. Some are directly related to their immediate interest and some to prevent any future challenge to it.

Dennis Miller , 1 day ago

let's not forget the Dulles Brothers (CIA & State)

Joe Filter , 1 day ago

Such sad facts. 'Killing Hope' really does describe it.

Cygnus X-321 , 1 day ago

"...At CBS, we had been contacted by the CIA, as a matter of fact, by the time I became the head of the news and public affairs division in 1954 shifts had been established ... I was told about them and asked if I'd carry on with them...." -- Sid Mickelson, CBS News President 1954-61, describing Operation Mockingbird

Jorge Eduardo da Silva Tavares , 1 day ago

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, by John Perkins, was a NYTimes best-seller about the methods CIA use to dominate countries in Latin America and in Asia. John Perkins never was interviewed by Us Media.

[May 22, 2020] Sorting fact from fiction on Obamagate, Flynn investigations by Glenn Greenwald

FBI was converted into free floating secret police free to investigate anybody.
Notable quotes:
"... Well, there is the infamous Strzok-Page SMS where Page states that the WH wants to know everything. This occurred MONTHS before January 4, 2017. ..."
"... Mike Flynn was eyeballs deep in conflicts of interest between his business and his national security role. ..."
"... part of the call was to ask Russia to veto a vote which should also be drilled into as they had not taken office yet and actively undermined a sitting government ..."
"... The FBI asked about the call because they wanted to leak it without revealing they had intercepted the communications of a incoming National Security Advisor. The call might have been perfectly normal and legal but given the Russia hysteria of the time it was perfectly usable as a smear. ..."
"... So they went in and ambushed Flynn without a lawyer to either get him on the record and leak it or better yet lie about it. Flynn didn't know how depraved the Obama administration had become and didn't imagine they had unmasked him and also couldn't believe they would dare entrap him like some criminal by asking him about a call they already had intercepted. That was his mistake. ..."
"... Obama is an armed terrorist at the behest of the CIA for a proxy war in Libya (North Africa) and Syria ..."
May 22, 2020 | www.youtube.com

ilmaestro305 Hoch , 5 hours ago

Beria is supposed to have said to Stalin, "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime."

JB6789 , 4 hours ago (edited)

03: 45 - Well, there is the infamous Strzok-Page SMS where Page states that the WH wants to know everything. This occurred MONTHS before January 4, 2017.

JB6789 , 4 hours ago

Glenn Greenwald is always delivering a well-thought and well-researched view on so many important issues in this world. I may not share the same view on every issue with GG, but I make a reasonable effort to find his insights at every opportunity. He is an absolute pleasure to listen to, because he speaks with such clarity of thought and is clearly an exceptional lawyer. It may well be too much to ask for...but journalism could use 100 more Glenn Greenwald's.

2020 FDR New Deal Solution , 4 hours ago

I can't express how much respect I have for Glenn. The Hill and Glenn are some of the only people left in media that I actually trust.

Jared Allen , 2 hours ago

Rising is really drinking the kool aid on this one. So many facts about this case are being cherry picked to find a conspiracy. Mike Flynn was eyeballs deep in conflicts of interest between his business and his national security role.

Let's also not forget, he was fired by Trump because he lied to Mike Pence, not because the deep state railroaded him in some way.

... ... ...

Richw , 4 hours ago

Completely agree that this was criminal and should be explored fully but be objective and I heard about the story that part of the call was to ask Russia to veto a vote which should also be drilled into as they had not taken office yet and actively undermined a sitting government

ToldYouSo , 1 hour ago

Come on how can you beat around the bush so much?

The FBI asked about the call because they wanted to leak it without revealing they had intercepted the communications of a incoming National Security Advisor. The call might have been perfectly normal and legal but given the Russia hysteria of the time it was perfectly usable as a smear.

So they went in and ambushed Flynn without a lawyer to either get him on the record and leak it or better yet lie about it. Flynn didn't know how depraved the Obama administration had become and didn't imagine they had unmasked him and also couldn't believe they would dare entrap him like some criminal by asking him about a call they already had intercepted. That was his mistake.

Rogue Judas , 4 hours ago

Obama is an armed terrorist at the behest of the CIA for a proxy war in Libya (North Africa) and Syria.

[May 22, 2020] Time to Break up the FBI by William S. Smith

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... One could write a long history of FBI abuses and failures, from Latin America to Martin Luther King to Japanese internment. But just consider a handful of their more recent cases. ..."
"... But it was 9/11 that really sealed the FBI's ignominious track record. The lavishly funded agency charged with preventing terrorism somehow missed the attacks, despite their awareness of numerous Saudi nationals taking flying lessons around the country. Immediately after 9/11, the nation was gripped by the anthrax scare, and once again the FBI's inability to solve the case caused them to try to railroad an innocent man, Stephen Hatfill . ..."
"... With 9/11, the FBI also began targeting troubled Americans by handing them bomb materials, arresting them, and then holding a press conference to tell the country that they had prevented a major terrorist attack -- a fake attack that they themselves had planned. ..."
"... 9/11 also opened the floodgates to domestic surveillance and all the FISA abuses that most recently led to the prosecution of Michael Flynn. I am no fan of Flynn and his hawkish anti-Islamic views, but the way he was framed and then prosecuted really does shock the conscience. ..."
"... For the FBI, merely catching bad guys is too mundane. As one can tell from the sanctimonious James Comey, the culture at the Bureau holds grander aspirations. Comey's book is titled A Higher Loyalty , as if the FBI reports only to the Almighty. ..."
"... While the nation's elite colleges and tech companies are crawling with Chinese spies who are literally stealing our best ideas, the chief of the FBI's Counterintelligence Section, Peter Strzok, spent his days trying to frame junior aides in the Trump campaign. ..."
"... Some conservatives have called for FBI Director Christopher Wray to be fired. This would accomplish nothing, as the problem is not one man but an entire culture. ..."
"... One of the most amusing yet disturbing tends of the Trump era has been the increasingly strong embrace of the "intelligence community" (how I hate that term) by left liberals. ..."
"... It's tempting to wonder how many of them have even heard of COINTELPRO, but I suspect that most of them would be just fine if the FBI intervened to disrupt and destabilize the Marxist left in the unlikely event that it seemed to be gaining a significant political foothold. Can't have any nasty class politics disrupting their bourgeois identitarian parlor game! ..."
"... J. Edgar Hoover wrecked a lot of the good the FBI could have been right from the beginning, there needs to be a major cultural change over there and they need to be put back on track so that they serve us instead of themselves. ..."
"... Making sure crooks like Hoover and showboats like Comey never get put in charge would be a good start. ..."
"... Remember in "Three Days of the Condor," when Robert Redford reacts scornfully to Cliff Robertson's use of the term "community"? ..."
"... Collaboratus: Basically, working together. BULL, the individual IC Agencies can't work together internally, much less across agency boundaries. ..."
"... Virtus: a specific virtue in Ancient Rome. It carried connotations of valor, manliness, excellence, courage, character, and worth, perceived as masculine strengths. Again, BULL. The Feminazis and lgbtqxyz crowd have, pretty much snipped any balls and put them in a jar. Yes, gay pride is big in the IC. ..."
"... Fides: was the goddess of trust and bona fides in Roman paganism. She was one of the original virtues to be considered an actual religious divinity. Fides is everything that is required for "honour and credibility, from fidelity in marriage, to contractual arrangements, and the obligation soldiers owed to Rome". With respect to the IC, that last bears repeating" "Obligations Soldiers Owed To Rome." In the IC (Rome), Leadership and Management (LM) have no obligations to the 'soldiers'; so, of course, the soldiers respond in kind. ..."
"... Real underline issue is FBI has been politicized. Rather than be neutral and independent, top FBI leaders have aligned with politicians. While nominate FBI officials, presidents also select their own than someone is independent. ..."
"... Absolutely nothing new or rare was done to Flynn. The FBI used perfectly standard dirty tricks on him. ..."
"... It isn't just the FBI that uses dirty tactics. most police departments also use dirty tactics. ..."
"... As I see it the agency that needs to be broken up is the CIA. What they do is shameful and not American. They are and have always been heavily involved in other countries internal affairs. They are an evil organization. ..."
"... Absolutely phenomenal that an entire essay abusing the FBI could be written without once mentioning the man who actually made the Federal Bureau of Investigation into what it is (whatever that might be). But J Edgar Hoover is still sufficiently iconic a figure to many Conservatives that it would be counterproductive to assault him. Better someone like Comey. ..."
"... I did not know the FBI had the power to go back in time, otherwise how did they get Flynn to lie to VP Pence on Jan 14 when they didn't interview him until 1/24? Amazing how powerful they are! ..."
May 18, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Its constant abuses, of which Michael Flynn is only the latest, show what a failed Progressive Era institution it really is. Fittingly, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was founded by a grandnephew of Napoleon Bonaparte, Attorney General Charles J. Bonaparte, during the Progressive Era. Bonaparte was a Harvard-educated crusader. As the FBI's official history states, "Many progressives, including (Teddy) Roosevelt, believed that the federal government's guiding hand was necessary to foster justice in an industrial society."

Progressives viewed the Constitution as a malleable document, a take-it-or-leave-it kind of thing. The FBI inherited that mindset of civil liberties being optional. In their early years, with the passage of the Espionage and Sedition Acts during World War I, the FBI came into its own by launching a massive domestic surveillance campaign and prosecuting war dissenters. Thousands of Americans were arrested, prosecuted, and jailed simply for voicing opposition.

One could write a long history of FBI abuses and failures, from Latin America to Martin Luther King to Japanese internment. But just consider a handful of their more recent cases. The FBI needlessly killed women and children at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Anyone who has lived anywhere near Boston knows of the Bureau's staggering corruption during gangster Whitey Bulger's reign of terror. The abuses in Boston were so terrific that radio host Howie Carr declared that the FBI initials really stood for "Famous But Incompetent." And then there's Richard Jewell, the hero security guard who was almost railroaded by zealous FBI agents looking for a scalp after they failed to solve the Atlanta terrorist bombing.

But it was 9/11 that really sealed the FBI's ignominious track record. The lavishly funded agency charged with preventing terrorism somehow missed the attacks, despite their awareness of numerous Saudi nationals taking flying lessons around the country. Immediately after 9/11, the nation was gripped by the anthrax scare, and once again the FBI's inability to solve the case caused them to try to railroad an innocent man, Stephen Hatfill .

With 9/11, the FBI also began targeting troubled Americans by handing them bomb materials, arresting them, and then holding a press conference to tell the country that they had prevented a major terrorist attack -- a fake attack that they themselves had planned.

9/11 also opened the floodgates to domestic surveillance and all the FISA abuses that most recently led to the prosecution of Michael Flynn. I am no fan of Flynn and his hawkish anti-Islamic views, but the way he was framed and then prosecuted really does shock the conscience. After Jewell, Hatfill, Flynn, and so many others, it's time to ask whether the culture of the FBI has become similar to that of Stalin's secret police, i.e. "show me the man and I'll show you the crime."

I am no anti-law enforcement libertarian. In a previous career, I had the privilege to work with agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and they were some of the bravest people I have ever met. And while the DEA can be overly aggressive (just ask anyone who has been subjected to federal asset forfeiture), it is inconceivable that its agents would plot a coup d'état against the president of the United States. The DEA sees their job as catching drug criminals; they stay in their lane.

For the FBI, merely catching bad guys is too mundane. As one can tell from the sanctimonious James Comey, the culture at the Bureau holds grander aspirations. Comey's book is titled A Higher Loyalty , as if the FBI reports only to the Almighty.

They see themselves as progressive guardians of the American Way, intervening whenever and wherever they see democracy in danger. No healthy republic should have a national police force with this kind of culture. There are no doubt many brave and patriotic FBI agents, but there is also no doubt they have been very badly led.

This savior complex led them to aggressively pursue the Russiagate hoax. Their chasing of ghosts should make it clear that the FBI does not stay in their lane. While the nation's elite colleges and tech companies are crawling with Chinese spies who are literally stealing our best ideas, the chief of the FBI's Counterintelligence Section, Peter Strzok, spent his days trying to frame junior aides in the Trump campaign.

Some conservatives have called for FBI Director Christopher Wray to be fired. This would accomplish nothing, as the problem is not one man but an entire culture. One possible solution is to break up the FBI into four or five agencies, with one responsible for counterintelligence, one for counterterrorism, one for complex white-collar crime, one for cybercrimes, and so on. Smaller agencies with more distinctive missions would not see themselves as national saviors and could be held accountable for their effectiveness at very specific jobs. It would also allow federal agents to develop genuine expertise rather than, as the FBI regularly does, shifting agents constantly from terrorism cases to the war on drugs to cybercrime to whatever the political class's latest crime du jour might be.

Such a reform would not end every abuse of federal law enforcement, and all these agencies would need to be kept on a short leash for the sake of civil liberties. It would, however, diminish the ostentatious pretension of the current FBI that they are the existential guardians of the republic. In a republic, the people and their elected leaders are the protectors of their liberties. No one else.

William S. Smith is senior research fellow and managing director at the Center for the Study of Statesmanship at The Catholic University of America. His new book is Democracy and Imperialism: Irving Babbitt and Warlike Democracies (2019) .


Embarrassed 11 hours ago

One of the most amusing yet disturbing tends of the Trump era has been the increasingly strong embrace of the "intelligence community" (how I hate that term) by left liberals.

It's hard to believe it was only a decade ago when they were (correctly) deriding these exact same people for their manifold failures relating to the War on Terror, but then again left liberals at that time had not yet abandoned the pretense that they were something other than a PMC social club.

It's tempting to wonder how many of them have even heard of COINTELPRO, but I suspect that most of them would be just fine if the FBI intervened to disrupt and destabilize the Marxist left in the unlikely event that it seemed to be gaining a significant political foothold. Can't have any nasty class politics disrupting their bourgeois identitarian parlor game!

Megan S Embarrassed 6 hours ago
It's not the left liberals, it's the centrists and the neocons fleeing the Republican Party like rats. The left never liked the FBI, never trusted them, with good reason.

J. Edgar Hoover wrecked a lot of the good the FBI could have been right from the beginning, there needs to be a major cultural change over there and they need to be put back on track so that they serve us instead of themselves.

Making sure crooks like Hoover and showboats like Comey never get put in charge would be a good start.

FJR Atlanta Embarrassed 3 hours ago
Or put another way... One of the most amusing yet disturbing tends of the Trump era has been the increasingly strong disdain of the "intelligence community" (how I hate that term) by far right conservatives.

Let's just be honest with ourselves - we really don't want intelligence, or science, or oversight, unless it supports our team.

Gary Keith Chesterton Embarrassed 3 hours ago
Remember in "Three Days of the Condor," when Robert Redford reacts scornfully to Cliff Robertson's use of the term "community"?

Nowadays, it's actually an official or semi-official term. They even have their own logo, for crying out loud.

View Hide
TISO_AX2 Gary Keith Chesterton an hour ago
It represents just one more bureaucrat in the line to go and tell lies before congressional oversight committees. Thanks Bushies.
Linux Pauling Gary Keith Chesterton 29 minutes ago • edited
Some thoughts on the IC Motto:

1. Collaboratus: Basically, working together. BULL, the individual IC Agencies can't work together internally, much less across agency boundaries. This goes to guys like Mike Flynn (former director of DIA), his predecessors and successors, and their peers across the Intel(?) Community (that one kills me, too); the IC. Not to 'slight' anyone, but middle management is no better, and probably, worse; everyone has to protect their own 'little rice bowl' ya know.

2. Virtus: a specific virtue in Ancient Rome. It carried connotations of valor, manliness, excellence, courage, character, and worth, perceived as masculine strengths. Again, BULL. The Feminazis and lgbtqxyz crowd have, pretty much snipped any balls and put them in a jar. Yes, gay pride is big in the IC.

3. Fides: was the goddess of trust and bona fides in Roman paganism. She was one of the original virtues to be considered an actual religious divinity. Fides is everything that is required for "honour and credibility, from fidelity in marriage, to contractual arrangements, and the obligation soldiers owed to Rome". With respect to the IC, that last bears repeating" "Obligations Soldiers Owed To Rome." In the IC (Rome), Leadership and Management (LM) have no obligations to the 'soldiers'; so, of course, the soldiers respond in kind.

The ICs are dog eat dog; LM are looking out for themselves...Period. Actually doing 'the job' is pretty far down the TODO List. The vast majority of people in the 'trenches' are just trying to get through the day; like LM, doing the 'right thing' is no longer the first thought.

To make matters worse (if possible), MANY of those people in the trenches have almost no clue WTF they are doing. This is because management involuntarily reassigns people (SURPRISE!) to jobs for which they were not hired, have no qualifications, and, often, no interest in becoming qualified. Of course, they hang on hoping that 'black swan' will land and make everything right again.

We've had two major incidents (at least), in the last 20 years (9/11 and the Kung Flu) that are specific failures of the IC (IMO). The IC failed (fails?) because Collaboratus, Virtus, and Fides are just some words on a plaque; not goals for which to strive; lip service is a poor substitute.

Yeah, these yahoos are overdue for a good house cleaning as well.

Gary Keith Chesterton Linux Pauling 5 minutes ago
I work in Defense; and the problems there are identical.
Dodo 10 hours ago
Real underline issue is FBI has been politicized. Rather than be neutral and independent, top FBI leaders have aligned with politicians. While nominate FBI officials, presidents also select their own than someone is independent.

In order their men can do their "works", they also increased their authorities. Supposedly, FBI directors, once confirmed, will not change with president. In reality, we saw presidents to replace old ones with their own.

It is not break up or whatever "reform". As long as presidents (regardless whom) can choose their own, how can you expect FBI does its jobs stated by laws?

Amicus Brevis 8 hours ago • edited
It is amazing how far people will let their political hatreds take them. The FBI is actually more important for the services it provides police forces around America than it is for solving federal crimes.

The FBI have been using dirty practices on people for decades. Literally hundreds of people who are not criminals have written about this - several of them are former agents who left in good standing.

They practice some of them right out in the open, like leaking information about arrests to the press so that the press get to film their arrests - sometimes timing arrests to hit local primetime new. It even has a name - the prime time perp walk. Whether these people are convicted or not, those images follow them for the rest of their lives. Or announcing that a person is "a person of interest" to force cooperation, because they know that people hear "suspect" when they hear such announcements. They will then offer to announce that the person is no longer a person of interest in exchange for cooperation. It didn't deserve to be disbanded them.

Absolutely nothing new or rare was done to Flynn. The FBI used perfectly standard dirty tricks on him. But since he was a minion of Donald Trump, the FBI should have known that he was untouchable. That is their real wrongdoing here. But they didn't realize it, so they should be disbanded. It is just like some progressives call for the disbandment of ICE because it arrests illegal aliens.

This ignoramus reminds me of others of his kind who call for the disbandbandment of the UN because they don't like the behavior of its General Council, its human rights or the peace keeping agencies, completely oblivious of the critical services the dozens of non-political UN agencies provide to all countries, especially to very small or under developed ones. They call for the destruction of WHO because it kowtows to China no matter that a number of countries in the world would have access to zero advanced health services without it, and others who are less dependent, but find its services critical in maintaining healthy populations. They find it politically objectionable so get rid of it! I really hate how progressives throw around the words "entitled" and "privilege", but some people do behave that way.

jack Amicus Brevis 5 hours ago
It isn't just the FBI that uses dirty tactics. most police departments also use dirty tactics.
IanDakar jack an hour ago
You can't go without the police though and a lot of what goes there can be reformed. Stop treating them like an movie version of the military. Teach them to calm a situation instead of shooting first, and realize you can treat them like an important part of society without making them above the law.
jack 5 hours ago
As I see it the agency that needs to be broken up is the CIA. What they do is shameful and not American. They are and have always been heavily involved in other countries internal affairs. They are an evil organization.
IanDakar jack an hour ago
We don't have to pick one program to drop.

Add homeland security to it as well.

I'm a " good government beats a small badly run one" and not a friend to libertarian ideals but there's a lot of government that can get the heave ho.

Wally 5 hours ago
If conservatives are coming around to the idea that police corruption is a real thing, that would be great. Somehow, I tend to doubt that it extends much beyond a way to protect white collar and political corruption. I hope this is a turning point. The investigations into Clinton emails didn't seem to warrant a mention here. Oh well.
IanDakar Wally an hour ago
That whole email situation was worthless. Not to say whether there was or was not an issue but the investigation was nothing worthwhile and only resulted in complicating an already messy election. Whether you believe there was a crime or not there there was nothing good handled by that investigation.

Personally I'm more content with the Mueller investigation. Not the way everyone panicked over it on both sides but what Mueller actually did himself: came in, researched the situation, found out that while a good few people acted messy Trump himself wasn't doing more than Twitter talk (yes it's technically "not enough evidence to prosecute", but that is how we phrase "not guilty" technically: you prove guilt not innocence), stated that Trump keeps messing himself up (aka "why did you ask your staff to claim one reason for a firing then tell a different story on national TV idiot")..

Then ran for the hills as everyone screamed "impeach/witchhunt".

Though don't get me wrong: I'm not going to get on the way of any attempt to dismantle the FBI or any of those other systems. It's something I really wish "small government" actually meant.

FND 3 hours ago
And lets not forget that Russia warned the FBI about the Tsarnaev brothers. The FBI did a perfunctory investigation and dismissed the threat. They probably thought they were a couple of poor Chechen boys persecuted by those evil Russians.
Brasidas 3 hours ago
And while the DEA can be overly aggressive... it is inconceivable that its agents would plot a coup d'état against the president of the United States.

And it still is.

David Naas an hour ago
Absolutely phenomenal that an entire essay abusing the FBI could be written without once mentioning the man who actually made the Federal Bureau of Investigation into what it is (whatever that might be). But J Edgar Hoover is still sufficiently iconic a figure to many Conservatives that it would be counterproductive to assault him. Better someone like Comey.

But, this is part of a pattern of Trump and his loyal followers (no Conservatives they) assault on the Institutions. The FBI is insufficiently tamed by Billy Barr, so it must go. (Part of the deep state swamp. /s).

Actually, there are very sound reasons for keeping the FBI, and even more for reforming it. But since it was engaged in checking out Trump's minion, Flynn, it is bad, very bad, incredibly bad, and must go. OTOH, if Comey had bent the knee to Trump, the FBI would be the most tremendous force for good the country has ever seen.

But this essay must be seen as part of the background of attempted legitimization for whatever Trump tweetstormed today. Perhaps the critics are right, and "conservatism is dead". If so, it would be the proper thing to give it a decent burial and go on.

Because there is nothing about Donald John Trump which is the least Conservative, and it is sickening to see people I once presumed to be "principled" line up at the altar of Trumpism. You know he will not be satisfied until the country is renamed The United States of Trump.

Now, all you Trumpublicans and Trumpservatives go downvote because I decline to abandon Conservatism for Trumpworship,

Jim Hohman 9 minutes ago
I did not know the FBI had the power to go back in time, otherwise how did they get Flynn to lie to VP Pence on Jan 14 when they didn't interview him until 1/24? Amazing how powerful they are!

[May 22, 2020] This doesn't look good for the Obama Alumni Association

May 22, 2020 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

UPDATE "The Railroading of Michael Flynn" [Eli Lake, Commentary ] ( Lake's bio ).

This, as did the Greenwald YouTube the other day, puts together a coherent Flynn narrative. Here is a snippet: "Compare Flynn's treatment to McCabe's. Flynn was humiliated and bankrupted for allegedly lying to Pence and FBI agents over a phone call that advanced U.S. interests.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department inspector general found in 2018 that McCabe "knowingly provided false information" in three separate interviews during an investigation into self-serving leaks published by the Wall Street Journal about an aborted investigation into the Clinton Foundation in 2016.

That report also found that McCabe admonished more junior FBI agents for the leaks that he himself had authorized. Today, McCabe is a contributor at CNN. His opinions are still taken seriously at places like the esteemed Lawfare website. He remains in the good graces of the Trump resistance." \

This doesn't look good for the Obama Alumni Association (which, horridly, is a real thing ).

[May 22, 2020] Flynn Targeted By Christopher Steele After FBI Offered To Pay Ex-Spook 'Significantly'

May 22, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

In the weeks leading up to the 2016 election, the FBI offered to pay former British spy Christopher Steele "significantly" for collecting intelligence on Michael Flynn, according to the Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross.

The FBI's proposal - made during an October 3, 2016 meeting in an unidentified European city, and virtually ignored by the press - has taken on new significance in light of recent documents exposing how the Obama administration targeted Flynn before and after president Trump's upset victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016.

The inspector general's report, released on Dec. 9, 2019, said that FBI agents offered to pay Steele "significantly" to collect intelligence from three separate "buckets" that the bureau was pursuing as part of Crossfire Hurricane , its counterintelligence probe of four Trump campaign associates.

One bucket was "Additional intelligence/reporting on specific, named individuals (such as [Carter Page] or [Flynn]) involved in facilitating the Trump campaign-Russian relationship," the IG report stated.

FBI agents also sought contact with "any individuals or sub sources" who Steele could provide to "serve as cooperating witnesses to assist in identifying persons involved in the Trump campaign-Russian relationship."

Steele at the time had provided the FBI with reports he compiled alleging that members of the Trump campaign had conspired with the Kremlin to influence the 2016 election. - Daily Caller

Of note, Steele was promoting a discredited rumor that Flynn had an extramarital affair with Svetlana Lokhova, a Russian-British academic who studied at the University of Cambridge. This rumor was amplified by the Wall Street Journal and The Guardian in March, 2017.

According to the Inspector General's report, the FBI gave Steele a "general overview" of their Crossfire Hurricane probe - including their efforts to surveil Trump campaign aides George Papadopoulos and Carter Page, along with Paul Manafort and Flynn. In fact - some FBI agents questioned whether the lead agent told Steel too much about the operation , according to the IG report.

Via the Daily Caller

In recent weeks, the release of two documents raise questions about potential links between the FBI's request of Steele and the Lokhova rumor .

One of the documents is a transcript of longtime John McCain associate David Kramer's interview with the House Intelligence Committee. Kramer testified on Dec. 17, 2017, that Steele told him in December 2016 that he suspected that Flynn had an extramarital affair with a Russian woman .

"There was one thing he mentioned to me that is not included here, and that is he believed that Mr. Flynn had an extramarital affair with a Russian woman in the U.K .," Kramer told lawmakers.

Kramer said that Steele conveyed that Flynn's alleged mistress was a "Russian woman" who "may have been a dual citizen."

An FBI memo dated Jan. 4, 2017, contained another allegation regarding Flynn and a mysterious Russian woman.

The memo, which was provided to Flynn's lawyers on April 30, said that an FBI confidential human source (CHS) told the bureau that they were present at an event that Flynn attended while he was still working in the U.S. intelligence community . - Daily Caller

Lokhova and Flynn have denied the rumors - with Lokhova's husband telling the Daily Caller News Foundation that he picked his wife up after the Cambridge dinner where an FBI informant said they 'left together in a cab.'

Meanwhile, a DIA official who was at the Cambridge event with Flynn also told the WSJ in March 2017 that there was nothing inappropriate going on between Flynn and Lokhova.

Read the rest of the report here .

[May 21, 2020] How Can Susan Rice Know What Obama and Comey Said if She Was Not Present by Larry C Johnson

May 21, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Here is the bottomline in a nutshell--Susan Rice has been caught red handed trying to construct a lie about what Barack Obama knew and did not know with respect to General Michael Flynn. She claimed to be present when Barack Obama discussed the Michael Flynn intercept but, according to Sally Yates, who was interviewed by the FBI, only Yates, Jim Comey and Barack Obama were present. This new revelation--made possible by the declassification of the Susan Rice email written in the last moments of the Obama Administration--actually bolsters Michael Flynn's contention that he was the victim of a political hit job designed to take out Donald Trump.

[May 21, 2020] Trump Is Exposing The Deep State Like No One Since JFK, Former CIA Spook by Greg Hunter

May 21, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Via Greg Hunter's USAWatchdog.com ,

With every new revelation about what President Trump calls "Obamagate," you see the curtain being torn down and revealing the corrupt players who were running America and attacking our Republic.

Former CIA Officer and counter-terrorism expert Kevin Shipp, who wrote a book about the Deep State called "From the Company of Shadows," says any hint that POTUS is a tool of the Deep State is preposterous.

Shipp explains, "That is absolutely ridiculous..."

" Donald Trump has confronted the Shadow Government and Deep State more than any other president in history, and that includes JFK. JFK did, of course, confront the Deep State and we saw what happened there.

There has been no other president that has had the guts to expose the Shadow Government and Deep State like Donald Trump has. What has the Deep State done? They have gone after him with a vengeance. Why would the Deep State attack their own with attacks to try to destroy him and his family if he wasn't threatening to expose the Deep State? No, he's not a Deep State president. He's not perfect. We all know that. There are members of his cabinet that we are concerned about with connections to some of the central banks. We all know that, but Donald Trump is not Deep State. He is splitting the Deep State wide open.

Look what DNI Rick Grenell just presented to the President. He authorized for release of names of all the unmaskers. Trump is exposing the Deep State, and, personally, I am proud of him because I have been waiting for this for 20 years for a president to come out and expose these things ."

On the virus crisis, Shipp says it's turned into a political weapon for the Left. Shipp contends, "They (Democrats) want to delay any solution to the Coronavirus until the election so they can keep the economy ruined and point the finger at Donald Trump..."

" That's one of the things they want to do. They also want mail-in ballots because that is one of the easiest ways to engage in election fraud. There is a report that just came out that people are getting mail-in ballots that already have the Democrat party checked on the box when they open it up, and they are not Democrats.

You better believe they are going to try to engage in voter fraud using mail-in ballots. There is no doubt about it because they are going to lose badly, and they know it. So, they have to do that. You bet."

The Democrats in the House are going to try, once again, to impeach President Trump for Russian collision. Recently released documents show it was a proven total hoax that they made up, and, yet, the Dems are going to try this again before the 2020 election. What's going on? Shipp says,

" This is the last gasp of Democrat Congressional tyrants trying one last time to remove this elected President. It's laughable...

What this is, is desperation on the part of Pelosi and Schumer. This is desperation on their part knowing that the whole thing was disproven and shot down by the evidence. If Trump gets elected a second time, you will see investigations into Congress, Senate, Obamagate and China. These people are desperate to keep that stuff from coming out.

You think President Trump is exposing them now? You wait until he gets elected a second time. That's why they are so terrified, and they are trying everything they can to keep him from being elected."

Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com as he goes One-on-One with CIA whistleblower Kevin Shipp.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/UjFew1RLzlc

To Donate to USAWatchdog.com Click Here...

Kevin Shipp's website is called FortheLoveofFreedom.net ...

[May 21, 2020] Grenell declassifies Susan Rice email sent on Inauguration Day

Some people are really angry ;-)
May 21, 2020 | thehill.com

RdLake LilLiMargeret 1927 13 hours ago

Obama & his band of corrupt, lying, manipulating, seditious, malevolent, lawless criminals, who are still running loose, back in the WH ... Above the law_ Perkins Coie Law Firm, Fusion GPS (Glenn Simpson) Christopher Steele, Stefan Harper, Josef Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Alexandra Chalupa, Robert Mueller, Andrew Weismann, Andrew McCabe, James Baker, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce & Nellie Ohr, Joe Pientka, ... Obama, Biden, Crooked Hillary, Wingman Eric Holder, Tarmac Loretta Lynch, John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Valerie Jarrett, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, Sally Yates, section data-role="main" data-tracking-area="main"
Mabel Eagle V The Illegal Individ #1 4 hours ago
Obama was spying on Americans for 8 years while he was in office
dcard88 Guest a day ago
She warned the traitor in chief that Flynn was 'working with' our enemy
Mabel Guest a day ago • edited
It was all A LIE ( as in SLANDER) all made up by Obama...I hope Flynn sues that POS for everything his owns section data-role="main" data-tracking-area="main"
BuckeyeRLP netcoach a day ago
Attack the guy who asks the questions. I understand. It's hard to believe they were this dishonest to begin with. Covering it up after the fact with lame emails is so Nixonian. But then again, Rice has a history of lying about history. Remember the Sunday propaganda parade she ran regarding the Benghazi coverup. Squirrels do not give birth to eagles as they say. You are what your history says you are.
BuckeyeRLP dcard88 14 hours ago
You lying coward. They all spoke under oath at the Schiff clown show. So did Comey, Clapper and Brennan. They all said no collusion under oath . Flynn a decorated general was destroyed by career bureaucrats that only serve themselves. Obama encouraged it at the least. Directed it at its worst. Shameful. section data-role="main" data-tracking-area="main"
BuckeyeRLP netcoach a day ago
Yes you are sorry. Defending a coup by a bunch of unelected burecrats over politics. Get a better candidate and win an election. Maybe do a little party analysts on how you lost middle America that's what I am talking about. Partisan hacks like yourself are as introspective as a dung beatle. You do what you do in sh!t created by others and don't question why.

[May 20, 2020] Russiagate skunk Evelyn Farkas is emotionally exhausted by correct claims that she blatantly lied to Mika Brzezinski

Was it Crowdstrike that had shown her the forensics data? This McCarthyist dog just keeps lying and keeps digging. The Obama administration was as shameless as they were crooked.
"They all sound like kids that got caught raiding the cookie jar making up wild tales of innocence with cookie crumbs all over their faces."
Notable quotes:
"... Opening your eyes wider while speaking doesn't make you look more intense, credible, and believable... ..."
"... (((They))) are taught from birth to "lie to, cheat, rob, enslave, and kill, with impunity" all Americans they call "Goyim, a mindless herd of cattle, sub-human animals." ..."
"... Ah Evelyn, Evelyn! You're just an exposed resistance tool HRC campaign hack doubling downer unemployed TDS afflicted congress woman wannabe who has no shame no principals and no alibi. Lots of love and kisses to Bezos/WaPo for letting them share your pain with us. Here at the disinfo clearinghouse you couldn't get elected dog catcher. ..."
May 18, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

...Meanwhile, Poor Evelyn's campaign staff has become " emotionally exhausted " after her Facebook, Twitter and Instagram accounts have been "overwhelmed with a stream of vile, vulgar and sometimes violent messages" in response to the plethora of conservative outlets which have called her out for Russia malarkey.

There is evidence that Russian actors are contributing to these attacks. The same day that right-wing pundits began pumping accusations, newly created Russian Twitter accounts picked them up. Within a day, Russian " disinformation clearinghouses " posted versions of the story . Many of the Twitter accounts boosting attacks have posted in unison, a sign of inauthentic social media behavior.

We assume Zero Hedge is included in said ' disinformation clearinghouses ' Farkas fails to expound on.

She closes by defiantly claiming "I wasn't silenced in 2017, and I won't be silenced now."

No Evelyn, nobody is silencing you. You're being called out for your role in the perhaps the largest, most divisive hoax in US history - which was based on faulty intelligence that includes CrowdStrike admitting they had no proof of that Russia exfiltrated DNC emails, and Christopher Steele's absurd dossier based on his 'Russian sources.'


MrAToZ, 1 minute ago

What's with the bug eyes on these crooks?

Kurpak, 27 seconds ago

Opening your eyes wider while speaking doesn't make you look more intense, credible, and believable...

It makes you look ******* insane.

iAmerican10, 8 minutes ago (Edited)

(((They))) are taught from birth to "lie to, cheat, rob, enslave, and kill, with impunity" all Americans they call "Goyim, a mindless herd of cattle, sub-human animals."

... ... ...

otschelnik, 35 minutes ago

Ah Evelyn, Evelyn! You're just an exposed resistance tool HRC campaign hack doubling downer unemployed TDS afflicted congress woman wannabe who has no shame no principals and no alibi. Lots of love and kisses to Bezos/WaPo for letting them share your pain with us. Here at the disinfo clearinghouse you couldn't get elected dog catcher.

[May 20, 2020] The criminalization of foreign policy dissent by Branko Marceti

May 20, 2020 | jacobinmag.com

The crux of Russiagate is that it's a political scandal masquerading as a criminal one.

The interminable scandal has been back in the news this past week thanks to the Trump Department of Justice's decision to drop charges against Michael Flynn. Flynn was once briefly Trump's national security advisor before being fired and then charged with lying to the FBI over a phone conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition. Last Thursday , the House Intelligence Committee finally released fifty-seven transcripts of closed-door interviews it conducted with various key players in the saga over 2017 and 2018, covering Flynn's call with Kislyak and other matters.

Since the news dropped, every effort has been made to turn Flynn's absolution into the latest Trump outrage. Barack Obama himself weighed in, charging in a leaked phone call with supporters that "there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free," and that the "rule of law is at risk."

Four years into this chaotic and reactionary presidency, there are more than enough legitimate Trump scandals to go around. But as with many things Russiagate, both the Flynn case and the release of the transcripts reflect far more poorly on the Obama administration, American's hallowed national security institutions, and the anti-Trump "Resistance."

Understanding why requires going all the way back to 2016 and the beginnings of the Flynn case. Flynn was a former intelligence official pushed out of the Obama administration over, among other things, his management style . Years later, he became a characteristically weird Trump guy: a heterodox foreign policy thinker who combined occasional opposition to endless war with conspiratorial Islamophobia, and became nationally known for flirting with the "alt-right" and chanting "Lock her up!" at the 2016 RNC.

Flynn's loyalty to Trump was rewarded that year when he was announced as the president-elect's national security advisor. At the same time, Flynn had, like many in Trump's orbit, been investigated by the FBI over whether he was Kremlin agent, and only further raised hackles after it was leaked that he had spoken to Kislyak the same day that Obama ordered sanctions and expelled thirty-five Russian embassy officials as retaliation for Russia's interference in that year's election.

Flynn was, at first, pushed out by Trump when it turned out he had caused Vice President Mike Pence to unwittingly lie about the contact. He was then later charged by Robert Mueller and his team in the course of the "collusion" probe with lying to the FBI (not, as Obama claimed, perjury), which at the time was cause for much speculation : it was the umpteenth "beginning of the end" of Trump's presidency but ultimately produced no new revelations about a Trump-Russia conspiracy. Now, he's been allowed to skip a maximum of five years in jail and walk away "scot-free," as Obama put it.

But through it all and since, details have trickled out that have made the entire saga far less clear-cut than those most invested in the "collusion" narrative would have the public believe. For one, despite all the innuendo around Flynn's Russian contacts and his sitting next to Putin at a dinner, investigators found nothing unseemly when looking into Flynn and had all but closed their investigation into him when the news about the Kislyak call broke.

Secondly, the charge Flynn was ultimately slapped with, lying to the FBI, now looks more like a case of entrapment. Recently released notes written by Bill Priestep , former FBI counterintelligence director, prior to interviewing Flynn about the Kislyak call suggest the Bureau was looking at the option to "get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired." In the notes, Priestep wrote that "I believe we should rethink this," that simply showing Flynn evidence so he could admit wrongdoing wasn't "going easy on him" and was routine FBI practice, and that "if we're seen as playing games, WH [White House] will be furious," so they should "protect our institution by not playing games."

What's more, contemporaneous notes show that the investigators themselves weren't sure Flynn had intentionally lied to them, and that Comey himself had said so in a March 2017 briefing, before claiming he had never said anything of the sort after being fired by Trump.

There were further improprieties in the investigation. Flynn has claimed, with some evidence , that the FBI pressured him to sit down for the interview without a lawyer. Additionally, two years ago, Comey himself admitted that he had violated protocol by sending investigators to interview Flynn without going through the White House counsel, calling it "something I probably wouldn't have done or maybe gotten away with in a more organized administration."

Things get worse when one goes through the Mueller team's interview notes for then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates and Mary McCord, another DoJ official and both Obama appointees. To the surprise of Yates -- who insisted the White House needed to be informed Flynn had misled them, given it put him in a potentially compromising position -- Comey repeatedly refused to notify the White House, and the FBI's reasons for not doing so "morphed" over the course of discussion. Yates and her team were then "flabbergasted," "dumbfounded," and "hit the roof" when they learned Comey had sent agents to interview Flynn without informing her, believing it should have been coordinated with the DoJ.

After this, Mueller's prosecutors coerced Flynn into pleading guilty by bankrupting him and threatening to go after his son , not unlike the treatment visited upon government whistleblowers under the Obama administration. Through it all, there was the fact that Flynn had never actually committed any underlying crime by talking to Kislyak -- not to mention the fact that Mueller himself debunked the entire Russiagate conspiracy theory -- making his false statements to the FBI technically criminal, but irrelevant.

The backdrop to all of this is the FBI's staggering misconduct in spying on the Trump campaign in 2016. As last year's report from the DoJ inspector general revealed , the Bureau repeatedly misrepresented or left out evidence, and even used outright false claims to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page, a businessman and sometime-CIA asset with ties to Russia who advocated for business-minded co-operation between the two countries.

In light of all of this, Russiagate looks less like a righteous crusade for truth and justice and more like the typical shenanigans for which the FBI and US government have long been known: prosecutorial overreach, entrapment, and the criminalization of foreign policy dissent. Trump's grotesqueries have has made it impossible for many liberals to acknowledge this fact. But the fact that the FBI's misconduct was aimed at a right-wing government this time should be no reason for Democrats to dismiss the magnitude of the scandal.

In fact, the Intelligence Committee transcripts reveal the extent to which it was ideological opposition to, or simply political disagreement with, the incoming administration over foreign policy that drove suspicion of a Trump-Russia conspiracy.

"Maybe I'm Biased"

Despite the insistence of anti-Trump media, "collusion" was never crime. Even former Obama officials alarmed by Trump's apparent closeness to the Kremlin acknowledged as such behind closed doors.

"Collusion is a word that's been used out in the public to refer to this investigation," McCord told the intelligence committee. "It's, of course, not a crime itself."

But you didn't need the testimony of Democratic officials to know this. If "colluding" with a foreign power to win an election was a crime, then it was one both Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney were guilty of in 2016 and 2012, respectively.

To defeat Trump in 2016, the Democratic Party teamed up with the Ukrainian government, which viewed a Clinton presidency -- with its controversial preference for sending weapons to Ukraine to fight Russia -- as most favorable to its interests. Though widely reported at the time , Ukraine's 2016 election meddling was retrospectively transformed into a made-up conspiracy theory when it became inconvenient to the Russiagate narrative. Meanwhile, the open support for Romney from a sitting Israel prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, just eight years ago, though controversial at the time , has similarly disappeared down a memory hole. That's not even to get into George W. Bush's closeness to a Saudi official heavily complicit in the September 11 terrorist attacks.

When all was said and done, Trump's run-in with the Kremlin hasn't come close to the level of intimacy and co-ordination with a foreign government seen in any of these examples.

No, Trump and his team's real crime was that they crossed the Washington foreign policy consensus and violated government norms, all in the service of attempting to improve relations with the wrong foreign government -- in this case, one deemed an official adversary. See this exchange between Rep. Francis Rooney (R-FL) and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, one of the former spy chiefs who has repeatedly claimed Trump was in the Kremlin's thrall on cable news (emphasis mine):

ROONEY: I mean, I guess the point is on the question is, is at what time is collusion collusion, and at what time is it just people that may have an affiliation with the campaign meeting or talking with, whether it be the Russian ambassador on somebody that's of Russian origin, and when should that be taken as something that rises to the level of an Intelligence Community concern?

CLAPPER: That's a great question, and I asked -- I really can't answer it other than the sort of visceral reaction to why all these meetings with the Russians . They are what I consider are an existential threat to this country, a country that is not interested in furthering our interests, certainly on cooperating with us. Maybe I'm biased. You know, I'm a Cold War warrior and all that , but -- so that was of concern to me.

At another point, Clapper -- who had earlier said that election interference is "almost genetic with" Russians, and that the 2016 interference had "viscerally affected me like nothing I've even experienced since I got in the intel business in 1963" -- recalled briefing the president-elect about the Kremlin's interference:

I would say it was a professional exchange. He got off on wouldn't it be great if we could get along with the Russians? I said, yeah, sure, if we found some convergence of our interests. But I'm in the 'trust but verify' camp when it comes to Russia. I mean, maybe I've just been around too long.

Or as Clapper put it at another point: "I have a very jaundiced view of dealing with the Russians."

Such thinking pervaded the mindset of other Obama officials. See Obama speechwriter and foreign policy advisor Ben Rhodes' reaction to the now-infamous Trump Tower meeting (emphasis mine):

l was absolutely shocked. I can tell you I worked on a presidential campaign in 2007-2008. I was one of the principal foreign policy staffers on that campaign. I would have no reason to ever meet with any Russians . The notion of, you know, David Plouffe, David Axelrod, and Valerie Jarrett meeting with the Russian Government would have been literally unthinkable in the context of our campaign. And the leadership of a campaign's time is their most precious commodity, and the fact that they felt it a worthy investment of time to sit down with representatives of the Russian government was absolutely astonishing to me , and went far beyond, frankly, any degree of interaction that I would have even guessed at.

Of course, much of the outrage over the Trump Tower meeting arose from the fact that the Trump campaign was trying to get dirt on their opponent from a foreign government (the same thing, incidentally, the Democratic Party actually did in 2016 with the Ukrainian government ). But quite apart from that, Rhodes here is scandalized specifically by the idea the campaign would simply sit down with representatives of the Russian government.

As Rhodes would later admit, he and other Obama campaign officials did communicate with foreign governments during the 2008 campaign and the transition, only they happened to be "a very small number of friendly governments to the United States." Rhodes tacitly acknowledges there's nothing inherently wrong with a campaign meeting with or communicating with a foreign government -- the issue for him is which foreign government , a fundamentally political question.

Here's Yates responding to a question from Rep. Denny Heck (D-WA) about whether "incoming administrations or people on their behalf never have contact with representatives of foreign governments" (emphasis mine):

YATES: No. I don't think that that was anybody's sense there, that you would never have any contact. I think what – as they described it to me, what seemed different about this was that he was having conversations with the Russians attempting to influence their conduct now during this administration, and that that would be unusual and troubling.

HECK: And –

YATES: And it also -- given that it was the Russians, there's sort of an extra concern there as well.

Or here's Obama's outgoing national security advisor recalling her conversations during the transition period with Flynn, the man set to replace her:

We did talk about Russia as an adversary, as a threat to NATO. But, frankly, we spent a lot more time talking about China in part because General Flynn's focus was on China as our principal overarching adversary. He had many questions and concerns about China. And when I elicited -- sought to elicit his perspective on Russia, he downplayed his assessment of Russia as a threat to the United States. He called it overblown. He said they're a declining power, they're demographically challenged, they're not really much of a threat, and then reemphasized the importance of China.

Flynn's factual points about Russia, by the way, are all objectively true . But as Rice went on to say, she "had seen enough at that point and heard enough to be a little bit sensitive to the question of the nature of General Flynn's engagements with the Russians," and so she declined to brief Flynn on Russia policy in the fullest detail, figuring he would be fully briefed once he officially took office.

Like Rhodes, Rice conceded that "it was normal, customary to have contacts with the governments of friendly countries" during a transition, as Obama's did with the "British, French, Germans, NATO allies, Asian allies."

"It was not normal," she said, "to have contacts with adversarial governments during a transition."

Rather than breaching any kind of legal standard, the common complaint among these officials was that Trump and his team had violated the norm or precept of "one government at a time": that even though the Trump administration was coming in, Obama and his team were still in the driver's seat, and it was inappropriate to step on their toes. Flynn's decision to do the opposite may have been unwise -- but was it really an acceptable basis for everything that followed?

It's clear that the chaos, dysfunction, and sheer weirdness of Trump's campaign and budding presidency contributed to deepening suspicion of him and his team. But it's also clear that this suspicion was more than a little animated by what was essentially a political disagreement over whether Russia is a US adversary, and if it should be treated as such via official policy.

Such a question might sound absurd to some ears. But outside the Beltway there are vast swaths of the US political spectrum where such foreign policy positions are contested: on relations with Iran and China, for instance, or the efficacy of the "war on terror" -- issues on which opposing views have often been deemed dangerous, suspect, or even treasonous by one side or another.

Rice herself declared at the end of her testimony, as she complained about Trump's praise for WikiLeaks, that "the rest of us, everybody in this room, knew that WikiLeaks was our adversary." Yet in 2010, when the Obama administration was aggressively going after this "adversary," the public was evenly split on whether Wikileaks had "served" or "harmed" the "public interest" -- with 57 percent of young people holding the former view. Just because Rice and the rest of the national security state viewed the organization as an adversary doesn't make it an objective fact.

And let's not forget the ongoing, total silence over the US government's decades-long friendly relationship with "allies" like Saudi Arabia, whose government officials were involved not in releasing embarrassing information about American policymakers, but a terrorist attack that killed thousands.

"A Debating Weapon Against the Opposition"

Whatever one thinks of the wisdom of Trump's ultimately aborted attempt to re-forge a friendly relationship with Russia, it's a foreign policy decision that a duly elected government is entitled to make. It therefore lays squarely in the political realm, not the legal one -- though national security officials and Democrats have tried their best to make it fit in the latter.

This is perhaps best symbolized by Comey and Obama's apparent goal of prosecuting Flynn under the Logan Act, a probably unconstitutional 221-year-old law enacted by the same repressive Congress that brought you the Alien and Sedition Acts, and which has never been used to successfully prosecute an American. As liberal legal scholar Detlev F. Vagts put it in in 1966, throughout its history, the Logan Act has been used as "a debating weapon against the opposition and as a threat against those out of power," a charge that remains just as true today , as attested by its invocation during the Bush and Obama years.

That the administration ultimately resorted to this antiquated law, which prohibits citizens from "correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government" over disagreements with the US, is a sign of how desperate it was to charge Flynn with anything in its waning days. That Flynn was no ordinary citizen but an official for an elected administration-in-waiting whose direct remit was foreign policy makes the threat even more absurd.

Unfortunately, this isn't the end of it. As others have pointed out , long before the Mueller report made clear a Trump-Russia conspiracy didn't actually exist, a number of Obama officials testified to the closed-door committee that they saw no actual evidence for this -- only hints that made them suspicious.

Yet that didn't stop those involved from using their public platforms to fan the flames of conspiracy against the Trump administration. Maybe most outrageous was former DNI Clapper, who despite testifying he'd seen no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion has repeatedly gone on CNN and charged that Trump could be a Russian asset. (Amusingly, for all of Obama's complaints that Flynn was allowed to get away with "perjury," it's Clapper who actually committed that particular crime, lying to Congress about the scope of government surveillance, which Obama's DoJ refused to lift a finger about despite demands from members of Congress).

Also deserving of special mention is Rep. Adam Schiff, the Democrat who more than any other pushed the "collusion" storyline, riding it to prominence and political donations . Schiff, long a conduit for military contractors , who entered Congress by fundraising record amounts off the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal , has spent years alleging a grand conspiracy between Trump and the Kremlin despite being told under oath by Obama officials hostile to Trump that they had seen no evidence of such a thing. Unsurprisingly, Schiff, the intelligence committee's chairman, long resisted the release of the transcripts.

Russiagate is therefore looking more and more like a familiar story: one of national security officials, driven by an unflinching belief in the righteousness of their cause and a suspicion of any foreign policy vision outside the narrow and militarist Washington consensus, leading a crusade against those whose views they viewed ran contrary to their own. As always, they turned fundamentally political disagreements into an issue of national security, resulting in the FBI violating norms and laws of its own, while running roughshod over the rights of American citizens.

It is too bad that, because the misconduct this time targeted the justifiably loathed figure of Trump, many observers are incapable of seeing this. The FBI's misconduct in the Trump-Russia investigation was "troubling, no question," writes Vox . "But they may not be unique to the Russia investigation, but rather endemic to the agency itself."

This is not a defense; it's a description of the very problem.

Why Should the Liberal Left Care?

For many on the liberal left, the Flynn case and the entire Russiagate saga elicits anything ranging from disinterest to outright cheer-leading. After all, why should anyone opposed to Trump, a lifelong criminal and dangerous reactionary, be bothered that the might of the United States' vast security state was, for once, turned against him?

The answer is that, as with all anti-civil liberties measures , these tactics are first legitimated by being turned on groups and individuals that are wholly unsympathetic, so they can later be used against less objectionable targets. Justifying prosecutorial misconduct and state overreach in one case where an outgoing administration and its allies targeted their political opponents over matters of policy sets a dangerous precedent for future victims, including a potential left-wing or even liberal administration.

Imagine, for instance, if Trump (or any other Republican administration) had spent years alarmingly tamping up tensions with an officially designated foreign adversary -- Iran or China, for instance. Imagine one of those governments then leaked unflattering but true information about Republican corruption and malfeasance in order to help their Democratic opponents win, and Trump retaliated with sanctions and other measures.

Imagine, too, that Democrats had publicly pledged to restore friendly relations with these powers during the campaign, and, upon winning the election, an official in the soon-to-be Democratic administration privately urged them not to overreact to Trump's retaliatory actions. Imagine, then, that the Trump administration unlawfully spied on members of the Democratic campaign, attempted to railroad that official on flimsy grounds, all while his allies continued hobbling the succeeding administration by alleging an unproven foreign conspiracy -- all because they thought reorienting relations with countries viewed as dangerous enemies by the Right was something inherently suspect and criminal.

Just as Democrats were right to demand Robert Mueller be allowed to carry out his inquiry, Republicans are absolutely correct to want an investigation of these abuses, even if they're driven by partisan motives -- partisan concerns, after all, have always played some role in the accounting of malfeasance in Washington, from Iran-Contra to the 9/11 Commission. And it's perfectly possible to be outraged at this entire saga without supporting Trump or treating the GOP as principled defenders of civil liberties -- indeed, the party is right now pushing a radical expansion of government surveillance powers that should worry us all.

It is particularly symbolic that in the midst of this imbroglio, the FBI just accidentally revealed the name of another Saudi embassy official complicit in the September 11 attacks, whose identity was long kept hidden by the US government as a "state secret" whose revelation could cause "significant harm to the national security." Collusion, foreign adversary, national security: in Washington, it's all in the eye of the beholder.

[May 20, 2020] Susan Rice Was Directed By Obama White House To Draft Inauguration Day Email To Herself

May 20, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

by Tyler Durden Wed, 05/20/2020 - 18:05 A 2017 Inauguration Day email that former national security adviser Susan Rice sent to herself documenting a January 5 Oval Office meeting discussing the case against her successor Michael Flynn was done so at the direction of White House counsel , according to Fox News . The meeting documented in Rice's memo included Obama, former VP Joe Biden and former FBI Director James Comey, who - according to Rice, "does have some concerns that incoming NSA Flynn is speaking frequently with Russian Ambassador Kislyak."

"Given the importance and sensitivity of the subject matter, and upon the advice of the White House Counsel's Office, Ambassador Rice created a permanent record of the discussion," Rice's attorney Kathryn Ruemmler wrote to senators in 2018. "Ambassador Rice memorialized the discussion on January 20, because that was the first opportunity she had to do so, given the particularly intense responsibilities of the National Security Advisor during the remaining days of the administration and transition."

Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell declassified the previously redacted section of Rice's email and Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., made it public on Tuesday.

That section says Comey suggested to Obama that the National Security Council [NSC] might not want to pass "sensitive information related to Russia" to incoming national security adviser Flynn.

The email pointed to what were apparently widespread concerns about Flynn's Russia contacts. Multiple sources confirmed to Fox News that what initially put Flynn on the radar was the number of interactions he had with senior Russian government officials in 2016, as laid out in various intelligence reports viewed by Obama White House officials. - Fox News

Damage control?

For those who aren't buying the given explanation for the email, 'Sundance' of The Conservative Treehouse has an interesting theory that it was written to cover up the fact that Obama knew all about the Flynn investigation .

2) The position of President Obama and Susan Rice is that the White House was unaware of any FBI investigation of Flynn (or the Trump campaign); nor did they have any involvement in directing it to take place.

-- TheLastRefuge (@TheLastRefuge2) May 20, 2020

4) When James Clapper walked directly into the White House with "intelligence cuts", from the FBI to share with President Obama, it's likely the legal team around Obama -specifically including Kathryn Reummler- went bananas.

-- TheLastRefuge (@TheLastRefuge2) May 20, 2020

6) Worse... if anyone should later question FBI Director Comey about it, Comey would say (honestly) he knew Obama was briefed on it because he provided a paper trail.

WH counsel Ruemmler would have immediately identified the White House exposure.

-- TheLastRefuge (@TheLastRefuge2) May 20, 2020

8) The problem at that point (post meeting) was the risk of it being Obama's word -vs- James Comey.

Comey had records, a paper trail, for his escape; the White House did not.

It's a he said/he said risk.

-- TheLastRefuge (@TheLastRefuge2) May 20, 2020

Addendum: The framework and purpose of the Rice 'memo to file' was obvious in the 2018 Rice/Ruemmler response to the Senate. pic.twitter.com/2IQxIyFwuK

-- TheLastRefuge (@TheLastRefuge2) May 20, 2020

page 2 pic.twitter.com/tJ5CyqGsPb

-- TheLastRefuge (@TheLastRefuge2) May 20, 2020

[May 20, 2020] COMEY urged probe into Flynn by misrepresenting Russian contacts, declassified memo shows

Looks like Comey was willing and active member of the Obama-Brennan gang plotting color revolution against Trump
Notable quotes:
"... incoming NSA Flynn is speaking frequently with Russian Ambassador Kislyak ..."
"... has no indication thus far that Flynn has passed classified information to Kislyak ..."
"... could be an issue ..."
"... The level of communication is unusual ..."
"... sensitive information related to Russia ..."
"... election interference. ..."
"... a briefing by [Intelligence Committee] leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election ..."
"... no derogatory information ..."
"... Russian collusion ..."
"... proceeding 'by the book' ..."
"... prosecute him or get him fired ..."
May 20, 2020 | www.rt.com
incoming NSA Flynn is speaking frequently with Russian Ambassador Kislyak " in a meeting documented in the January 2017 memo by National Security Advisor Susan Rice, the unredacted first page of which was obtained by CBS on Tuesday.

The FBI director admits he " has no indication thus far that Flynn has passed classified information to Kislyak ," and no real basis for his insistence that the probe must go on.

DEVELOPING: Declassified Rice email documenting WH meeting 1/5/2017 obtained @CBSNews pic.twitter.com/uA9V9oo4n4

-- Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) May 19, 2020

The only thing backing his hunch that the meetings between the general and the Russian diplomat " could be an issue "?

" The level of communication is unusual ," Comey tells Obama, according to Rice, hinting that the National Security Council should " potentially " avoid passing " sensitive information related to Russia " to Flynn.

The FBI director did not elaborate on what is supposed to be " unusual " about an incoming foreign policy official speaking with a Russian counterpart, especially in the midst of what was then a rapidly-unraveling diplomatic relationship between the two countries with Obama expelling 35 Russian diplomats and imposing sanctions over alleged-but-never-substantiated " election interference. " Given the circumstances, an absence of communication might have been more unusual. But the timing is certainly auspicious.

Rice, Flynn's predecessor who authored the memo, relates that the January 5 meeting followed " a briefing by [Intelligence Committee] leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election ."

The previous day, the FBI field office assigned with investigating Flynn attempted to close the case against him, called CROSSFIRE RAZOR, after having found " no derogatory information " to justify continued inclusion in the overarching CROSSFIRE HURRICANE probe (the " Russian collusion " investigation). They were blocked from doing so by Agent Peter Strzok, who added that the orders to keep the investigation going came from the " 7th floor " - i.e. agency leadership. The Flynn investigation had been underway since August, beginning the day after Strzok discussed an 'insurance policy' that was supposed to keep then-candidate Donald Trump out of office with Comey's deputy, Andrew McCabe. While Comey describes his probe of Flynn as " proceeding 'by the book' " after Obama repeatedly stresses he wants only a " by the book " investigation - both parties presumably hoping to avoid exactly the sequence of revelatory events that are currently unfolding - recently-unsealed documents from the case against Flynn indicate the general was entrapped, with the FBI's goal being to " prosecute him or get him fired " with an ambush-style interview.

They got both their wishes - after agents tricked him into sitting for questioning without a lawyer present, Flynn was accused of lying about his contacts with Kislyak, fired from his post in the White House, and subsequently pled guilty to lying to a federal agent.

The Department of Justice has dropped its charges against Flynn, citing gross misconduct and abuse of power at the FBI, which it claims had no basis for launching its investigation. However, US District Judge Emmet Sullivan has attempted to block the dismissal, appointing a retired judge as independent prosecutor to both argue against the Justice Department's move and pursue perjury charges against Flynn - essentially charging him with lying about lying.

On Tuesday, Flynn's attorney filed a writ of mandamus with the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, urging them to force Sullivan to step aside and allow the dismissal of the charges.

[May 20, 2020] How Can Susan Rice Know What Obama and Comey Said if She Was Not Present by Larry C Johnson

Notable quotes:
"... I guess Obama didn't think he could rely on Sally Yates to lie on his behalf but knew he could count on "Old Faithful" Susan Rice to do the job. If the MSM were fair they'd be mocking (at the very least) her overuse of the figure of speech "by the book". I hope someone throws that book at her and the rest of the cabal. ..."
"... BTW, I seem to recall reading a long time ago that Rice made a mess wherever she served. I could be mistaken though. ..."
"... Well if we can't get a "perfumed prince" in the docket, this deplorable will settle for a "perfumed princess. ..."
May 20, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

...This is nothing more than a lame, stupid attempt on the part of Susan Rice to create some plausible deniability for Barack Obama. She placed herself in a meeting that, according to Sally Yates, was limited to Obama, Comey and Yates. Rice puts the blame on Comey for talking about the Russians. The Sally Yates account told to FBI under the penalty of lying to the FBI, was quite clear that Obama initiated the discussion of Russia, Flynn and the sanctions.

Someone is lying. Susan Rice is a demonstrated liar and was not under oath when she wrote up her fabricated version of the 5 January meeting. Sally Yates, however, would face legal peril if she lied to the FBI agents who interviewed her. I believer Sally Yates provided the truthful account of what actually happened after Barack Obama asked everyone but Yates and Comey to leave the room.

Deap, 20 May 2020 at 12:49 AM

Did Barry ever wing anything on his own without his sidekicks Rce or Jarrett immediately by his side, ready to run cover for him later when necessary?

Rice's presence was probably so ubiquitous, it was not worthy of mention in later present party recollections. I would assume Barry could not speak in public without a teleprompter and not speak in private without his "wingman".

Why do we assume Valerie Jarrett is still living in the same house as the former POTUS? So when the phone rings and someone wants to know something about what Barry did while he was in office, ValJar the NightStalker can be ready with the answer.

My guess is Rice was attached at the hip whenever there was a chance Barry would open his mouth. Make the failure to mention Rice more an oversight rather than something ominous.

More troubling was Yates getting cut off by Lindsey Graham every time she tried to explain that Flynn had not been "unmasked" during her Senate testimony, per the video clip. What that just dismissive on Graham's part or inadvertent. Wild speculation, had McCain "leaked" the Flynn phone call to Wapo?

akaPatience , 20 May 2020 at 03:19 AM

I guess Obama didn't think he could rely on Sally Yates to lie on his behalf but knew he could count on "Old Faithful" Susan Rice to do the job. If the MSM were fair they'd be mocking (at the very least) her overuse of the figure of speech "by the book". I hope someone throws that book at her and the rest of the cabal.

BTW, I seem to recall reading a long time ago that Rice made a mess wherever she served. I could be mistaken though.

Has anyone else noticed that James Comey's been very quiet lately?

Morongobill , 20 May 2020 at 09:39 AM
Well if we can't get a "perfumed prince" in the docket, this deplorable will settle for a "perfumed princess. "

[May 20, 2020] This Was Some Shady Stuff Treasury Department Spied On Flynn, Manafort And Trump Family

Notable quotes:
"... The US Treasury Department was regularly spying on Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn , Paul Manafort Jr., senior staffers on the 2016 Trump campaign, members of the Trump family, and congressional lawmakers , according to The Tennessee Star 's Neil W. McCabe. ..."
"... The scheme allowed the perpetrators to circumvent classified avenues to surveil Americans. Once enough information had been gathered against a target, they would use a different type of search. ..."
"... In March 2017, the whistleblower filed a complaint with Acting Treasury Inspector General Richard K. Delmar, who never followed up on the matter despite acknowledging receipt of the complaint. Prior to that, she filed an August 2016 notification which was rejected as it didn't meet the requirements of a formal complaint. ..."
"... This surveillance program was run out of Treasury's Office of Intelligence Analysis , which was then under the leadership of S. Leslie Ireland ..."
"... The whistleblower said Treasury should never have been part of the unmasking of Flynn, because its surveillance operation was off-the-books. That is to say, the Justice Department never gave the required approval to the Treasury program, and so there were no guidelines, approvals nor reports that would be associated with a DOJ-sanctioned domestic surveillance operation. - The Tennessee Star ..."
May 20, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

The US Treasury Department was regularly spying on Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn , Paul Manafort Jr., senior staffers on the 2016 Trump campaign, members of the Trump family, and congressional lawmakers , according to The Tennessee Star 's Neil W. McCabe.

"I started seeing things that were not correct, so I did my own little investigation, because I wanted to make sure what I was seeing was correct," a former senior Treasury Department official and veteran of the intelligence community told McCabe. "You never want to draw attention to something if there is not anything there," she added.

The whistleblower said she only saw metadata, that is names and dates when the general's financial records were accessed. "I never saw what they saw."

By March 2016, the whistleblower said she and a colleague, who was detailed to Treasury from the intelligence community, became convinced that the surveillance of Flynn was not tied to legitimate criminal or national security concerns, but was straight-up political surveillance among other illegal activity occurring at Treasury.

"When I showed it to her, what she said, 'Oh, sh%t!' and I knew right then and there that I was right – this was some shady stuff," the whistleblower said.

"It wasn't just him," the whistleblower said. "They were targeting other U.S. citizens, as well." - The Tennessee Star

"Another thing they would do is take targeted names from a certain database – I cannot name, but you can guess – and they were going over to an unclassified database and they were running those names in the unclassified database," she added.

The scheme allowed the perpetrators to circumvent classified avenues to surveil Americans. Once enough information had been gathered against a target, they would use a different type of search.

In March 2017, the whistleblower filed a complaint with Acting Treasury Inspector General Richard K. Delmar, who never followed up on the matter despite acknowledging receipt of the complaint. Prior to that, she filed an August 2016 notification which was rejected as it didn't meet the requirements of a formal complaint.

In May 2017, she filed another complaint with the Office of Special Counsel.

This surveillance program was run out of Treasury's Office of Intelligence Analysis , which was then under the leadership of S. Leslie Ireland . Ireland came to OIA in 2010 after a long tenure at the Central Intelligence Agency and a one-year stint as Obama's daily in-person intelligence briefer .

The whistleblower said Treasury should never have been part of the unmasking of Flynn, because its surveillance operation was off-the-books. That is to say, the Justice Department never gave the required approval to the Treasury program, and so there were no guidelines, approvals nor reports that would be associated with a DOJ-sanctioned domestic surveillance operation. - The Tennessee Star

"Accessing this information without approved and signed attorney general guidelines would violate U.S. persons constitutional rights and civil liberties," said the whistleblower, adding "IC agencies have to adhere to Executive Order 12333, or as it is known in the community: E.O. 12-Triple-Three. Just because OIA does not have signed guidelines does not give them the power or right to operate as they want, if you want information on a U.S. person then work with the FBI on a Title III, if it is a U.S. person involved with a foreign entity then follow the correct process for a FISA, but without signed AG guidelines you cannot even get started ."

[May 19, 2020] The leak of the Kislyak call to the press was designed to sabotage Flynn and the Trump administration

From comments to the podcast: "Attempting to damage and/or remove a sitting US President with a political and legal hoax, from within, is a seditious attack against the United States of America."
May 19, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Podcast Right Now Episode 2, The Russiagate Hoax, with Svetlana Lokhova and Chuck Ross The American Conservative

Starting at minute 20 interview of Svetlana and Chuck makes the point that leak of the call to the press was to sabotage Flynn and the Trump administration. The PTB knew very early on that Flynn was not a Russian asset.

[May 18, 2020] About Evelyn Farkas political activity

May 18, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Dr Anon 36 minutes ago

Another woman who should be at home taking care of her husband, home and children.

mtumba, 29 minutes ago

What the **** do you have against husbands and children?

rockstone, 44 minutes ago

She closes by defiantly claiming "I wasn't silenced in 2017, and I won't be silenced now."

By all means Evelyn, keep talking. Especially after your lawyers tell you to shut up.

[May 18, 2020] Turley: The 'Unmasking' Of Joe Biden

Notable quotes:
"... The contradictions revealed in recent disclosures, including the list of officials seeking to "unmask" the identity of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, are shocking. There seems a virtual news blackout on these disclosures, including the fact that both former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden followed the investigation. Indeed, Biden's name is on the unmasking list. ..."
"... The declassification of material from the Michael Flynn case has exposed more chilling details of an effort by prosecutors to come up with a crime to use against the former national security adviser. ..."
"... That included the testimony of Evelyn Farkas, a former White House adviser who was widely quoted by the media with her public plea for Congress to gather all of the evidence that she learned of as part of the Obama administration. ..."
"... That story would have been encompassing if it was learned that there was no direct evidence to justify the investigation and that the underlying allegation of Russian collusion was ultimately found to lack a credible basis. ..."
"... But the motives of Obama administration officials are apparently not to be questioned. Indeed, back when candidate Donald Trump said the Obama administration placed his campaign officials under surveillance, the media universally mocked him. That statement was later proven to be true. The Obama administration used the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court to conduct surveillance of Trump campaign officials. ..."
"... While unmasking is more routinely requested by intelligence officials, with a reported 10,000 such requests by the National Security Agency last year alone, it is presumably less common for figures like Biden or White House chief of staff Denis McDonough ..."
"... The media portrayed both Obama and Biden as uninvolved. But now we know they both actively followed the investigation. ..."
May 18, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

The contradictions revealed in recent disclosures, including the list of officials seeking to "unmask" the identity of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, are shocking. There seems a virtual news blackout on these disclosures, including the fact that both former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden followed the investigation. Indeed, Biden's name is on the unmasking list.

The declassification of material from the Michael Flynn case has exposed more chilling details of an effort by prosecutors to come up with a crime to use against the former national security adviser. This week, however, a letter revealed another unsettling detail. Among over three dozen Obama administration officials seeking to "unmask" Flynn in the investigation was former Vice President Joe Biden . This revelation came less than a day after Biden denied any involvement in the investigation of Flynn. It also follows a disclosure that President Obama was aware of that investigation.

For three years, many in the media have expressed horror at the notion of the Trump campaign colluding with Russia to influence the 2016 election. We know there was never credible evidence of such collusion. In recently released transcripts, a long list of Obama administration officials admitted they never saw any evidence of such Russian collusion. That included the testimony of Evelyn Farkas, a former White House adviser who was widely quoted by the media with her public plea for Congress to gather all of the evidence that she learned of as part of the Obama administration.

The media covered her concern that this evidence would be lost "if they found out how we knew what we knew" about Trump campaign officials "dealing with Russians." Yet in her classified testimony under oath, she said she did not know anything. Farkas is now running for Congress in New York and highlighting her role in raising "alarm" over collusion. As much of the media blindly pushed this story, a worrying story unfolded over the use of federal power to investigate political opponents.

There is very little question that the response by the media to such a story would have been overwhelming if George Bush and his administration had targeted the Obama campaign figures with secret surveillance .

That story would have been encompassing if it was learned that there was no direct evidence to justify the investigation and that the underlying allegation of Russian collusion was ultimately found to lack a credible basis.

But the motives of Obama administration officials are apparently not to be questioned. Indeed, back when candidate Donald Trump said the Obama administration placed his campaign officials under surveillance, the media universally mocked him. That statement was later proven to be true. The Obama administration used the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court to conduct surveillance of Trump campaign officials.

Yet none of this matters as the media remains fully invested in the original false allegations of collusion. If Obama administration officials were to be questioned now, the coverage and judgment of the media may be placed into question, as even this latest disclosure from the investigation of the unmasking request of Biden will not alter the media narrative.

Unmasking occurs when an official asks an intelligence agency to remove anonymous designations hiding the identity of an individual. This masking is a very important protection of the privacy of American citizens who are caught up in national security surveillance. The importance of this privacy protection is being dismissed by media figures, like Andrea Mitchell, who declared the Biden story to be nothing more than gaslighting.

While unmasking is more routinely requested by intelligence officials, with a reported 10,000 such requests by the National Security Agency last year alone, it is presumably less common for figures like Biden or White House chief of staff Denis McDonough. Seeking unmasking information that was likely to reveal the name of a political opponent and possibly damage the Trump administration raises a concern. More importantly, it adds a detail of the scope of interest and involvement in an investigation that targeted Flynn without any compelling evidence of a crime or collusion.

The media portrayed both Obama and Biden as uninvolved. But now we know they both actively followed the investigation.

[May 18, 2020] Farkas is definitely one of the fraudulent supporters of the Obama Russiagate witch hunt, but generally he is clueless pawn in a big and dirty gate played by Obama-Brennan tandem

May 18, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Atlantic Council senior fellow, Congressional candidate, and Russia conspiracy theorist Evelyn Farkas is desperately trying to salvage her reputation after recently released transcripts from her closed-door 2017 testimony to the House Intelligence Committee revealed she totally lied on national TV .

In March of 2017, Farkas confidently told MSNBC 's Mika Brzezinski: " 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 ."

https://www.youtube.com/embed/dCMF94FX530?start=25

Except, during testimony to the House, Farkas admitted she lied . When pressed by former Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) on why she said 'we' - referring to the US government, Farkas said she "didn't know anything."

In short, she was either illegally discussing US intelligence matters with her "former colleagues," or she made the whole thing up.

Now, Farkas is in damage control mode - writing in the Washington Post that her testimony demonstrated "that I had not leaked intelligence and that my early intuition about Trump-Kremlin cooperation was valid.' She also claims that her comments to MSNBC were based on "media reports and statements by Obama administration officials and the intelligence community," which had "began unearthing connections between Trump's campaign and Russia."

Farkas is now blaming a 'disconcerting nexus between Russia and the reactionary right,' for making her look bad (apparently Trey Gowdy is part of the "reactionary right" for asking her who she meant by "we").

Attacks against me came first on Twitter and other social media platforms, from far-right sources. Forensics data I was shown suggested at least one entity had Russian ties . The attacks increased in quantity and ferocity until Fox News and Trump-allied Republicans -- higher-profile, and more mainstream, sources -- also criticized me .

...

Trump surrogates, including former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski , Donald Trump Jr. and Fox News hosts such as Tucker Carlson have essentially accused me of treason for being one of the "fraudulent originators" of the "Russia hoax." -Evelyn Farkas

She then parrots the Democratic talking point that the attacks she's received are part of Trump's larger "Obamagate" allegations - " a narrative that distracts attention from his administration's disastrous pandemic response and attempts to defect blame for Russian interference onto the Obama administration" (Obama told Putin to ' cut it out ' after all).

Meanwhile, Poor Evelyn's campaign staff has become " emotionally exhausted " after her Facebook, Twitter and Instagram accounts have been "overwhelmed with a stream of vile, vulgar and sometimes violent messages" in response to the plethora of conservative outlets which have called her out for Russia malarkey.

There is evidence that Russian actors are contributing to these attacks. The same day that right-wing pundits began pumping accusations, newly created Russian Twitter accounts picked them up. Within a day, Russian " disinformation clearinghouses " posted versions of the story . Many of the Twitter accounts boosting attacks have posted in unison, a sign of inauthentic social media behavior.

We assume Zero Hedge is included in said ' disinformation clearinghouses ' Farkas fails to expound on.

She closes by defiantly claiming "I wasn't silenced in 2017, and I won't be silenced now."

No Evelyn, nobody is silencing you. You're being called out for your role in the perhaps the largest, most divisive hoax in US history - which was based on faulty intelligence that includes crowdstrike admitting they had no proof of that Russia exfiltrated DNC emails, and Christopher Steele's absurd dossier based on his 'Russian sources.'


MrBoompi, 18 minutes ago

Lying is a common occurrence on MSNBC. Farkas was just showing her party she is qualified for a more senior position.

chubbar, 23 minutes ago

My opinion, based on zero facts, is that the lie she told was to Gowdy. She had to say she lied about having intelligence data or she'd be looking at a felony along with whomever she was talking to in the US gov't. You just know these cocksuckers in the resistance don't give a **** about laws or fairness, it's all about getting Trump. So they set up an informal network to get classified intelligence from the Obama holdovers out into the wild where these assholes could use it against Trump and the gov't operations. Treason. She needs to be executed for her efforts!

LetThemEatRand, 59 minutes ago

This whole thing reminds me of a fan watching their team play a championship game. If the ref makes a bad call and their team wins, they don't care. And if the ref makes a good call and their team loses, they blame the ref. No one cares about the truth or the facts. That in a nutshell is politics in the US. If you believe that anyone will "switch sides" or admit the ref made a bad call or a good call, you're smoking the funny stuff.

mtumba, 50 minutes ago

It's a natural response to a corrupt system.

When the system is wholly corrupt so that truth doesn't matter, what else is there to care about other than your side winning?

It's a travesty.

[May 18, 2020] Ep. 1251 Obama Did It - The Dan Bongino Show

Looks like Obama order surveillance on Flynn to Comey. Obama essentially fabricated the evident to start the color revolution against Trump
May 18, 2020 | www.youtube.com

John Haggart , 2 days ago

And that's why Obama could not help himself from calling that reporter.

John Sharp , 1 day ago

Pull Obama out of his mansion in cuffs. Stealing Americans votes is a death sentence.

Robert Beekman , 2 days ago

This is why they want to keep his case going, it keeps Flynn quiet. Drag it out till after the election.

Linda Catz , 2 days ago

Dano: you're giving senile Mueller too much credit. It wasn't him, it was Weissman! And possibly Van Crack!

H , 2 days ago

Hussein isn't sweating. He believes he's untouchable. He's that arrogant. He was a Trojan horse and has done irrefutable damage to our Constitution and our country.

Genny Reid , 2 days ago

It makes Watergate look like a picnic in the park. The complicit msm continues to hide the truth.

Thomas Loyd , 2 days ago

I have to echo Greg Gutfeld's sentiments on Adam Schiff: When the HELL is someone going to hold him accountable for the Three-Year-Schiff-Show the United States has had to go through??!?!?

He needs to be charged AT LEAST with leaking classified damnit!

And then all the other legal lies he held firm to! My last intelligence nerve was pressed hard with that.....and yet, there he continues lying his ass off protected (for now) by Congress! Elections CANNOT come quick enough! Can't wait to vote this year!

[May 18, 2020] FBI under Comey as an uncontrolled political police operating without any oversight from Justice Department

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... "Did [ FBI Director James B. Comey] seek permission from you to do the formal opening of the counterintelligence investigation?" Rep. Adam B. Schiff, California Democrat, asked the former attorney general. ..."
"... "No, and he ordinarily would not have had to do that," Ms. Lynch answered. "lt would not have come to the attorney general for that." ..."
"... Mr. Schiff, a fierce defender of the FBI in the Russia probe, seemed taken aback. "Even in the case where you're talking about a campaign for president?" he asked. ..."
"... "I can't recall if it was discussed or not," Ms. Lynch said. "I just don't have a recollection of that in the meetings that I had with him." ..."
"... "Yates was very frustrated in the call with Comey," said the FBI interview report, known as a 302. "She felt a decision to conduct an interview of Flynn should have been coordinated with [the Department of Justice ]." ..."
"... Ms. Yates told the FBI that the interview was "problematic" because the White House counsel should have been notified. ..."
"... During his book tour, Mr. Comey bragged that he sent the two agents without such notification by taking advantage of the White House's formative stage. He said he "wouldn't have gotten away with it" in a more seasoned White House. ..."
"... Other evidence of an FBI on autopilot: The Justice Department inspector general's report on how the bureau probed the Trump campaign revealed more than a dozen instances of FBI personnel submitting false information in wiretap applications and withholding exculpatory evidence. For example, agents evaded Justice Department scrutiny by not telling their warrant overseer that witnesses had cast doubt on the reliability of the Steele dossier. ..."
May 18, 2020 | www.washingtontimes.com

Newly released documents show FBI agents operated on autopilot in 2016 and 2017 while targeting President Trump and his campaign with little or no Justice Department guidance for such a momentous investigation.

Loretta E. Lynch, President Obama's attorney general, said she never knew the FBI was placing wiretaps on a Trump campaign volunteer or using the dossier claims of former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to put the entire Trump world under suspicion. Mr. Steele was handled by Fusion GPS and paid with funds from the Democratic Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

"I don't have a recollection of briefings on Fusion GPS or Mr. Steele ," Ms. Lynch told the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in October 2017. "I don't have any information on that, and I don't have a recollection being briefed on that."

Under pressure from acting Director of National Intelligence Richard A. Grenell, the committee last week released transcripts of her testimony and that of more than 50 other witnesses in 2017 and 2018, when Republicans controlled the Trump- Russia investigation.

Ms. Lynch also testified that she had no knowledge the FBI had taken the profound step of opening an investigation, led by agent Peter Strzok, into the Trump campaign on July 31, 2016.

"Did [ FBI Director James B. Comey] seek permission from you to do the formal opening of the counterintelligence investigation?" Rep. Adam B. Schiff, California Democrat, asked the former attorney general.

"No, and he ordinarily would not have had to do that," Ms. Lynch answered. "lt would not have come to the attorney general for that."

Mr. Schiff, a fierce defender of the FBI in the Russia probe, seemed taken aback. "Even in the case where you're talking about a campaign for president?" he asked.

"I can't recall if it was discussed or not," Ms. Lynch said. "I just don't have a recollection of that in the meetings that I had with him."

Attorney General William P. Barr has changed the rules. He announced that the attorney general now must approve any FBI decision to investigate a presidential campaign.

Ms. Lynch's testimony adds to the picture of an insular, and sometimes misbehaving, FBI as its agents searched for evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin to interfere in the 2016 election to damage Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton .

In documents filed by the Justice Department last week, then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates expressed dismay that Mr. Comey would dispatch two agents, including Mr. Strzok, on Jan. 24, 2017, to interview incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn at the White House.

Ms. Yates, interviewed by FBI agents assigned to the Robert Mueller special counsel probe, said Mr. Comey notified her only after the fact.

"Yates was very frustrated in the call with Comey," said the FBI interview report, known as a 302. "She felt a decision to conduct an interview of Flynn should have been coordinated with [the Department of Justice ]."

Ms. Yates told the FBI that the interview was "problematic" because the White House counsel should have been notified.

During his book tour, Mr. Comey bragged that he sent the two agents without such notification by taking advantage of the White House's formative stage. He said he "wouldn't have gotten away with it" in a more seasoned White House.

Mr. Barr filed court papers asking U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to dismiss the Flynn case and his guilty plea to lying to Mr. Strzok about phone calls with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Mr. Strzok and other FBI personnel planned the Flynn interview as a near ambush with a goal of prompting him to lie and getting fired, according to new court filings.

Other evidence of an FBI on autopilot: The Justice Department inspector general's report on how the bureau probed the Trump campaign revealed more than a dozen instances of FBI personnel submitting false information in wiretap applications and withholding exculpatory evidence. For example, agents evaded Justice Department scrutiny by not telling their warrant overseer that witnesses had cast doubt on the reliability of the Steele dossier.

The far-fetched dossier was the one essential piece of evidence required to obtain four surveillance warrants on campaign volunteer Carter Page, according to Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz. The Mueller and Horowitz reports have discredited the dossier's dozen conspiracy claims against the president and his allies.

A who's who of Trump- Russia

Mr. Schiff, now chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence , had held on to the declassified transcripts for more than a year. Under pressure from Republicans and Mr. Grenell, he released the 6,000 pages on the hectic day Mr. Barr moved to end the Flynn prosecution.

The closed-door testimony included witnesses such as Mr. Obama's national security adviser, a United Nations ambassador, the nation's top spy and the FBI deputy director. There were also Clinton campaign chieftains and lawyers.

The transcripts' most often-produced headline: Obama investigators never saw evidence of Trump conspiracy between the time the probe was opened until they left office in mid-January 2017.

"I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election," former Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper told the committee .

Mr. Clapper is a paid CNN analyst who has implied repeatedly and without evidence that Mr. Trump is a Russian spy and a traitor. The Mueller report contained no evidence that Mr. Trump is a Russian agent or election conspirator.

Mr. Schiff told the country repeatedly that he had seen evidence of Trump collusion that went beyond circumstantial. Mr. Mueller did not.

Mr. Schiff was a big public supporter of Mr. Steele 's dossier, which relied on a Moscow main source and was fed by deliberate Kremlin disinformation against Mr. Trump, according to the Horowitz report.

Trump Tower

One of Mr. Schiff's pieces of evidence of a conspiracy "in plain sight" is the meeting Donald Trump Jr. took with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya on June 9, 2016.

The connections are complicated but, simply put, a Russian friend of the Trumps' said she might have dirt on Mrs. Clinton . At the time, Ms. Veselnitskaya was in New York representing a rich Russian accused by the Justice Department of money laundering. To investigate, she hired Fusion GPS -- the same firm that retained Mr. Steele to damage the Trump campaign.

The meeting was brief and seemed to be a ruse to enable Ms. Veselnitskaya to pitch an end to Obama-era economic sanctions that hurt her client. Attending were campaign adviser Paul Manafort, Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner and Anatoli Samochornov. Mr. Samochornov is a dual citizen of Russia and the U.S. who serves as an interpreter to several clients, including Ms. Veselnitskaya and the State Department.

Mr. Samochornov was the Russian lawyer's interpreter that day. His recitation of events basically backs the versions given by the Trump associates, according to a transcript of his November 2017 committee testimony.

The meeting lasted about 20 minutes. Ms. Veselnitskaya briefly talked about possible illegal campaign contributions to Mrs. Clinton . Manafort, busy on his cellphone, remarked that the contributions would not be illegal. Mr. Kushner left after a few minutes.

Then, Rinat Akhmetshin, a lobbyist, made the case for ditching sanctions. He linked that to a move by Russian President Vladimir Putin to end a ban on Americans adopting Russian children.

Mr. Trump Jr. said that issue would be addressed if his father was elected. In the end, the Trump administration put more sanctions on Moscow's political and business operators.

"I've never heard anything about the elections being mentioned at that meeting at all or in any subsequent discussions with Ms. Veselnitskaya," Mr. Samochornov testified.

No mask

One of the first things Rep. Devin Nunes, California Republican, did to earn the animus of Democrats and the liberal media was to visit the Trump White House to learn about "unmaskings" by Obama appointees.

The National Security Agency, by practice, obscures the names of any Americans caught up in the intercept of foreign communications. Flynn was unmasked in the top-secret transcript of his Kislyak call so officials reading it would know who was on the line.

In reading intelligence reports, if government officials want the identity of an "American person," they make a request to the intelligence community. The fear is that repeated requests could indicate political purposes.

That suspicion is how Samantha Power ended up at the House intelligence committee witness table. The former U.N. ambassador seemed to have broken records by requesting hundreds of unmaskings, though the transcript did not contain the identities of the people she exposed.

She explained to the committee why she needed to know.

"I am reading that intelligence with an eye to doing my job, right?" Ms. Power said. "Whatever my job is, whatever I am focused on on a given day, I'm taking in the intelligence to inform my judgment, to be able to advise the president on ISIL or on whatever, or to inform how I'm going to try to optimize my ability to advance U.S. interests in New York."

She continued: "I can't understand the intelligence . Can you go and ascertain who this is so I can figure out what it is I'm reading. You've made the judgement, intelligence professionals, that I need to read this piece of intelligence, I'm reading it, and it's just got this gap in it, and I didn't understand that. But I never discussed any name that I received when I did make a request and something came back or when it was annotated and came to me. I never discussed one of those names with any other individual."

Rep. Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Republican, listened and then mentioned other officeholders, such as the White House national security adviser and the secretary of state.

"There are lots of people who need to understand intelligence products, but the number of requests they made, ambassador, don't approach yours," Mr. Gowdy said.

Ms. Power implied that members of her staff were requesting American identities and invoking her name without her knowledge.

The dossier

By mid- to late 2017, the full story on the Democrats' dossier -- that it was riddled with false claims of criminality that served, as Mr. Barr said, to sabotage the Trump White House -- was not known.

Mr. Steele claimed that there was a far-reaching Trump- Russia conspiracy, that Mr. Trump was a Russian spy, that Mr. Trump financed Kremlin computer hacking, that his attorney went to Prague to pay hush money to Putin operatives, and that Manafort and Carter Page worked as a conspiracy team.

Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn R. Simpson, a Clinton operative, spread the inaccuracies all over Washington: to the FBI , the Justice Department , Congress and the news media.

None of it proved true.

But to Clinton loyalists in 2017, the dossier was golden.

"I was mostly focused in that meeting on, you know, the guy standing behind this material is Christopher Steele ," campaign foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan said about a Fusion meeting. "He is the one who's judging its credibility and veracity. You know him. What do you think, based on your conversations with him? That's what I was really there to try and figure out. And Glenn was incredibly positive about Steele and felt he was really on to something and also felt that there was more out there to go find."

Clinton campaign attorney Marc Elias vouched for the dossier, and its information spread to reporters. He met briefly with Mr. Steele during the election campaign.

"I thought that the information that he or they wished to convey was accurate and important," Mr. Elias testified.

"So the information that Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele wished to portray to the media in the fall of 2016 at that time, you thought, was accurate and important?" he was asked.

"As I understand it," he replied.

Mr. Elias rejected allegations that the Clinton campaign conspired with Russia by having its operatives spread the Moscow-sourced dirt.

"I don't have enough knowledge about when you say that Russians were involved in the dossier," he said to a questioner. "I mean that genuinely. I'm not privy to what information you all have.

"It sounds like the suggestion is that Russia somehow gave information to the Clinton campaign vis-a-vis one person to one person, to another person, to another person, to me, to the campaign. That strikes me as fanciful and unlikely, but perhaps as I said, I don't have a security clearance. You all have facts and information that is not available to me. But I certainly never had any hint or whiff."

[May 17, 2020] Trump Unmasking of Flynn is greatest political scam in history of US

Trump say that Brennan was one of the architect. Obama knew everything and probably directed the color revolution against Trump
Notable quotes:
"... Self-described, "scandal-free" administration Obama is a lie nonetheless, Obama will eventually have to testify in front of Congress there is no hiding from it. ..."
May 17, 2020 | www.youtube.com

Bruce Wayne , 9 hours ago

General Flynn vs Strzok are great example of good vs bad cops.

Hope for the Best , 9 hours ago

Should they reopen all FBI cases for the past 4 years and see if anyone else was railroaded.

Him Bike , 7 hours ago

The day after the election Sen Elizabeth Warren said "Trump has no idea what we have in store for him."

foreveralive , 6 hours ago

None of this is a surprise at all. The real surprise is if they actually arrest these people and put them on trial for their crimes.

BlackSmith , 4 hours ago

"Obama's legacy out" A mic drop

Story Time , 8 hours ago

Self-described, "scandal-free" administration Obama is a lie nonetheless, Obama will eventually have to testify in front of Congress there is no hiding from it.

[May 17, 2020] General Flynn investigation 'has tarnished Obama's legacy' - YouTube

Highly recommended!
May 17, 2020 | www.youtube.com

Missie , 22 hours ago

President Trump battled China for 3 1/2 years while Democrats tried to take him down. Like POTUS said, they're human scum.

Gusli Kokle , 22 hours ago

Obama is self-tarnishing.

Shane Brbich , 22 hours ago div tabindex="0" role="article"

> He will go down as The most corrupt president in history! Spied on an opponents campaign Authorised the intelligence agencies to spy Leaker Collided with Russia

Memey Memes , 22 hours ago

Tarnished its more than that its total evil.

Cinda Jenkins , 22 hours ago

I didn't think he had a legacy. A pretty bad one to say the least.

toycollector10 , 22 hours ago

Sky News Australia. How do you keep getting away with all of the truth telling? Watching from N.Z. Keep up the good work.

Missie , 22 hours ago

Our Fakenews networks conspired with Obama, Obama's previous Cabinet, Hillary, the CIA, FBI, NSA, DNC, and Democrats in Congress. They were all in on it together. #Sedition #Treason

jamee boss , 21 hours ago

The New World Order virus needs to be investigate immediately. This is the biggest crimes in the world history

Epifanio Esmero , 22 hours ago

By framing an innocent man, they have only entrapped themselves!! Karma!!

Ken Mulrooney , 22 hours ago

You can't tarnish that idiots legacy He doesn't need any help

Mark Shaw , 19 hours ago

As an outsider looking in, I find it hard to believe that the American people, would allow politicians of any party to get away with this behavior.

הדבר אדני יהוה לישועה , 20 hours ago

Obama framed Trump as a Russian spy to deflect public focus from the crimes of his Administration

chris campbell , 22 hours ago

He was tarnished a lllooonnnngggg time ago!His legacy is one of corruption!

John Inton , 21 hours ago

ex-president Obummer biggest legacy to the democratic world is allowing China to claim all of the South China Sea by turning a blind eye whilst China was dredging the sea beds and creating artificial islands all over the South China sea!!

mG , 19 hours ago

A shame nothing will actually happen to that trash.

Green Onions , 22 hours ago

Every move he made tarnished his reputation. The only thing propping him up was the media.

Jann , 20 hours ago

I hope Barak Hussein Obama goes down for this.

NOISLAMONAZIS DOTCOM , 22 hours ago (edited)

What legacy? Obama was just another NWO puppet and so performed as a puppet should. MSM is owned by the same people that are Obama's boss.

SandhoeFlyer , 19 hours ago

Obama will go down in history as a lier, a fraud, dishonourable and a lousy President .

I P , 20 hours ago

Obama was an America hater from day one, and committed many treasons public and private. His "legacy" is and was a fabrication of the MSM, who tolerated no end of abuses, including Obama suing a number of journalists.

But let's just look at one item, underplayed by the MSM: Obama did everything he could to stop the 9/11 victims bill, including a presidential veto, which was then overridden by a gigantic (97-1) senate vote.

McCain and Graham continued to fight the LAW, undoubtedly with Obama help, using Arab funded lawyers to the tune of 1.2 million dollars per month.

[May 17, 2020] LET'S TALK ABOUT LEAKING Kayleigh McEnany TAKES ON REPORTER Over Flynn

Kayleigh McEnany is a really bright, sharp person
May 15, 2020 | www.youtube.com

Keith Green , 2 days ago

Kayleigh: I'm glad you asked that question. Reporter: Whoops. 🤣

Another Divorced Dad , 1 day ago

Oh, he didn't like hearing what his "job" is. She's right. Journalists used to do something called "investigative reporting." Now, it's all about that, "GOTCHA!" Pathetic. 🥱

Bern VENTER , 1 day ago

She is brilliant. Journalists look like idiots like they are.

[May 17, 2020] The Media and Pundits Are Lying--The Flynn Unmasking Was Uncommon and Unusual by Larry C Johnson

Notable quotes:
"... Could Samantha Powers husband, Bloomberg media and book writer Cass Sunstein, have been looking over Samantha's shoulder when she was unmasking hundreds of names critically necessary for her job as UN Ambassador, even though she does not remember requesting any of them? ..."
"... why would Obama proceed with the dramatic expulsions of all those Russian diplomats and properties (when we now all know that Russia didn't hack the DNC and exfiltrate any e-mails) in that particular point in time and just a few weeks before the inauguration? ..."
May 17, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

walrus, 17 May 2020 at 04:22 PM

Mr. Johnson, Thank you both for your lucid explanations of Russiagate and your tenacity. I pray that with your help, the forces of good will triumph.

A question, are the plotters trying to hold out till the elections? It would seem that if they succeeded in doing that they and Trump loses the election, then they will have gotten away with this crime and established the IC as the equivalent of the Praetorian Guard.

Deap, 17 May 2020 at 04:50 PM
I do not want you to spy on me, Mr Clapper.
I do not want what you did to Gen Flynn, done to me.
I do expect to be protected by the US Constitution.

(Signed) A private US Citizen.

Deap, 17 May 2020 at 05:07 PM
Could Samantha Powers husband, Bloomberg media and book writer Cass Sunstein, have been looking over Samantha's shoulder when she was unmasking hundreds of names critically necessary for her job as UN Ambassador, even though she does not remember requesting any of them?
Alan, 17 May 2020 at 07:12 PM
Dan Bongino claims he had an epiphany and solved the non-unmasking of Flynn during that crucial period. (Remember, he had Trump for an interview a few weeks ago, his connection to him and his people might have helped his powers of intuition a bit).

It is a scenario that explains a lot, like for example, why would Obama proceed with the dramatic expulsions of all those Russian diplomats and properties (when we now all know that Russia didn't hack the DNC and exfiltrate any e-mails) in that particular point in time and just a few weeks before the inauguration?

What does the committee think of his take (if you can ignore his theatrics)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ9cqYSMWFs&feature=emb_logo

Jim, 17 May 2020 at 08:47 PM

+++++++++++++++++

Adding to the rot. . . .

The attempted prosecution of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn's business partners on alleged FARA crimes, in which prosecutors are still saying the general is a foreign agent. [Foreign Agents Registration Act, US law since 1938.] [Even though he is not a defendant in that case.]

His business partner was convicted by a jury, on this, last year.

Judge shortly thereafter said the court [that judge] failed to properly instruct the jury – as the DOJ did not have evidence anyone was under the control of a foreign government -- the key criteria.

The conviction was vacated by the judge; this criteria was not met, nor was evidence produced by DOJ to show this.

This judge [Anthony Trenga] also allowed the DOJ to: appeal ruling.

That is, Trenga's ruling that vacated the conviction.

That is, let DOJ try and get a new trial -- a do-over.

Which, the DOJ, now under AG Bill Barr is currently attempting to do.

In the appeal for a new trial, Flynn is not a defendant.

His former business partners are.

The DOJ, in a motion and memorandum to the federal appeals court, ---pleading for right for another trial --- in this motion, the DOJ also accused Flynn, in writing, of being an agent of Turkey -- all along – "from the beginning," the DOJ motion, from January 2020 states.

Below is from 1/24/2020 DOJ filing against Messrs. Rafiekian and Alptekin, [Flynn's then-business partners prior to 2017], docketed in federal court in January:

>>>>>[[The evidence discussed above equally shows concerted action between Rafiekian, Flynn, and Alptekin to act subject to Turkey's direction or control. . . . From the beginning, the co-conspirators agreed that. . . .]]<<<<<

[Note: Rafiekian, in 2006, was nominated by President Bush to Board of Directors of the 'Export–Import Bank of the United States'; this nomination was confirmed/approved by USA Senate. He served on the bank's board from 2006 to 2011.

see:

[ https://www.congress.gov/110/chrg/shrg50323/CHRG-110shrg50323.htm ]

Attorney representing defendants, their reply, opposing DOJ appeal request -- rejecting the January 2020 DOJ motion and claims about the men -- from April 2020, motion and memorandum includes this:

[[Although the government's appellate brief now alleges that Flynn was a Turkish agent "[f]rom the beginning" (Br. 2), it sang a different tune just a month before trial [last year], when it told the district court that Flynn was not part of any conspiracy. It was only after Flynn made it clear that he would not offer the testimony the government expected to hear that it reversed course, announced that its erstwhile star witness was really a co-conspirator all along. . . .]]

That is: "from the beginning," as the DOJ asserts in their January 2020 filing.

This case was dismissed last year because there was no evidence that any of them were under the control of a foreign government, i.e., "foreign agents" -- yet the DOJ persists.

Nor was Flynn ever charged with any FARA alleged crimes, not by Mueller, not by anyone.

Flynn's case, prosecuted by Mueller/SCO -- the DOJ recently moved to end it all – yet Judge Sullivan persists.

One case, presided by Judge Contreras, then Sullivan: should never have ever been prosecuted. We now know this for a fact. Flynn was framed by his own government.

In the other case, that Trenga dismissed: Flynn, who is not a defendant, is accused of being a foreign agent by the DOJ, in January 2020.

Of note: Sullivan, apparently believing that he is, threatened Flynn with 15 years in jail, during a hearing in Dec. 2018, when the judge removed all pretense of being impartial, with his rant about the general selling out his country, possible treason, blah blah blah. In other words, the ghost of the long dead, still-born Logan Act, apparently.

To what issue will this come?

HAMLET
My fate cries out,
And makes each petty artery in this body
As hardy as the Nemean lion's nerve.
Still am I call'd. Unhand me, gentlemen.
By heaven, I'll make a ghost of him that lets me!
I say, away! Go on; I'll follow thee.

[HAMLET begins following the ghost, exits]

HORATIO
He waxes desperate with imagination.

MARCELLUS
Let's follow; 'tis not fit thus to obey him.

HORATIO
Have after. To what issue will this come?

MARCELLUS
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

HORATIO
Heaven will direct it.

MARCELLUS
Nay, let's follow him.

Obama's recent signaling of Flynn as Mr. Perjury, followed up soon thereafter by Sullivan's latching onto that exact same theme is curious. I don't know if this is just one more curve ball in this, or a fast ball right down the middle.

Recall:
There is no public record of Obama, or then AG Lynch or then DAG Sally Yates doing anything to remove Comey as FBI director or discipline him when he announced there would be no prosecution of Clinton in 2016 – keeping in mind Comey's role was not prosecutor, [as the country's general attorney; rather, his role was as police chief of the nation].

McCabe leaking to Wall Street Journal, late October 2016, that there was a criminal investigation involving Clinton Foundation. There is no record Obama, Lynch, Yates, Comey did anything to remove McCabe from duty as the FBI deputy director, or discipline him.

There are numerous examples of this lack of action in 2016 right up until Jan. 20, 2017 when Trump was inaugurated.

This exact pattern includes, of course the Flynn/Kislyak issue.

What is factual at this point is: Washington Post had knowledge as early as [and perhaps sooner than] Jan. 5, 2017 of Flynn phone conversation with Russian ambassador to US, Sergey Ivanovich Kislyak, that occurred late December.

And, this stuff was actually published, in WAP, on Jan. 12, 2017.

Obama left office noontime Jan. 20, 2017.

Among other things, might a purpose of the Flynn persecution also involve, rather, just be another curve ball -- to keep eyes away from the failure by Obama team to prosecute this criminal leak and outing of Flynn? I don't know.

I also don't know why Trump stated the following on Dec. 2, 2017, [the day after Flynn plead:

[[I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There was nothing to hide!]]

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/937007006526959618?lang=en

On May 13, 2020 Trump stated:
[[And when I see what is happening to him, it's disgraceful. And it was all a ruse. And, by the way, the FBI said he didn't lie. The FBI said he did not lie. So with all the stuff I'm hearing about lying, the FBI said he didn't lie. But the sleazebag said, "Well, we don't care what he -- what they say. We're saying he lied." Okay? But the FBI, you remember, when they left, they said, "He didn't lie." What they've done to that man and that family is a disgrace. But I just tell you that because I just left General Milley, and he said, "A great man and a great soldier." Isn't that a shame.]]

<