How Strzok could miss those? They were available to him since 2016.
Notable quotes:
"... As you may recall, the discovery of these emails on Weiner's computer is what prompted Comey to re-open the Hillary Clinton email investigation roughly 1 week prior to the election, a decision which the Hillary camp insists is the reason why they lost the White House. ..."
"... Large portions of the 2,800 page release were redacted prior to release by the State Department. ..."
"... In at least two instances, Abedin directly forwarded Anthony Weiner official conversations - one of which included Hillary Clinton and senior advisor Jake Sullivan with subject "Lavrov" - referring to Russia's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergey Lavrov. The email discusses an official response by a "quartet" of envoys (The US, EU, UN, and Russia) over Israel's announced changes to its Gaza policy, ending a contentious blockade. ..."
"... In a statement issued Friday, Judicial watch called the release a "major victory," adding "After years of hard work in federal court, Judicial Watch has forced the State Department to finally allow Americans to see these public documents. It will be in keeping with our past experience that Abedin's emails on Weiner's laptop will include classified and other sensitive materials. That these government docs were on Anthony Weiner's laptop dramatically illustrates the need for the Justice Department to finally do a serious investigation of Hillary Clinton's and Huma Abedin's obvious violations of law." ..."
"... Really, is anyone surprised that there were classified emails on Huma Abedin or Anthony Weiner's laptop? ..."
"... The surprise is that it was confiscated back in October 2016 and it took 14 months to reveal that at least 5 emails were classified as confidential. Apparently there were 2800 such emails, an average of 7 per day every day, or 10 per day using 5 day workweeks. Although these 2800 were released, this evidently is a subset of "tens of thousands" of email reported last year to be on that laptop. ..."
"... "Fitton also commented that it's 'outrageous' that Clinton and Abedin 'walked out of the State Department with classified documents and the Obama FBI and DOJ didn't do a thing about it.' " And so far, neither has Jeff Sessions. Get after him, Donald!!!! ..."
"... The lunacy of all of this is that it is taking private groups and citizen journalists to pull out the information that one would think the DOJ would have been interested in months ago. And it means that organizations like Judicial Watch and citizen journalists like George Webb and others are limited to using civil courts because they are not federal prosecutors. ..."
"... Hillary, Huma, et al exchanging classified emails on unsecured servers and computers was a big nothing burger according to Andy and friends at the FBI. ..."
As you may recall, the discovery of these emails on Weiner's computer is what
prompted Comey to re-open the Hillary Clinton email investigation roughly 1 week prior to the election, a decision which the
Hillary camp insists is the reason why they lost the White House.
Of course, while the Hillary campaign attempted to dismiss the emails as just another 'nothing burger', the
Daily
Mail reports that an initial review of the 2,800 documents dumped by the State Department reveal at least 5 emails classified
at the 'confidential level,' the third most sensitive level the U.S. government uses.
The classified emails date from 2010-2012, and concern discussions with Middle East leaders, including those from the United Arab
Emirates, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and Hamas - which was
declared a terrorist organization by the European Court of Justice in July. Large portions of the 2,800 page release were redacted
prior to release by the State Department.
According to the
Daily
Mail , three of the emails were sent either to or from an address called "BBB Backup," which one email identifies as a backup
of a Blackberry Bold 9700 - presumably belonging to Abedin.
As a civilian, Weiner - though once a congressman, was unlikely to have possessed the proper clearance to view or store the classified
documents on his laptop .
A sample of the documents can be seen below, first, a "Call Sheet" prepared for Hillary's discussion with Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu:
And another update regarding "Hamas-PLO Talks":
In at least two instances, Abedin directly forwarded Anthony Weiner official conversations - one of which included Hillary Clinton
and senior advisor Jake Sullivan with subject "Lavrov" - referring to Russia's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergey Lavrov. The email
discusses an official response by a "quartet" of envoys (The US, EU, UN, and Russia) over
Israel's announced
changes to its Gaza policy, ending a contentious blockade.
One wonders why Anthony Weiner would need to know about this?
Abedin also forwarded Weiner an email discussion
from July 22, 2012 which had previously been released by WikiLeaks - which included the Ambassador to Senegal, Mushingi Tulinabo.
While the contents of the email are redacted, Senegal had elected a new President
earlier that month . Of note, the Clinton Foundation
has supported or been involved in several projects in the country.
In a statement issued Friday, Judicial watch called the release a "major victory," adding "After years of hard work in federal
court, Judicial Watch has forced the State Department to finally allow Americans to see these public documents. It will be in keeping
with our past experience that Abedin's emails on Weiner's laptop will include classified and other sensitive materials. That these
government docs were on Anthony Weiner's laptop dramatically illustrates the need for the Justice Department to finally do a serious
investigation of Hillary Clinton's and Huma Abedin's obvious violations of law."
Fitton also commented that it's 'outrageous' that Clinton and Abedin 'walked out of the State Department with classified documents
and the Obama FBI and DOJ didn't do a thing about it.'
Not surprisingly, Abedin was spotted heading into the Hillary Clinton offices in midtown Manhattan earlier today just a few hours
before the release of the 2,800 emails. Seems you're never too old to be called into the Principal's office...
We're confident this will all be promptly dismissed by Hillary as just another effort to "criminalize behavior that is normal
"because what government employee hasn't shared classified materials with their convicted pedophile husband? Certainly, just another
boring day in Washington... Tags Politics
Really, is anyone surprised that there were classified emails on Huma Abedin or Anthony Weiner's laptop?
The surprise is that it was confiscated back in October 2016 and it took 14 months to reveal that at least 5 emails were classified
as confidential. Apparently there were 2800 such emails, an average of 7 per day every day, or 10 per day using 5 day workweeks.
Although these 2800 were released, this evidently is a subset of "tens of thousands" of email reported last year to be on that
laptop.
It's been reported on an other site that the Awan trial, which had been postponed until Jan 8th, is now erased from all federal
court dockets. No one knows the significance of this, whether it means the "fix" is in or they are turning state's evidence on
Hillary, etc? I hope it's the latter but knowing Sessions and the rest of the fucking corrupt pieces of shit in the DOJ and FBI,
I fear these assholes are being let off the hook.
"Fitton also commented that it's 'outrageous' that Clinton and Abedin 'walked out of the State Department with classified documents
and the Obama FBI and DOJ didn't do a thing about it.' " And so far, neither has Jeff Sessions. Get after him, Donald!!!!
The lunacy of all of this is that it is taking private groups and citizen journalists to pull out the information that one
would think the DOJ would have been interested in months ago. And it means that organizations like Judicial Watch and citizen journalists like George Webb and others are limited to using
civil courts because they are not federal prosecutors. The question is why are those who are being paid with our tax dollars to
enforce the law in criminal courts expending so much effort to avoid doing that job.
Ultimately, President Trump has to answer that question because this is now coming out on his watch.
Ya, its pretty infuriating. Trumps been in office for a year. Sessions, at least on paper, is in charge of the DOJ. The FBI
works for him too. Why isn't anything being done about this?
I wonder, will Abedin be the fall girl for the Clintons? "It was all her fault! She took the emails without me knowing it!" Her being "called into the principal's office" is also telling. Instructions on what to say.
I am curious as to what assurances we have that there weren't actually another 100 emails that didn't just magically disappear?
We've given these alphabet agencies years to "redact" sensitive material, how do we know that the "smoking gun" emails weren't
redacted entirely?
DNC doing actual opposition research by paying actual Russians for information is perfectly acceptable. Trump team allegedly doing opposition research by speaking with Russians is a criminal offence. That seems reasonable.
Hillary, Huma, et al exchanging classified emails on unsecured servers and computers was a big nothing burger according to
Andy and friends at the FBI.
I was searching for a word to describe our media and Federal law enforcement who are both impervious to truth and justice.
It led me to wondering if the Devil permits truth to penetrate in Hell and decided that the condemned there hear more of it that
Americans do today. You'd have to go back to NAZI Germany or Stalinist Russia for a comparison of how little we're told was true.
Don't believe me? We're mushrooms, kept in a dark cave and fed a steady diet of bullshit. We're GOOD mushrooms. A bumper crop
this year.
The emails were discovered on Anthony's laptop by NYPD when they were investigating the pervert's connection to the child in
North Carolina. The laptop was turned over to the FBI. If you want to say the FBI discovered the emails, that takes the credit
away from the NYPD. Comey reopened the Hillary investigation because NYPD kept copies.
" [A]n initial review of the 2,800 documents dumped by the State Department reveal at least 5 emails classified at the 'confidential
level,' the third most sensitive level the U.S. government uses. "
While I'm for anything and everything that harms the Clinton family and its cohort, let me point out that the 'confidential
level' security classification, in addition to being the third most sensitive level of security classification is also also the
very lowest level of security classification.
One would hope (in vain I've recently concluded) that ZH would make some small attempt to not slant its 'news' coverage with
such erroneous and inflammatory 'reporting'. I thought we had decided to leave fear mongering and lying to the mainstream media.
I suppose I was wrong.
"... It should be Clinton-Gate not Russia-Gate. It seems that once again, as with late 02 and into 03, the populace has been hoodwinked into believing government falseness--as with the non-existent WMD and invasion of Iraq. ..."
It's very difficult to get the head wrapped around the Mueller investigation as a contrivance to avoid going after Clinton, which
shows a corrupted intelligence service working for political ends and saving the Democratic Party, which needs replacing. The
evidence against Clinton is much more substantial than the continuing Mueller foray into inconsequence.
If you need more on Clinton
beyond the massive email problems she had to avoid revealing how much pay money she was getting, search on the DNC convention
entirely corrupted over to her and then the Uranium One deal. Why is all this not being investigated?
It should be Clinton-Gate
not Russia-Gate. It seems that once again, as with late 02 and into 03, the populace has been hoodwinked into believing government
falseness--as with the non-existent WMD and invasion of Iraq.
It's very difficult to get the head wrapped around the Mueller investigation as a contrivance
to avoid going after Clinton, which shows a corrupted intelligence service working for
political ends and saving the Democratic Party, which needs replacing. The evidence against
Clinton is much more substantial than the continuing Mueller foray into inconsequence. If you
need more on Clinton beyond the massive email problems she had to avoid revealing how much
pay money she was getting, search on the DNC convention entirely corrupted over to her and
then the Uranium One deal. Why is all this not being investigated? It should be Clinton-Gate
not Russia-Gate. It seems that once again, as with late 02 and into 03, the populace has been
hoodwinked into believing government falseness--as with the non-existent WMD and invasion of
Iraq.
Essentially FBI has pushed Sunders under the bus and as such rigged the elections. In no way
Hillary can become candidate if she woouls have benn charged with "gross negligence". In this
sense they are criminals.
Notable quotes:
"... And so Hillary walked. Why is this suspicious? First, whether or not to indict was a decision that belonged to the Department of Justice, not Jim Comey or the FBI. His preemption of Justice Department authority was astonishing. Second, while Comey said in his statement that Hillary had been "extremely careless" with security secrets, in his first draft, Clinton was declared guilty of "gross negligence" -- the precise language in the statute to justify indictment. ..."
"... Who talked Comey into softening the language to look less than criminal? One man was FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife, Jill, a Virginia state senate candidate, received a munificent PAC contribution of $474,000 from Clinton family friend and big bundler Terry McAuliffe. ..."
"... Also urging Comey to soften the fatal phrase "gross negligence" was key FBI agent Peter Strzok. In text messages to his FBI lover Lisa Page, Strzok repeatedly vented his detestation of the "idiot" Trump. After one meeting with "Andy" (McCabe), Strzok told Page an "insurance policy" was needed to keep Trump out of the White House. ..."
"... JFK wanted to break the CIA into a million pieces and I think Trump needs to shatter the FBI into a million pieces after these latest revelations. The FBI stinks to high heaven and have for quite a long time now. They have become a highly politicized federal law enforcement agency ..."
"... If any Joe or Jane Shmo at Boeing or Lockheed-Martin had done what Hillary did he or she would have been fired and fined or jailed or both. His or hers security clearance would have been permanently revoked. So much for liberty and justice for all. ..."
"... What was the original mandate for Robert Mueller? If after all this time he has not been able to find any connection between Trump campaign and Putin then that phase of the investigation must end. The Justice Department appointed him and they should put a stop to that portion of the investigation. They can always give him a new mandate to investigate Hillary campaign's connection with Russia. These investigations should never be open ended. Lots of money is wasted and it gives the investigator an opportunity to satisfy personal vendetta. ..."
"... This connects the dots in a reasonable fashion on most of the major issues brought out by what this is: the Clinton crowd/deep state effort to "get" Trump. ..."
"... The only thing I would take exception with is to call the phony allegations of the GPS Steele dossier to be "Kremlin" based. They might have talked to Russians, but they were not acting on behalf of the Putin government when they talked. These individuals were doing no more than telling the Clinton researchers what they thought they would want to hear so that generous payments would be forthcoming. ..."
The original question the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign was to answer was a simple
one: Did he do it?
Did Trump, or officials with his knowledge, collude with Vladimir Putin's Russia to hack the
emails of John Podesta and the DNC, and leak the contents to damage Hillary Clinton and elect
Donald Trump?
A year and a half into the investigation, and, still, no "collusion" has been found. Yet the
investigation goes on, at the demand of the never-Trump media and Beltway establishment.
Hence, and understandably, suspicions have arisen.
Are the investigators after the truth, or are they after Trump?
Set aside the Trump-Putin conspiracy theory momentarily, and consider a rival explanation
for what is going down here:
That, from the outset, Director James Comey and an FBI camarilla were determined to stop
Trump and elect Hillary Clinton. Having failed, they conspired to break Trump's presidency,
overturn his mandate and bring him down.
Essential to any such project was first to block any indictment of Hillary for transmitting
national security secrets over her private email server. That first objective was achieved 18
months ago.
On July 5, 2016, Comey stepped before a stunned press corps to declare that, given the
evidence gathered by the FBI, "no reasonable prosecutor" would indict Clinton. Therefore, that
was the course he, Comey, was recommending. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, compromised by her
infamous 35-minute tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton -- to discuss golf and grandkids --
seconded Comey's decision.
And so Hillary walked. Why is this suspicious? First, whether or not to indict was a
decision that belonged to the Department of Justice, not Jim Comey or the FBI. His preemption
of Justice Department authority was astonishing. Second, while Comey said in his statement that
Hillary had been "extremely careless" with security secrets, in his first draft, Clinton was
declared guilty of "gross negligence" -- the precise language in the statute to justify
indictment.
Who talked Comey into softening the language to look less than criminal? One man was FBI
Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife, Jill, a Virginia state senate candidate, received a
munificent PAC contribution of $474,000 from Clinton family friend and big bundler Terry
McAuliffe.
Also urging Comey to soften the fatal phrase "gross negligence" was key FBI agent Peter
Strzok. In text messages to his FBI lover Lisa Page, Strzok repeatedly vented his detestation
of the "idiot" Trump. After one meeting with "Andy" (McCabe), Strzok told Page an "insurance
policy" was needed to keep Trump out of the White House.
Also, it appears Comey began drafting his exoneration statement of Hillary before the FBI
had even interviewed her. And when the FBI did, Hillary was permitted to have her lawyers
present.
One need not be a conspiracy nut to conclude the fix was in, and a pass for Hillary wired
from the get-go. Comey, McCabe, Strzok were not going to recommend an indictment that would
blow Hillary out of the water and let the Trump Tower crowd waltz into the White House.
Yet, if Special Counsel Robert Mueller cannot find any Trump collusion with the Kremlin to
tilt the outcome of the 2016 election, his investigators might have another look at the Clinton
campaign.
For there a Russian connection has been established.
Kremlin agents fabricated, faked, forged, or found the dirt on Trump that was passed to
ex-British MI6 spy Christopher Steele, and wound up in his "dirty dossier" that was distributed
to the mainstream media and the FBI to torpedo Trump.
And who hired Steele to tie Trump to Russia?
Fusion GPS, the oppo research outfit into which the DNC and Clinton campaign pumped millions
through law firm Perkins Coie.
Let's review the bidding.
The "dirty dossier," a mixture of fabrications, falsehoods and half-truths, created to
destroy Trump and make Hillary president, was the product of a British spy's collusion with
Kremlin agents.
In Dec. 26′s Washington Times, Rowan Scarborough writes that the FBI relied on this
Kremlin-Steele dossier of allegations and lies to base their decision "to open a
counterintelligence investigation (of Trump)." And press reports "cite the document's
disinformation in requests for court-approved wiretaps."
If this is true, a critical questions arises:
Has the Mueller probe been so contaminated by anti-Trump bias and reliance on Kremlin
fabrications that any indictment it brings will be suspect in the eyes of the American
people?
Director Comey has been fired. FBI No. 2 McCabe is now being retired under a cloud.
Mueller's top FBI investigator, Peter Strzok, and lover Lisa, have been discharged. And Mueller
is left to rely upon a passel of prosecutors whose common denominator appears to be that they
loathe Trump and made contributions to Hillary.
Attorney General Bobby Kennedy had his "Get Hoffa Squad" to take down Teamsters boss Jimmy
Hoffa. J. Edgar Hoover had his vendetta against Dr. Martin Luther King. Is history repeating
itself -- with the designated target of an elite FBI cabal being the President of the United
States?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That
Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
JFK wanted to break the CIA into a million pieces and I think Trump needs to shatter the FBI
into a million pieces after these latest revelations. The FBI stinks to high heaven and have
for quite a long time now. They have become a highly politicized federal law enforcement
agency who often collaborate with mortal enemies of America like the ADL and other "watchdog"
groups in addition to assuming the biases of said organizations against certain groups of
Americans.
They behave like a bunch of cowboys and police state thugs and their treatment of and
unnecessary raid on Paul Manafort's home was just the tip of the iceberg. The FBI is becoming
a clear and present danger to civil liberties.
Trump was a bit of a wild card to the establishment elites. He lived in the public spotlight
for most of his adult life, so his foibles were well known, and he had too much money to be
bought off. Mueller was given his job to make sure Trump doesn't stray too far from the
elitists program. He appears to have been cowed and is walking the straight left of center
republican line, now.
"For there a Russian connection has been established.
Kremlin agents fabricated, faked, forged, or found the dirt on Trump that was passed to
ex-British MI6 spy Christopher Steele, and wound up in his "dirty dossier" that was
distributed to the mainstream media and the FBI to torpedo Trump."
No worries -- as long as somebody can still accuse "Kremlin agents" of something, the
Establishment will be just fine.
Time for Mr. Napolitano to take his turn at the spinning wheel?
Second, while Comey said in his statement that Hillary had been "extremely careless"
with security secrets, in his first draft, Clinton was declared guilty of "gross
negligence" -- the precise language in the statute to justify indictment.
If any Joe or Jane Shmo at Boeing or Lockheed-Martin had done what Hillary did he or she
would have been fired and fined or jailed or both. His or hers security clearance would have
been permanently revoked. So much for liberty and justice for all.
What was the original mandate for Robert Mueller? If after all this time he has not been
able to find any connection between Trump campaign and Putin then that phase of the
investigation must end. The Justice Department appointed him and they should put a stop to
that portion of the investigation. They can always give him a new mandate to investigate
Hillary campaign's connection with Russia. These investigations should never be open ended.
Lots of money is wasted and it gives the investigator an opportunity to satisfy personal
vendetta.
This connects the dots in a reasonable fashion on most of the major issues brought out by
what this is: the Clinton crowd/deep state effort to "get" Trump.
The only thing I would take
exception with is to call the phony allegations of the GPS Steele dossier to be "Kremlin"
based. They might have talked to Russians, but they were not acting on behalf of the Putin
government when they talked. These individuals were doing no more than telling the Clinton
researchers what they thought they would want to hear so that generous payments would be
forthcoming.
The interests and sympathies of British government are clear form this peace:they are definitely afraid about reopening Clinton
investigation. If British government was behind Steele dossier that was a very dirty job.
Notable quotes:
"... All of it could be setting the ground for new investigations into the FBI or Democrat Hillary Clinton's actions while secretary of state - something Mr Trump himself has suggested - or perhaps even for the president to order the end of Mr Mueller's probe. ..."
In recent weeks, conservative commentators and politicians have begun arguing, with growing intensity, that Robert Mueller's investigation
into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia is the result of an intentional effort by biased investigators to undermine
the Trump presidency.
There are a number of components to the case they are presenting, from doubts about the impartiality of Mr Mueller and his team
to questions about the integrity of the FBI and the Obama-era Justice Department.
All of it could be setting the ground for new investigations into the FBI or Democrat Hillary Clinton's actions while secretary
of state - something Mr Trump himself has suggested - or perhaps even for the president to order the end of Mr Mueller's probe.
Such an action would provoke a major political crisis and could have unpredictable consequences. For Mr Trump's defenders, it
may be enough simply to mire Mr Mueller's investigation in a partisan morass. Here are some are some of the ways they're trying to
do that.
Tell-tale texts?
Peter Strzok, a senior counter-intelligence agent in the FBI and until this summer a top member of Mr Mueller's special counsel
team, has become Exhibit A of anti-Trump bias in the Russia investigation.
A Justice Department inspector general review of the FBI's handling of its 2016 election investigations unearthed text messages
between Mr Strzok and Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer who also temporarily worked on the Mueller investigation and with whom Mr Strzok was
having an extramarital affair.
Some of the messages, which were provided to reporters, showed the two had a hostility toward then-candidate Trump in 2016. Ms
Page called Mr Trump a "loathsome human" in March, as the candidate was cementing his lead in the Republican primary field. Three
months later - after Mr Trump had secured the nomination - Mr Strzok wrote that he was an "idiot" who said "bigoted nonsense".
In an August text, Mr Strzok discussed a meeting with then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe in which Ms Page apparently had mentioned
there was "no way" Mr Trump could be elected.
"I'm afraid we can't take that risk," Mr Strzok wrote. "It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're
40."
Some have theorised that the "insurance policy" in question was an FBI plan to destroy Mr Trump if he were to win. Others have
suggested that it was simply a reference to the need to continue working the Trump-Russia investigation even though his election
seemed unlikely.
Media caption President Trump renews attack on 'disgraceful' FBI
"It is very sad when you look at those documents," Mr Trump said on Friday, apparently referring to the texts. "And how they've
done that is really, really disgraceful, and you have a lot of very angry people that are seeing it." He said it was a shame what
had happened to the FBI and that it would be "rebuilt".
Since the first coverage of the story, reporters have reviewed more of the Strzok-Page texts and found the two made disparaging
comments about a wide range of public figures, including Chelsea Clinton, Democrat Bernie Sanders, then-Attorney General Eric Holder,
Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz and John Kasich, and Mrs Clinton.
"I'm worried about what happens if HRC is elected," Mr Strzok wrote, referring to Mrs Clinton by her initials.
Why it could matter: If Mr Strzok, a high-ranking member of the FBI who officially launched the initial investigation of ties
between the Trump campaign and Russia, harboured anti-Trump animus, there is the possibility it could have motivated him to influence
the investigation to the president's disadvantage.
Why it might not: Government employees are allowed to express political views as long as they don't influence their job performance.
The breadth of the Strzok-Page texts could indicate they were just gossiping lovers. Without context, Mr Strzok's "insurance" line
is vague. When Mr Mueller learned of the text this summer, Mr Strzok was removed from the independent counsel investigation and reassigned
to a human resources job.
The Clinton case
Mr Strzok also figures prominently in Republican concerns about the FBI's handling of its investigation into Hillary Clinton's
use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.
Mr Strzok took part in interviews with key Clinton aides and
reportedly was involved
in drafting the report that concluded Mrs Clinton's actions did not warrant criminal charges, including changing the description
of her handling of classified material from "grossly negligent" - which might have suggested illegal behaviour - to "extremely careless".
During the campaign Mr Trump repeatedly insisted that the Justice Department should re-open its investigation into Mrs Clinton
and, after backing away from the idea early in his presidency, has once again renewed those calls.
"High ranking FBI officials involved in the Clinton investigation were personally invested in the outcome of the election and
clearly let their strong political opinions cloud their professional judgement," Republican Congressman Bob Goodlatte said during
a House Judicial Committee hearing.
There's also the possibility that there were more communications between Ms Page and Mr Strzok about the Clinton investigation
that have yet to come to light.
"We text on that phone when we talk about Hillary because it can't be traced, you were just venting [because] you feel bad that
you're gone so much but it can't be helped right now," Ms Page wrote in one text.
Chuck Grassley, the Republican chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said he wants more information about the use of these
"untraceable" phones.
Why it could matter: If FBI agents backed off their investigation of Mrs Clinton in 2016 it could be further evidence of bias
within the bureau that could affect its ongoing investigation into Mr Trump. If public confidence in the FBI is eroded, the ultimate
findings of Mr Mueller's probe may be cast in doubt.
Why it might not: Lest anyone forget, Mrs Clinton's candidacy was the one wounded by FBI actions in the final days of the 2016
campaign. Then-Director James Comey's announcement of new evidence in the inquiry into her private email server - perhaps prompted
by anti-Clinton leaks from the bureau's New York office - dominated the headlines and renewed concerns about the former secretary
of state. News of the ongoing Trump-Russia investigation, on the other hand, didn't emerge until well after the election.
Marital woes
When it comes to the ongoing investigations into the investigations, it's not just the actions of the principals involved that
have come under the spotlight. Spouses have figured prominently, as well.
FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the bureau's second-in-command, is married to Jill McCabe, a paediatrician who ran as a Democrat
for a Virginia state senate seat in 2015 (before Mr McCabe was promoted to his current position). During the hotly contested race,
Ms McCabe received $467,500 in campaign contributions from a political action committee controlled by Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe,
a close political ally of the Clinton family.
Conservatives contend that this donation should have disqualified Mr McCabe from involvement in the Clinton case - and was yet
another example of possible anti-Trump bias in the FBI's Russia investigation.
"If Mr McCabe failed to avoid the appearance of a partisan conflict of interest in favour of Mrs Clinton during the presidential
election, then any participation in [the Russia] inquiry creates the exact same appearance of a partisan conflict of interest against
Mr Trump," Senator Grassley wrote in a letter to then-Director Comey in March.
Meanwhile, the wife of Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce G Ohr was
recently reported as being employed in 2016 by Fusion GPS, the political research firm that produced the dossier containing unconfirmed
allegations of Mr Trump's Russia entanglements. Mr Ohr himself
has been connected to Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence agent who collected the material for the dossier.
Fusion GPS's anti-Trump research efforts were originally funded by a Republican donor and later backed by groups associated with
the Democratic Party and the Clinton presidential campaign.
Why it matters: "Power couples" - spouses with influential, complementary political jobs - are a Washington tradition, and the
actions of one partner are often considered to reflect on the views and behaviour of the other. In Mr McCabe's case, his wife's Democratic
activism and allegiances could shed light on his political sympathies. For Mr Ohr, his marriage could have served as a conduit to
inject Democratic-funded opposition research into the Justice Department.
Why it might not: Having a political spouse is not evidence of official bias. The identity of the individuals or groups that funded
and gathered anti-Trump research and how it ended up in government hands does not necessarily have a bearing on whether the information
is valid or merits further investigation.
Follow the money
The individuals working on the Russia investigation have been billed as a "dream team" by Democrats and liberal commentators hoping
the efforts will eventually topple the Trump presidency.
Many conservatives beg to differ.
In June, as details of the special counsel hires began to emerge, conservatives noted that some of the biggest names - Andrew
Weissmann, James Quarles, Jeannie Rhee and Michael Dreeben - had given money to Democratic presidential candidates.
"Republicans are delusional if they think the special counsel is going to be fair," former Republican Speaker of the House Newt
Gingrich tweeted . "Look who he is hiring."
Ms Rhee's private law work included representing Democrats, such as Obama Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes and the
Clinton Foundation in a lawsuit brought by a conservative activist group.
Florida Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz recently travelled to Florida with Mr Trump and
said he
told the president that the independent counsel investigation was "infected with bias" against him - a view echoed in the conservative
press.
"What we've seen over the past seven months of the Mueller investigation reveals a lot about how big government can end up becoming
a threat to representative democracy," Laura Ingraham
said on her Fox News programme. "And the more we look at the web of Clinton and Obama loyalists who burrowed into Mueller's office,
the more obvious it all becomes."
Why it could matter: Political donations and legal work may be evidence of the ideological tilt of Mr Mueller's investigative
team. That he has assembled a group of lawyers that may lean to the left could mean the investigation itself is predisposed to findings
damaging to Mr Trump.
Why it might not: Investigators are adversarial by nature, and as long as Mr Mueller's team builds its cases with hard evidence,
personal political views should not matter. While political partisans may focus on staff-level appointments, the investigation will
rise and fall based on perceptions of Mr Mueller himself.
Mr Mueller's waiver
Prior to accepting the position as special counsel investigating possible Trump campaign ties to Russia, Mr Mueller requested
- and received - an "ethics waiver" for possible conflicts of interest from the US Department of Justice.
The government has confirmed the existence of the waiver but has not revealed any details, although speculation at the time was
that it had to do with Mr Mueller's work at the law firm WilmerHale, which represented former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort
- who Mr Mueller has since indicted on money-laundering charges - and the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
Why it could matter: Without further information about the nature of the waiver,
some are
speculating that there is more to this request than simply routine ethical paperwork. Given that Mr Mueller is a former director
of the FBI, with ties to many of the bureau officials who are now coming under conservative scrutiny, Mr Mueller's own allegiances
are being called into question.
Why it might not: Mr Mueller is a decorated war veteran who, prior to taking the special counsel role was widely praised for his
independence and probity. He was appointed FBI head by Republican George W Bush in 2001. If Mr Mueller's waiver had explosive details
indicating clear bias, it probably would have leaked by now.
"... The letters come a week after speculation that Trump wanted Mueller fired over recent revelations that two former FBI agents, assigned to investigate the alleged collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia, had sent each other hundreds of 'anti-Trump' text messages during the campaign and election. ..."
More than 40 bipartisan former government officials and attorneys [Deep State globalists] are telling President Trump and Congress
to leave Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller alone so he can do his 'job.'
In two letters, the former U.S. attorneys and Republican and conservative officials pushed back against efforts to discredit the
special counsel investigating [alleged] Russian interference in the 2016 election.
The letters come a week after speculation that Trump wanted Mueller fired over recent revelations that two former FBI agents,
assigned to investigate the alleged collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia, had sent each other hundreds of 'anti-Trump' text
messages during the campaign and election.
"... Even though the FISA warrant targeting Page is classified and the FBI and DOJ have resisted informing Congress about it, some of its contents were illegally and selectively leaked to the Washington Post in April 2017 by sources described as "law enforcement and other U.S. officials." According to the Post: ..."
"... Among other things, the application cited contacts that he had with a Russian intelligence operative in New York City in 2013, officials said. Those contacts had earlier surfaced in a federal espionage case brought by the Justice Department against the intelligence operative and two other Russian agents. In addition, the application said Page had other contacts with Russian operatives that have not been publicly disclosed, officials said. ..."
"... I've emphasized that last portion because it strongly implies that the FISA application included information from the Steele dossier. ..."
"... Do not be confused by the fact that, by the time of this Post report, the Steele-dossier allegations had already been disclosed to the public by BuzzFeed (in January 2017). The Post story is talking about what the DOJ and FBI put in the FISA application back in September 2016. At that time, the meetings alleged in the dossier had not been publicly disclosed. ..."
"... given that Page has not been accused of a crime, and that the DOJ and FBI would have to have alleged some potential criminal activity to justify a FISA warrant targeting the former U.S. naval intelligence officer, it certainly seems likely that the Steele dossier was the source of this allegation. ..."
"... In conclusion, while there is a dearth of evidence to date that the Trump campaign colluded in Russia's cyber -spionage attack on the 2016 election, there is abundant evidence that the Obama administration colluded with the Clinton campaign to use the Steele dossier as a vehicle for court-authorized monitoring of the Trump campaign -- and to fuel a pre-election media narrative that U.S. intelligence agencies believed Trump was scheming with Russia to lift sanctions if he were elected president. Congress should continue pressing for answers, and President Trump should order the Justice Department and FBI to cooperate rather than -- what's the word? -- resist. ..."
"... The "insurance policy" is either an assassination plot, coup d'etat or other forcible method of removing Trump from office (25th Amendment). Period. ..."
"... Clinton was supposed to win and all the corruption was to remain hidden. They are scambling to hide all this crap because shit is about to hit the fan. ..."
"... Think there is much more than just this one piece but yes, she and they were so arrogant they didn't bother to even try to win. They were entitled. And maybe this New Year will illustrate just how dangerously close they brought us to the edge. ..."
"... These fucks destroyed the rule of law when they decided to selectively enforce it when politically convenient. And when they conspired to take advantage of legal processes to overthrow the elected government. ..."
"... They really can't answer the question WHAT besides the Dossier could be the reason for this witch hunt. Crooked obviously knew of Dossier because in the debates she called my man " Putin's Puppet"....This is incompetency and politics that calls into question everything these people did..It's embarrasing and criminal. ..."
According to the now-infamous text message sent by FBI agent Peter Strzok to his paramour,
FBI lawyer Lisa Page, it was in McCabe's office that top FBI counterintelligence officials
discussed what they saw as the frightening possibility of a Trump presidency.
That was during the stretch run of the 2016 campaign, no more than a couple of weeks after
they started receiving the Steele dossier -- the Clinton campaign's opposition-research
reports, written by former British spy Christopher Steele, about Trump's purportedly
conspiratorial relationship with Vladimir Putin's regime in Russia.
Was it the Steele dossier that so frightened the FBI? I think so.
There is a great deal of information to follow. But let's cut to the chase: The Obama-era
FBI and Justice Department had great faith in Steele because he had previously collaborated
with the bureau on a big case. Plus, Steele was working on the Trump-Russia project with the
wife of a top Obama Justice Department official, who was personally briefed by Steele. The
upper ranks of the FBI and DOJ strongly preferred Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton, to the
point of overlooking significant evidence of her felony misconduct, even as they turned up the
heat on Trump. In sum, the FBI and DOJ were predisposed to believe the allegations in Steele's
dossier. Because of their confidence in Steele, because they were predisposed to believe his
scandalous claims about Donald Trump, they made grossly inadequate efforts to verify his
claims. Contrary to what I hoped would be the case, I've come to believe Steele's claims were
used to obtain FISA surveillance authority for an investigation of Trump.
There were layers of insulation between the Clinton campaign and Steele -- the campaign and
the Democratic party retained a law firm, which contracted with Fusion GPS, which in turn hired
the former spy. At some point, though, perhaps early on, the FBI and DOJ learned that the
dossier was actually a partisan opposition-research product. By then, they were dug in. No one,
after all, would be any the wiser: Hillary would coast to victory, so Democrats would continue
running the government; FISA materials are highly classified, so they'd be kept under wraps.
Just as it had been with the Obama-era's Fast and Furious and IRS scandals, any malfeasance
would remain hidden.
The best laid schemes . . . gang aft agley.
Why It Matters
Strzok's text about the meeting in McCabe's office is dated August 16, 2016. As we'll see,
the date is important. According to Agent Strzok, with Election Day less than three months
away, Page, the bureau lawyer, weighed in on Trump's bid: "There's no way he gets elected."
Strzok, however, believed that even if a Trump victory was the longest of long shots, the FBI
"can't take that risk." He insisted that the bureau had no choice but to proceed with a plan to
undermine Trump's candidacy: "It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die
before you're 40."
The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that, "according to people familiar with his
account," Strzok meant that it was imperative that the FBI "aggressively investigate
allegations of collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia." In laughable strawman
fashion, the "people familiar with his account" assure the Journal that Strzok "didn't intend
to suggest a secret plan to harm the candidate." Of course, no sensible person suspects that
the FBI was plotting Trump's assassination; the suspicion is that, motivated by partisanship
and spurred by shoddy information that it failed to verify, the FBI exploited its
counterintelligence powers in hopes of derailing Trump's presidential run.
But what were these "allegations of collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia"
that the FBI decided to "aggressively investigate"? The Journal doesn't say. Were they the
allegations in the Steele dossier? That is a question I asked in last weekend's column. It is a
question that was pressed by Chairman Devin Nunes (R., Calif.) and Republican members of the
House Intelligence Committee at Tuesday's sealed hearing. As I explained in the column, the
question is critical for three reasons:
(1) The Steele dossier was a Clinton campaign product. If it was used by the FBI and the
Obama Justice Department to obtain a FISA warrant, that would mean law-enforcement agencies
controlled by a Democratic president fed the FISA court political campaign material produced
by the Democratic candidate whom the president had endorsed to succeed him. Partisan claims
of egregious scheming with an adversarial foreign power would have been presented to the
court with the FBI's imprimatur, as if they were drawn from refined U.S. intelligence
reporting. The objective would have been to spy on the opposition Republican campaign.
(2) In June of this year, former FBI director James Comey testified that the dossier was
"salacious and unverified." While still director, Comey had described the dossier the same
way when he briefed President-elect Trump on it in January 2017. If the dossier was still
unverified as late as mid 2017, its allegations could not possibly have been verified months
earlier, in the late summer or early autumn of 2016, when it appears that the FBI and DOJ
used them in an application to the FISA court.
(3) The dossier appears to contain misinformation. Knowing he was a spy-for-hire trusted
by Americans, Steele's Russian-regime sources had reason to believe that misinformation could
be passed into the stream of U.S. intelligence and that it would be acted on -- and leaked --
as if it were true, to America's detriment. This would sow discord in our political system.
If the FBI and DOJ relied on the dossier, it likely means they were played by the Putin
regime.
How Could Something Like This Happen?
We do not have public confirmation that the dossier was, in fact, used by the bureau and the
Justice Department to obtain the FISA warrant. Publicly, FBI and DOJ officials have thwarted
the Congress with twaddle about protecting both intelligence sources and an internal
inspector-general probe. Of course, Congress, which established and funds the DOJ and FBI, has
the necessary security clearances to review classified information, has jurisdiction over the
secret FISA court, and has independent constitutional authority to examine the activities of
legislatively created executive agencies.
In any event, important reporting by Fox News' James Rosen regarding Tuesday's hearing
indicates that the FBI did, in fact, credit the contents of the dossier. It appears, however,
that the bureau corroborated few of Steele's claims, and at an absurdly high level of
generality -- along the lines of: You tell me person A went to place X and committed a crime; I
corroborate only that A went to X and blithely assume that because you were right about the
travel, you must be right about the crime.
Here, the FBI was able to verify Steele's claim that Carter Page, a very loosely connected
Trump-campaign adviser, had gone to Russia. This was not exactly meticulous gumshoe
corroboration: Page told many people he was going to Russia, saw many people while there, and
gave a speech at a prominent Moscow venue. Having verified only the travel information, the FBI
appears to have credited the claims of Steele's anonymous Russian sources that Page carried out
nigh-treasonous activities while in Russia.
How could something like this happen? Well, the FBI and DOJ liked and trusted Steele, for
what seem to be good reasons. As the Washington Post has reported, the former MI-6 agent's
private intelligence firm, Orbis, was retained by England's main soccer federation to
investigate corruption at FIFA, the international soccer organization that had snubbed British
bids to host the World Cup. In 2010, Steele delivered key information to the FBI's
organized-crime liaison in Europe. This helped the bureau build the Obama Justice Department's
most celebrated racketeering prosecution: the indictment of numerous FIFA officials and other
corporate executives. Announcing the first wave of charges in May 2015, Attorney General
Loretta Lynch made a point of thanking the investigators' "international partners" for their
"outstanding assistance."
At the time, Bruce Ohr was the Obama Justice Department's point man for "Transnational
Organized Crime and International Affairs," having been DOJ's long-serving chief of the
Organized Crime and Racketeering Section. He also wore a second, top-echelon DOJ hat: associate
deputy attorney general. That made him a key adviser to the deputy attorney general, Sally
Yates (who later, as acting attorney general, was fired for insubordinately refusing to enforce
President Trump's so-called travel ban). In the chain of command, the FBI reports to the DAG's
office.
To do the Trump-Russia research, Steele had been retained by the research firm Fusion GPS
(which, to repeat, had been hired by lawyers for the Clinton campaign and the DNC). Fusion GPS
was run by its founder, former Wall Street Journal investigative journalist Glenn Simpson.
Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie, a Russia scholar, worked for Simpson at Fusion. The Ohrs and Simpson
appear to be longtime acquaintances, dating back to when Simpson was a senior fellow at the
International Assessment and Strategy Center. In 2010, all three participated in a two-day
conference on international organized crime, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice
(see conference schedule and participant list, pp. 27 -- 30). In connection with the Clinton
campaign's Trump-Russia project, Fusion's Nellie Ohr collaborated with Steele and Simpson, and
DOJ's Bruce Ohr met personally with Steele and Simpson.
Manifestly, the DOJ and FBI were favorably disposed toward Steele and Fusion GPS. I suspect
that these good, productive prior relationships with the dossier's source led the investigators
to be less exacting about corroborating the dossier's claims.
But that is just the beginning of the bias story.
At a high level, the DOJ and FBI were in the tank for Hillary Clinton. In July 2016, shortly
before Steele's reports started floating in, the FBI and DOJ announced that no charges would be
brought against Mrs. Clinton despite damning evidence that she mishandled classified
information, destroyed government files, obstructed congressional investigations, and lied to
investigators. The irregularities in the Clinton-emails investigation are legion: President
Obama making it clear in public statements that he did not want Clinton charged; the FBI,
shortly afterwards, drafting an exoneration of Clinton months before the investigation ended
and central witnesses, including Clinton herself, were interviewed; investigators failing to
use the grand jury to compel the production of key evidence; the DOJ restricting FBI agents in
their lines of inquiry and examination of evidence; the granting of immunity to suspects who in
any other case would be pressured to plead guilty and cooperate against more-culpable suspects;
the distorting of criminal statutes to avoid applying them to Clinton; the sulfurous tarmac
meeting between Attorney General Lynch and former President Clinton shortly before Mrs. Clinton
was given a peremptory interview -- right before then -- FBI director Comey announced that she
would not be charged.
The blatant preference for Clinton over Trump smacked of politics and self-interest. Deputy
FBI director McCabe's wife had run for the Virginia state legislature as a Democrat, and her
(unsuccessful) campaign was lavishly funded by groups tied to Clinton insider Terry McAuliffe.
Agent Strzok told FBI lawyer Page that Trump was an "idiot" and that "Hillary should win 100
million to 0." Page agreed that Trump was "a loathsome human." A Clinton win would likely mean
Lynch -- originally raised to prominence when President Bill Clinton appointed her to a coveted
U.S. attorney slot -- would remain attorney general. Yates would be waiting in the wings.
The prior relationships of trust with the source; the investment in Clinton; the certitude
that Clinton would win and deserved to win, signified by the mulish determination that she not
be charged in the emails investigation; the sheer contempt for Trump. This concatenation led
the FBI and DOJ to believe Steele -- to want to believe his melodramatic account of
Trump-Russia corruption. For the faithful, it was a story too good to check.
The DOJ and FBI, having dropped a criminal investigation that undeniably established Hillary
Clinton's national-security recklessness, managed simultaneously to convince themselves that
Donald Trump was too much of a national-security risk to be president.
The Timeline
As I noted in last weekend's column, reports are that the FBI and DOJ obtained a FISA
warrant targeting Carter Page (no relation to Lisa Page). For a time, Page was tangentially
tied to the Trump campaign as a foreign-policy adviser -- he barely knew Trump. The warrant was
reportedly obtained after the Trump campaign and Page had largely severed ties in early August
2016. We do not know exactly when the FISA warrant was granted, but the New York Times and the
Washington Post have reported, citing U.S. government sources, that this occurred in September
2016 (see here, here, and here). Further, the DOJ and FBI reportedly persuaded the FISA court
to extend the surveillance after the first warrant's 90-day period lapsed -- meaning the spying
continued into Trump's presidency.
The FBI and DOJ would have submitted the FISA application to the court shortly before the
warrant was issued. In the days-to-weeks prior to petitioning the court, the FISA application
would have been subjected to internal review at the FBI -- raising the possibility that FBI
lawyer Page was in the loop reviewing the investigative work of Agent Strzok, with whom she was
having an extramarital affair. There would also have been review at the Justice Department --
federal law requires that the attorney general approve every application to the FISA court.
Presumably, these internal reviews would have occurred in mid-to-late August -- around the
time of the meeting in McCabe's office referred to in Strzok's text. Thus, we need to
understand the relevant events before and after mid-to-late August. Here is a timeline.
June 2016
In June 2016, Steele began to generate the reports that collectively are known as the
"dossier."
In the initial report, dated June 20, 2016, Steele alleged that Putin's regime had been
"cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years." (Steele's reports conform
to the FBI and intelligence-agency reporting practice of rendering names of interest in
capital letters.) The Kremlin was said to have significant blackmail material that could be
used against Trump.
In mid-to-late June 2016, according to Politico, Carter Page asked J. D. Gordon, his
supervisor on the Trump campaign's National Security Advisory Committee, for permission to go
on a trip to Russia in early July. Gordon advised against it. Page then sent an email to
Corey Lewandowski, who was Trump's campaign manager until June 20, and Hope Hicks, the Trump
campaign spokeswoman, seeking permission to go on the trip. Word came back to Page by email
that he could go, but only in his private capacity, not as a representative of the Trump
campaign. Lewandowski says he has never met Carter Page.
July 2016
Page, a top-of-the-class graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy with various other academic
distinctions, traveled to Moscow for a three-day trip, the centerpiece of which was a July 7
commencement address at the New Economic School (the same institution at which President
Obama gave a commencement address on July 7, 2009). The New York Times has reported, based on
leaks from "current and former law enforcement and intelligence officials," that Page's July
trip to Moscow "was a catalyst for the F.B.I. investigation into connections between Russia
and President Trump's campaign." The Times does not say what information the FBI had received
that made the Moscow trip such a "catalyst."
Was it the Steele dossier?
Well, on July 19, Steele reported that, while in Moscow, Page had held secret meetings
with two top Putin confederates, Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin. Steele claimed to have been
informed by "a Russian source close to" Sechin, the president of Russia's energy conglomerate
Rosneft, that Sechin had floated to Page the possibility of "US-Russia energy co-operation"
in exchange for the "lifting of western sanctions against Russia over Ukraine." Page was said
to have reacted "positively" but in a manner that was "non-committal."
Another source, apparently Russian, told Steele that "an official close to" Putin chief of
staff Sergei Ivanov had confided to "a compatriot" that Igor Diveykin (of the "Internal
Political Department" of Putin's Presidential Administration) had also met with Page in
Moscow. (Note the dizzying multiple-hearsay basis of this information.) Diveykin is said to
have told Page that the regime had "a dossier of 'kompromat'" -- compromising information --
on Hillary Clinton that it would consider releasing to Trump's "campaign team." Diveykin
further "hinted (or indicated more strongly) that the Russian leadership also had 'kompromat'
on TRUMP which the latter should bear in mind in his dealings with them."
The hacked DNC emails were first released on July 22, shortly before the Democratic
National Convention, which ran from July 25 through 28.
In "late July 2016," Steele claimed to have been told by an "ethnic Russian close
associate of . . . TRUMP" that there was a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation"
between "them" (apparently meaning Trump's inner circle) and "the Russian leadership." The
conspiracy was said to be "managed on the TRUMP side by the Republican candidate's campaign
manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy adviser, Carter PAGE, and others as
intermediaries."
The same source claimed that the Russian regime had been behind the leak of DNC emails "to
the WikiLeaks platform," an operation the source maintained "had been conducted with the full
knowledge and support of TRUMP and senior members of his campaign team." As a quid pro quo,
"the TRUMP team" was said to have agreed (a) "to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as
a campaign issue," and (b) to raise the failure of NATO nations to meet their defense
commitments as a distraction from Russian aggression in Ukraine, "a priority for PUTIN who
needed to cauterise the subject."
Late July to Early August 2016
The Washington Post has reported that Steele's reports were first transmitted "by an
intermediary" to the FBI and other U.S. intelligence officials after the Democratic National
Convention (which, to repeat, ended on July 28). The intermediary is not identified. We do
not know if it was Fusion, though that seems likely given that Fusion shared its work with
government and non-government entities. Steele himself is also said to have contacted "a
friend in the FBI" about his research after the Democratic convention. As we've seen, Steele
made bureau friends during the FIFA investigation.
August 2016
On August 11, as recounted in the aforementioned Wall Street Journal report, FBI agent
Strzok texted the following message to FBI lawyer Page: "OMG I CANNOT BELIEVE WE ARE
SERIOUSLY LOOKING AT THESE ALLEGATIONS AND THE PERVASIVE CONNECTIONS." The Journal does not
elaborate on what "allegations" Strzok was referring to, or the source of those
allegations.
On August 15, Strzok texted Page about the meeting in deputy FBI director McCabe's office
at which it was discussed that the bureau "can't take that risk" of a Trump presidency and
needed something akin to an "insurance policy" even though Trump's election was thought
highly unlikely.
September 2016
Reporting indicates that sometime in September 2016, the DOJ and FBI applied to the FISA
court for a warrant to surveil Carter Page, and that the warrant was granted.
Interestingly, on September 23, 2016, Yahoo's Michael Isikoff reported on leaks he had
received that the U.S. government was conducting an intelligence investigation to determine
whether Carter Page, as a Trump adviser, had opened up a private communications channel with
such "senior Russian officials" as Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin to discuss lifting economic
sanctions if Trump became president.
It is now known that Isikoff's main source for the story was Fusion's Glenn Simpson.
Isikoff's report is rife with allegations found in the dossier, although the dossier is not
referred to as such; it is described as "intelligence reports" that "U.S. officials" were
actively investigating -- i.e., Steele's reports were described in a way that would lead
readers to assume they were official U.S. intelligence reports. But there clearly was
official American government involvement: Isikoff's story asserts that U.S. officials were
briefing members of Congress about these allegations that Page was meeting with Kremlin
officials on Trump's behalf. The story elaborated that "questions about Page come amid
mounting concerns within the U.S. intelligence community about Russian cyberattacks on the
Democratic National Committee." Those would be the cyberattacks alleged -- in the dossier on
which Congress was being briefed -- to be the result of a Trump-Russia conspiracy in which
Page was complicit.
Isikoff obviously checked with his government sources to verify what Simpson had told him
about the ongoing investigation that was based on these "intelligence reports." His story
recounts that "a senior U.S. law enforcement official" confirmed that Page's alleged contacts
with Russian officials were "on our radar screen. . . . It's being looked at."
Final Points to Consider
After his naval career, Page worked in investing, including several years at Merrill Lynch
in Moscow. As my column last weekend detailed, he has been an apologist for the Russian regime,
championing appeasement for the sake of better U.S. -- Russia relations. Page has acknowledged
that, during his brief trip to Moscow in July 2016, he ran into some Russian government
officials, among many old Russian friends and acquaintances. Yet he vehemently denies meeting
with Sechin and Diveykin. (While Sechin's name is well known to investors in the Russian energy
sector, Page says that he has never met him and that he had never even heard Diveykin's name
until the Steele dossier was publicized in early 2017.)
Furthermore, Page denies even knowing Paul Manafort, much less being used by Manafort as an
intermediary between the Trump campaign and Russia. Page has filed a federal defamation lawsuit
against the press outlets that published the dossier, has denied the dossier allegations in FBI
interviews, and has reportedly testified before the grand jury in Robert Mueller's
special-counsel investigation.
Even though the FISA warrant targeting Page is classified and the FBI and DOJ have resisted
informing Congress about it, some of its contents were illegally and selectively leaked to the
Washington Post in April 2017 by sources described as "law enforcement and other U.S.
officials." According to the Post:
The government's application for the surveillance order targeting Page included a lengthy
declaration that laid out investigators' basis for believing that Page was an agent of the
Russian government and knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of
Moscow, officials said.
Among other things, the application cited contacts that he had with a Russian intelligence
operative in New York City in 2013, officials said. Those contacts had earlier surfaced in a
federal espionage case brought by the Justice Department against the intelligence operative
and two other Russian agents. In addition, the application said Page had other contacts with
Russian operatives that have not been publicly disclosed, officials said.
I've emphasized that last portion because it strongly implies that the FISA application
included information from the Steele dossier. That is, when the Post speaks of Page's purported
"other contacts with Russian operatives that have not been publicly disclosed," this is very
likely a reference to the meetings with Sechin and Diveykin that Page denies having had -- the
meetings described in the dossier. Do not be confused by the fact that, by the time of this
Post report, the Steele-dossier allegations had already been disclosed to the public by BuzzFeed (in January 2017). The Post story is talking about what the DOJ and FBI put in the
FISA application back in September 2016. At that time, the meetings alleged in the dossier had
not been publicly disclosed.
Two final points.
First : The FISA application's reliance on 2013 events as a basis for suspicion in 2016
that Page was a foreign agent of Russia is curious. The 2013 investigation involved Russian
intelligence operatives who were trying to recruit business people, such as Page, as sources
-- i.e., Page was being approached by Russia, not acting on Russia's behalf. In the 2013
investigation, Page met with a Russian agent, whom he apparently did not realize was an
agent. They met at an energy symposium in New York and Page did networking-type things:
exchanging contact information and providing his jejune assessment of the energy sector's
prospects. The Russian agent described Page as an "idiot" in a recorded conversation.
According to Page, he cooperated with the FBI and helped prosecutors in the case against one
of the suspects -- claims that the government could easily disprove if he is lying.
Second : In reporting on the FISA warrant that targeted Page, the Washington Post
asserted that "an application for electronic surveillance under [FISA] need not show evidence
of a crime." That is not accurate.
Under federal surveillance law (sec. 1801 of Title 50, U.S. Code), the probable-cause
showing the government must make to prove that a person is an agent of a foreign power is
different for Americans than for aliens. If the alleged agent is an alien, section 1801(b)(1)
applies, and this means that no crime need be established; the government need only show that
the target is acting on behalf of a foreign power in the sense of abetting its clandestine
anti-American activities.
By contrast, if the alleged agent is an American citizen, such as Page, section 1801(b)(2)
applies: The government must show not only that the person is engaged in clandestine activities
on behalf of a foreign power but also that these activities
(1) "involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United
States";
(2) involve the preparation for or commission of sabotage or international
terrorism;
(3) involve using a false identity to enter or operate in the United States on behalf of
a foreign power; or (4) involve conspiring with or aiding and abetting another person in the
commission of these criminal activities.
All of these involve evidence of a crime.
The only known suspicions about Page that have potential criminal implications are the
allegations in the dossier, which potentially include hacking, bribery, fraud, and racketeering
-- if Russia were formally considered an enemy of the United States, they would include
treason. The FBI always has information we do not know about. But given that Page has not been
accused of a crime, and that the DOJ and FBI would have to have alleged some potential criminal
activity to justify a FISA warrant targeting the former U.S. naval intelligence officer, it
certainly seems likely that the Steele dossier was the source of this allegation.
In conclusion, while there is a dearth of evidence to date that the Trump campaign colluded
in Russia's cyber -spionage attack on the 2016 election, there is abundant evidence that the
Obama administration colluded with the Clinton campaign to use the Steele dossier as a vehicle
for court-authorized monitoring of the Trump campaign -- and to fuel a pre-election media
narrative that U.S. intelligence agencies believed Trump was scheming with Russia to lift
sanctions if he were elected president. Congress should continue pressing for answers, and
President Trump should order the Justice Department and FBI to cooperate rather than -- what's
the word? -- resist.
No way the "insurance policy" was this .... dossier. It had made the rounds for almost a
year by then. It was a TOOL for then present-day activities (campaign propaganda and
obtaining FISA warrants). Everyone knew it was floating around by then.
An insurance policy is something that activates based on a completely unexpected
contingency- premature death. Does it seem to you that a bogus report that had been rattling
around doing it's intended work for almost six months is that thing? Sure as shit doesn't
sound like that to me.
The "insurance policy" is either an assassination plot, coup d'etat or other forcible
method of removing Trump from office (25th Amendment). Period.
Could the FBI be that broke, that persuasive, that wreckless? I suspect it is mainly at
the top politically appointed positions that take us down that road? Trouble is they take the
full agency along with them. Congress has implicit responsibility here also.
This will take
some serious unwinding to officially expose the truth that many know exist. Attaching names
to these truths is the hard part. As painful as it may be a Watergate style investigation is
in order. Justice must be served to demonstrate unacceptable, illegal, nation harming
activity is not tolerated at any level. Without it we have reached moral nihilism.
Other
They must have thought Trump had a chance or why would they bother? Maybe not so sure of
Hillary after all? Something don't add up with the surity of a Clinton presidency?
"On August 15, Strzok texted Page about the meeting in deputy FBI director McCabe's office at
which it was discussed that the bureau "can't take that risk" of a Trump presidency
......."
"At some point, though, perhaps early on, the FBI and DOJ learned that the dossier was
actually a partisan opposition-research product. By then, they were dug in. No one, after
all, would be any the wiser: Hillary would coast to victory, so Democrats would continue
running the government; FISA materials are highly classified, so they'd be kept under wraps.
Just as it had been with the Obama-era's Fast and Furious and IRS scandals, any malfeasance
would remain hidden."
This is the entirety of the scandal. I've been saying it all along. ...Clinton was
supposed to win and all the corruption was to remain hidden. They are scambling to hide all
this crap because shit is about to hit the fan.
Think there is much more than just this one piece but yes, she and they were so arrogant
they didn't bother to even try to win. They were entitled. And maybe this New Year will
illustrate just how dangerously close they brought us to the edge.
We do have things to be grateful for this evening though and just ZH itself has provided
us with a space to vent, to cry, to laugh and now maybe to hope.
Merry Christmas to each and every one here - unseen but cared for friends.
But here's the good news: Rosenstein, Wray and reportedly McCabe have all declined to
answer if the golden shower dossier was used in the FISA warrant for surveillance of Carter
Page, and/or Manafort. If the dossier WAS the reason and is now discredited oppo-research,
then in all likelihood we're looking at huge FBI violation of due process, and a 'fruit of
the poisoned tree' instance. That means that any evidence which could be used against Trump
which originated from this surveillance would be thrown out of court. The FBI must know
this.
These fucks destroyed the rule of law when they decided to selectively enforce it when
politically convenient. And when they conspired to take advantage of legal processes to
overthrow the elected government.
Reasoned article and McCarthy is a former Federal Prosecutor using what is recognized as
standard operating procedures in these cases to figure this out. I've come to the same
conclusion months back. He obviously has a reputation and can't just sling it... They really
can't answer the question WHAT besides the Dossier could be the reason for this witch hunt.
Crooked obviously knew of Dossier because in the debates she called my man " Putin's
Puppet"....This is incompetency and politics that calls into question everything these people did..It's embarrasing and criminal.
The question is when does Opposition Research cross the line and become criminal conduct.
Notable quotes:
"... By now, most Americans paying attention have heard about Peter Strzok, one of the FBI's lead investigators on the Hillary Clinton email case and the Trump – Russia collusion probe. Strzok was second-in-command of counterintelligence at the FBI. He, single-handedly, put a dark cloud over the integrity of the two investigations when it was recently disclosed that he had exchanged thousands of politically-charged text messages with his mistress, Lisa Page, a senior FBI attorney. The couple used FBI-supplied cell phones to transmit and receive the text messages ..."
By now, most Americans paying attention have heard about Peter Strzok, one of the FBI's
lead investigators on the Hillary Clinton email case and the Trump – Russia collusion
probe. Strzok was second-in-command of counterintelligence at the FBI. He, single-handedly, put
a dark cloud over the integrity of the two investigations when it was recently disclosed that
he had exchanged thousands of politically-charged text messages with his mistress, Lisa Page, a
senior FBI attorney. The couple used FBI-supplied cell phones to transmit and receive the text
messages . The House Judiciary Committee requested copies of all the text messages from
the Department of Justice but only received a small fraction of them.
Numerous text messages show, in explicit detail, that Strzok and Page were big fans of
Hillary Clinton during the time she was being investigated for violations of the Espionage Act
and while she was campaigning to be president of the U.S. The messages also show the utter
contempt they had for Clinton's opponent, Donald Trump.
When Robert Mueller, special prosecutor in the Trump – Russia collusion investigation,
learned about the existence of these text messages last July, he removed Peter Strzok from his
team of investigators. Strzok was re-assigned to the FBI's human resources department and is
still on the payroll.
After the name of FBI agent Peter Strzok catapulted above the fold, we learned more about
his wide-ranging assignments at the FBI.
Two months prior to then FBI Director, James Comey's formal exoneration of Hillary Clinton,
Strzok edited Comey's draft exoneration letter and suggested key changes that watered down the
allegations against her.
Strzok was present at the FBI's interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016. Clinton
wasn't put under oath prior to her questioning nor was the proceeding recorded, making the
softball interrogation a farce.
Strzok also interviewed Clinton associates, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Miller, the previous
month. These interrogations have been roundly criticized by legal authorities as nothing more
than a charade because it is unheard of to have two potential witnesses present at the same
interview.
Strzok was selected to be a key investigator on Mueller's team looking into potential
collusion between President Trump and Russia. He participated in the interview of Michael
Flynn, President Trump's short-lived National Security Advisor, who has pleaded guilty to lying
to the FBI and is now cooperating with the Mueller probe.
Strzok is suspected of being responsible for using an unverified dossier to obtain a FISA
warrant in order to spy on President Trump's campaign.
In one particularly disturbing text message Strzok refers to an insurance policy of some kind
if Trump should be elected, which could be the genesis of the current Trump – Russia
collusion probe, which is yet to yield any hard evidence of collusion.
Apparently, super-agent Peter Strzok was a very busy man at the Bureau and the go-to guy on
high-profile cases involving political figures.
A senior investigator, who expresses extreme opinions about politicians while he is
investigating them, degrades his ability to be objective. One would have to be in deep denial
to believe that Strzok's political sentiments didn't influence his handling of the Clinton
case. Strzok's kid glove treatment of Clinton and her aides during their interviews and his
edits of Comey's draft exoneration document are completely consistent with his favorable
political view of Clinton.
It boggles the mind to think that senior FBI officials, like Strzok and Page, would be
foolish enough to leave an electronic trail of their political proclivities. It is a gross
understatement to say that they should have known better. Apparently, they and others in the
Department of Justice never thought such conflicts of interest would ever be exposed because
they were thoroughly convinced Hillary Clinton would be the next president and their next boss.
They committed the mortal sin of presumption and are suffering the consequences. Presumption
coupled with a monumental lack of discretion increases the chances that a scandal will ensue
and that's exactly what happened in this case.
Although Peter Strzok was highly regarded within the Bureau, no one ever heard of him until
he became an overnight media sensation along with his paramour, Lisa Page. As damning as the
flurry of text messages is to the probity of high-profile criminal investigations, it may only
be the beginning salvo in a barrage of shattering revelations because there are thousands of
his text messages that haven't been released yet. The small fraction that have been submitted
to congress were partially redacted. Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, is also
seeking Strzok's text messages under the Freedom of Information Act. And the House Judiciary
Committee intends to subpoena Strzok to testify under oath.
The DOJ and the FBI have studiously resisted requests for information by claiming the matter
is still under investigation or would compromise intelligence methods and sources, if the
records were released. They say Justice Department Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, is
reviewing the FBI's handling of investigations relating to the presidential election.
Therefore, DOJ officials say congress will have to wait until the IG's review is finished,
giving the IG precedence over congressional oversight. The extreme reluctance of the DOJ and
the FBI to be forthcoming seems to be motivated by a sense of self-preservation more than
anything else given the can of worms Strzok's text messages has opened. This thing could easily
metastasize into a mega-scandal that undermines our justice system at its core.
At the center of this escalating controversy is Mr. Strzok, who is a veritable one-man band.
As the FBI's lead investigator, the guy was all over the place. When James Comey sought input
on the draft Clinton exoneration letter, he solicited and accepted Strzok's recommendations.
Strzok responded with a now-infamous turn-of-phrase. He suggested that Comey change "grossly
negligent" to "extremely careless" when describing Clinton's handling of classified
information. Strzok also watered down Comey's statement that it's "reasonably likely that
hostile actors gained access to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email
account." Strzok thought it would be less harmful to say "possible" than "reasonably likely"
when characterizing our enemies' potential access to hacked classified information.
Despite being indiscrete with his political views, Peter Strzok appears to be a very bright
individual whose counsel was avidly sought and valued by the top echelon of the FBI. In this
respect, he was a lot like Mark Fuhrman, who was the most alert detective on the OJ Simpson
case, seemingly everywhere at the crime scenes. Ultimately, Fuhrman was accused of being
prejudiced against blacks and decided to take the Fifth during the Simpson trial. Strzok may
face a similar fate, except his biases run toward politics.
Like Forrest Gump, the slow-witted protagonist in the eponymous Academy Award winning film,
Strzok was everywhere at defining points in the high-profile FBI investigations of a sitting
president and a would-be president. Unlike Forrest Gump, however, Strzok is anything but
slow-witted. Unfortunately, he let his political predilections affect his law enforcement
duties, which is anathema to the bedrock principle of equal justice under the law.
If the bulk of Strzok's text messages, when released, show that the FBI associates with whom
he communicated had a similar rabid disdain or excessive adoration for those they were
investigating, then the cases they were involved with would be tainted and compromised. And the
premier investigatory body in the world will be derided as the Federal Bureau of
Indiscretion.
Honest rank-and-file FBI agents deserve better. They shouldn't have to report to corrupt
leaders who play politics and sully the Bureau's reputation. If FBI agents see something, they
should say something. The evidence and only the evidence should dictate how the law is applied.
To do otherwise is a travesty of justice.
"... we have email evidence from Andrew McCabe indicating that Hillary Clinton was going to get an 'HQ Special,' a headquarters special. ..."
"... he had a very small group of people that had a pro-Hillary Clinton bias who had a direct role in changing that investigation from one that likely should have been criminal to one where she was able to walk. And so I think that we've gotta ensure that that never happens again, that the same processes that would apply to any American would also apply to people who were running for president of the United States ..."
Friday on FNC's "America's Newsroom," Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) said a congressional committee had evidence FBI Deputy Director Andrew
McCabe indicated Hillary Clinton was going to get an "HQ special" regarding the investigation of her unauthorized email server and
ties to the Clinton Foundation during her tenure as secretary of state.
Gaetz, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, described the circumstances at the FBI regarding the investigation as "extreme
pro-Hillary Clinton bias."
"The Judiciary Committee is engaged in an investigation, particularly as it relates to the handling of the Hillary Clinton
email scandal and any potential investigations of the Clinton Foundation and the handling of bribes or other types of improper
payments," Gaetz said. "I can certainly say that my impression after these interviews is that there was extreme pro-Hillary Clinton
bias that benefitted her in this investigation and that she received special treatment as a consequence of her candidacy for president.
That shouldn't happen. The law should apply equally to all Americans whether they're political candidates or not. And so, we need
to institute reforms through the Judiciary Committee for more oversight, for more transparency so that this never happens again."
He went on explain that it was the committee's intention to find out if there was a departure from standard "procedures."
"[O]ur view is we need to find out if whether or not the procedures were departed from," he added. "And we have email evidence
from Andrew McCabe indicating that Hillary Clinton was going to get an 'HQ Special,' a headquarters special. That meant that
the normal processes of the Washington field office weren't followed and he had a special. And he had a very small group of
people that had a pro-Hillary Clinton bias who had a direct role in changing that investigation from one that likely should have
been criminal to one where she was able to walk. And so I think that we've gotta ensure that that never happens again, that the
same processes that would apply to any American would also apply to people who were running for president of the United States."
The second point we want to make, relates to Mueller himself who–far from being a "stand-up fellow" with a spotless record, and
an unshakable commitment to principle–is not the exemplar people seem to think he is. In fact, his personal integrity and credibility
are greatly in doubt. Here's a little background on Mueller from former-FBI Special Agent Colleen Rowley who was named Time's Person
of the Year in 2002:
"Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals finding the FBI overstepped the law
improperly serving hundreds of thousands of "national security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens,
and for infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating "terrorism."
Comey and Mueller were complicit with implementing a form of martial law, perpetrated via secret Office of Legal Counsel memos
mainly written by John Yoo and predicated upon Yoo's singular theories of absolute "imperial" or "war presidency" powers, and
requiring Ashcroft every 90 days to renew certification of a "state of emergency."
Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were
simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect it all"
surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers
who revealed these illegalities
Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak
out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11." ("Comey and Mueller: Russia-gate's Mythical
Heroes", Colleen Rowley, Counterpunch)
Illegal spying on American citizens? Infiltration of nonviolent anti-war groups? Martial law? Torture??
This is NOT how Mueller is portrayed in the media, is it?
The fact is, Mueller is no elder statesman or paragon of virtue. He's a political assassin whose task is to take down Trump at
all cost. Unfortunately for Mueller, the credibility of his investigation is beginning to wane as conflicts of interest mount and
public confidence dwindles. After 18 months of relentless propaganda and political skullduggery, the Russia-gate fiction is beginning
to unravel.
Please, let Mueller stay to become a poster boy for borgistas. With each day, the incompetence of the CIA' and FBI' brass has
been revealing with the greater and greater clarity. They have sold out the US citizenry for personal gains.
Rod Rosenstein' role in particular should be well investigated so that his name becomes tightly connected to the "dossier" and
all its racy tales.
" there was never sufficient reason to appoint a Special Counsel. The threshold for making such an appointment should have been
probable cause, that is, deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should have shown why he thought there was 'reasonable basis to
believe that a crime had been committed.' That's what's required under the Fourth Amendment, and that's the standard that
should have been met. But Rosenstein ignored that rule because it improved the Special Counsel's chances of netting indictments.
Even so, there's no evidence that a crime has been committed. None."
-- Anti-Consttutonal activity by Rod Rosenstein = Treason.
You mean, we should have better read the New Times and WaPo instead, in order to get the "gigantic scope of the investigation?"
-- Thank you very much. But these ziocons' nests have not provided any hard facts related to the main goal of this particular
investigation. However, a true and immense value of the investigation is the exposure of the incompetence of and political manipulations
by the FBI deciders -- as well as the sausage making under Clinton leadership in the DNC kitchen.
"It should have never been started. Trump and his administration screwed themselves."
– Disagree.
The investigation is the best thing for the US. It has exposed traitors (leakers) in the US government, the corruption of the
FBI (which provided the leaks and did not investigate the allegedly hacked DNC computers and white-washed Clinton's criminal negligence),
and the spectacular incompetence of the DNC-FBI deciders (the cooperation with foreigners in order to derail the governance of
the US by the elected POTUS). Cannot wait to hear more about Awan affair (the greatest breach of the US cybersecurity under the
watch of the current FBI brass) and about the investigation of Seth Rich murder.
For those familiar with Mueller, the blunt-force approach taken toward the GSA is something of a signature of Mueller and
his heavy-handed associates like Andrew Weissmann. As I have previously written, Mueller has a controversial record in attacking
attorney-client privilege as well as harsh tactics against targets. As a U.S. attorney, he was accused of bugging an attorney-client
conversation, and as special counsel he forced (with the approval of a federal judge) the attorney of Paul Manafort to become
a witness against her own client. Weissmann's record is even more controversial, including major reversals in past prosecutions
for exceeding the scope of the criminal code or questionable ethical conduct.
Nor will any be produced either. If Trump were to drop dead tomorrow or, alternatively, decide to pack it in and go back to
running hotels, Mueller's Star Chamber Committee would close down the day after. Mueller is a tool of The Powers That Be. And
they want Trump OUT -- no matter what the cost.
Just hours after FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe delivered private testimony to the House Intelligence Committee, his boss,
FBI Director Christopher Wray, announced that the bureau's top lawyer would be leaving his post, an attempt to bring in "new blood"
to an agency whose reputation has been hopelessly compromised by revelations that agents' partisan bias may have influenced two high-profile
investigations involving President Donald Trump and his former campaign rival, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
As the
Washington Post reported, the FBI's top lawyer, James Baker, is being reassigned.
WaPo says Baker's removal is part of Wray's effort to assemble his own team of senior advisers while he tries to defuse allegations
of partisanship that have plagued the bureau in recent months.
James Baker
But reports published over the summer said Baker was "the top suspect" in an interagency leak investigation, as
we reported back in July
Three sources, with knowledge of the investigation, told Circa that Baker is the top suspect in an ongoing leak investigation,
but Circa has not been able to confirm the details of what national security information or material was allegedly leaked.
A federal law enforcement official with knowledge of ongoing internal investigations in the bureau told Circa, "the bureau
is scouring for leakers and there's been a lot of investigations."
The revelation comes as the Trump administration has ramped up efforts to contain leaks both within the White House and within
its own national security apparatus.
The news of the staff shakeup comes as Trump and his political allies have promised to "rebuild" the FBI to make it "bigger and
better than ever" following its "disgraceful" conduct over the Trump probe . Baker played a key role in the agency's handling of
major cases and policy debates in recent years, including the FBI's unsuccessful battle with Apple over the growing use of encryption
in cellphones.
Just like Clapper admitting to perjuring himself before congress and he is brought on TV to comment as if he is a decent person
instead of being thrown in prison like anyone else would be.
Yet another "national security parasite". Watt intentionally lied about wiretapping
Notable quotes:
"... "When he testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee last week, former FBI agent Clint Watts described how Russians used armies of Twitter bots to spread fake news using accounts that seem to be Midwestern swing-voter Republicans. ..."
"... In an interview Monday with NPR's Kelly McEvers, Watts, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, says the Russian misinformation campaign didn't stop with the election of President Trump. ..."
"... One example, he says, is Trump's claim that he was wiretapped at Trump Tower by the Obama administration. "When they do that, they'll then respond to the wiretapping claim with further conspiracy theories about that claim and that just amplifies the message in the ecosystem," Watts says. ..."
"... The White House has blamed Democrats for the allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. election, saying the theory is a way to shift the blame for their election loss. ..."
"How Russian Twitter Bots Pumped Out Fake News During The 2016 Election"
Listen 4:17
'Heard on All Things Considered' by Gabe O'Connor & Avie Schneider...April 3, 2017...4:53 PM ET
"When he testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee last week, former FBI agent Clint Watts described how Russians
used armies of Twitter bots to spread fake news using accounts that seem to be Midwestern swing-voter Republicans.
"So that way whenever you're trying to socially engineer them and convince them that the information is true, it's much more
simple because you see somebody and they look exactly like you, even down to the pictures," Watts told the panel, which is investigating
Russia's role in interfering in the U.S. elections.
In an interview Monday with NPR's Kelly McEvers, Watts, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, says
the Russian misinformation campaign didn't stop with the election of President Trump.
"If you went online today, you could see these accounts -- either bots or actual personas somewhere -- that are trying to connect
with the administration. They might broadcast stories and then follow up with another tweet that tries to gain the president's
attention, or they'll try and answer the tweets that the president puts out," Watts says.
Watts, a cybersecurity expert, says he's been tracking this sort of activity by the Russians for more than three years.
"It's a circular system. Sometimes the propaganda outlets themselves will put out false or manipulated stories. Other times,
the president will go with a conspiracy."
One example, he says, is Trump's claim that he was wiretapped at Trump Tower by the Obama administration. "When they do
that, they'll then respond to the wiretapping claim with further conspiracy theories about that claim and that just amplifies
the message in the ecosystem," Watts says.
"Every time a conspiracy is floated from the administration, it provides every outlet around the world, in fact, an opportunity
to amplify that conspiracy and to add more manipulated truths or falsehoods onto it."
Watts says the effort is being conducted by a "very diffuse network." It involves competing efforts "even amongst hackers between
different parts of Russian intelligence and propagandists -- all with general guidelines about what to pursue, but doing it at
different times and paces and rhythms."
The White House has blamed Democrats for the allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. election, saying the theory
is a way to shift the blame for their election loss.
But Watts says "it's way bigger" than that. "What was being done by nation-states in the social media influence landscape was
so much more significant than the other things that were being talked about," including the Islamic State's use of social media
to recruit followers, he says."
Conway appeared on Jesse Watters program, Watters' World, to talk about the newly
revealed content of text messages sent between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
When asked what she thought they meant when they said "they need to protect America from
Trump and need to have an insurance policy against his presidency," Conway tore into the
investigation's credibility.
"The fix was in against Donald Trump from the beginning, and they were pro-Hillary. We
understand that people have political views but they are expressing theirs with such animus and
such venom towards the now president of the United States they can't possibly be seen as
objective or transparent or even-handed or fair," she said.
As she spoke, the banner below Conway and Watters screamed "A COUP IN AMERICA?"
Watters proceeded to ask "how dangerous" Conway thought it was that people were "plotting
what appears to be some sort of subversion campaign" against Trump.
"It's toxic, it's lethal, and it may be fatal to the continuation of people arguing that
that matter is since behind us, he won he's the president, and the Mueller investigation is
something separate," she answered.
Conway then slammed critics for defending the integrity of the probe by alleging that Trump
is against the FBI, repeating the claim that he isn't under investigation, "we're told."
Released on Tuesday, Strzok and Page's messages referred to Trump as an "idiot" and "douche.
At one point, Strzok told Page he was considering "an insurance policy" if Trump were elected.
Page had also told Strzok that maybe he was meant to "protect the country from that menace,"
according to records reviewed by
Politico.
Watters assessed the texts as evidence of a coup, or sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of
power from the government, in America.
"The investigation into Donald Trump's campaign has been crooked from the jump. But the
scary part is we may now have proof the investigation was weaponized to destroy his presidency
for partisan political purposes and to disenfranchise millions of American voters. Now, if
that's true, we have a coup on our hands in America," he said.
"... Comey, for his part, wrote a memo alleging Trump had asked him to drop his investigation into Flynn, an act which some say could constitute obstruction of justice and thus grounds for seeking Trump's impeachment. ..."
Comey, for his part, wrote a memo alleging Trump had asked him to drop his investigation into Flynn, an act which some say
could constitute obstruction of justice and thus grounds for seeking Trump's impeachment.
Congressman Tells Rod Rosenstein That James Comey BROKE THE LAW then Rosenstein Agrees! 12/13/17
Congressman Louie Gohmert brings up the fact that past FBI Director James Comey broke federal law and FBI employee policy by intentionally
leaking a memo of his conversations with President Donald Trump to a friend to then leak to the press. Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein then agrees with the Congressman.
"... In addition to Strzok's "gross negligence" --> "extremely careless" edit, McCabe's damage control team removed a key justification for elevating Clinton's actions to the standard of "gross negligence" - that being the " sheer volume " of classified material on Clinton's server. In the original draft, the "sheer volume" of material "supports an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that information." ..."
"... It's also possible that the FBI, which was not allowed to inspect the DNC servers, was uncomfortable standing behind the conclusion of Russian hacking reached by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. ..."
"... Johnson's letter also questions an " insurance policy " referenced in a text message sent by demoted FBI investigator Peter Strzok to his mistress, FBI attorney Lisa Page, which read " I want to believe the path you threw out to consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40...." ..."
"... One wonders if the "insurance policy" Strzok sent to Page on August 15, 2016 was in reference to the original counterintelligence operation launched against Trump of which Strzok became the lead investigator in "late July" 2016? Of note, Strzok reported directly to Bill Priestap - the director of Counterintelligence, who told James Comey not to inform congress that the FBI had launched a counterintelligence operation against then-candidate Trump, per Comey's March 20th testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. (h/t @TheLastRefuge2 ) ..."
"... That's not to say Hillary shouldn't have been prosecuted. But what we're seeing here looks like perfectly normal behavior once the decision has been made not to prosecute; get the statements to be consistent with the conclusion. In a bureaucracy, that requires a number of people to be involved. And it would necessarily include people who work for Hillary Clinton, since that's whose information is being discussed. ..."
"... And the stuff about how a foreign power might have, or might possibly have, accessed her emails is all BS too. We already know they weren't hacked, they were leaked. ..."
"... Maybe people who don't understand complicated organizations see something nefarious here, but nobody who does will. Nothing will come of this but some staged-for-TV dramatic pronouncements in the House, and on FOX News, and affiliated websites. There's nothing here. ..."
"... Debatable re. biggest story being kept quiet. The AWAN Brothers/Family is a Pakistani spy ring operating inside Congress for more than a decade, and we hear nothing. They had access to virtually everything in every important committee. They had access to the Congressional servers and all the emails. Biggest spy scandal in our nations hsitory, and........crickets. ..."
"... They have had a year to destroy the evidence. Why should the CIA controlled MSM report the truth? ..."
"... Precisely. That's actually a very good tool for decoding the Clintons and Obama. "You collaborated with Russia." Means "I collaborated with Saudi Arabia." It takes a little while and I haven't fully mastered it yet, but you can reverse alinsky-engineer their statements to figure out what they did. ..."
"... And get this, Flynn was set up! Yates had the transcript via the (illegal) FISA Court of warrant which relied on the Dirty Steele Dossier, when Flynn deviated from the transcript they charged him Lying to the FBI. Comey McCabe run around lying 24/7. Their is no fucking hope left! The swamp WINS ALWAYS. ..."
FBI Edits To Clinton Exoneration Go Far Beyond What Was Previously Known; Comey, McCabe, Strzok ImplicatedTyler Durden Dec 15, 2017 10:10 AM 0 SHARES
detailed in a
Thursday letter from committee chairman Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) to FBI Director Christopher Wray.
James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok
The letter reveals specific edits made by senior FBI agents when Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey's statement
with senior FBI officials , including Peter Strzok, Strzok's direct supervisor
, E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by
Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson) - in what was a coordinated
conspiracy among top FBI brass to decriminalize Clinton's conduct by changing legal terms and phrases, omitting key information,
and minimizing the role of the Intelligence Community in the email investigation. Doing so virtually assured that then-candidate
Hillary Clinton would not be prosecuted.
Heather Samuelson and Heather Mills
Also mentioned in the letter are the immunity agreements granted by the FBI in June 2016 to top Obama advisor Cheryl Mills and
aide Heather Samuelson - who helped decide which Clinton emails were destroyed before turning over the remaining 30,000 records to
the State Department. Of note, the FBI agreed to destroy evidence on devices owned by Mills and Samuelson which were turned over
in the investigation.
Sen. Johnson's letter reads:
According to documents produced by the FBI, FBI employees exchanged proposed edits to the draft statement. On May 6, Deputy
Director McCabe forwarded the draft statement to other senior FBI employees, including Peter Strzok, E.W. Priestap, Jonathan Moffa,
and an employee on the Office of General Counsel whose name has been redacted. While the precise dates of the edits and identities
of the editors are not apparent from the documents, the edits appear to change the tone and substance of Director Comey's statement
in at least three respects .
It was already known that Strzok - who was demoted to the FBI's HR department after anti-Trump text messages to his mistress were
uncovered by an internal FBI watchdog - was responsible for downgrading the language regarding Clinton's conduct from the criminal
charge of "gross negligence" to "extremely careless."
"Gross negligence" is a legal term of art in criminal law often associated with recklessness. According to Black's Law Dictionary,
gross negligence is " A severe degree of negligence taken as reckless disregard ," and " Blatant indifference to one's legal duty,
other's safety, or their rights ." "Extremely careless," on the other hand, is not a legal term of art.
According to an Attorney briefed on the matter, "extremely careless" is in fact a defense to "gross negligence": "What my client
did was 'careless', maybe even 'extremely careless,' but it was not 'gross negligence' your honor." The FBI would have no option
but to recommend prosecution if the phrase "gross negligence" had been left in.
18 U.S. Code § 793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing
defense information" specifically uses the phrase "gross negligence." Had Comey used the phrase, he would have essentially declared
that Hillary had broken the law.
In addition to Strzok's "gross negligence" --> "extremely careless" edit, McCabe's damage control team removed a key justification
for elevating Clinton's actions to the standard of "gross negligence" - that being the " sheer volume " of classified material on
Clinton's server. In the original draft, the "sheer volume" of material "supports an inference that the participants were grossly
negligent in their handling of that information."
Also removed from Comey's statement were all references to the Intelligence Community's involvement in investigating Clinton's
private email server.
Director Comey's original statement acknowledged the FBI had worked with its partners in the Intelligence Community to assess
potential damage from Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server. The original statement read:
[W]e have done extensive work with the assistance of our colleagues elsewhere in the Intelligence Community to understand what
indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the private email operation.
The edited version removed the references to the intelligence community:
[W]e have done extensive work [removed] to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection
with the personal e-mail operation.
Furthermore, the FBI edited Comey's statement to downgrade the probability that Clinton's server was hacked by hostile actors,
changing their language from "reasonably likely" to "possible" - an edit which eliminated yet another justification for the phrase
"Gross negligence." To put it another way, "reasonably likely" means the probability of a hack due to Clinton's negligence is above
50 percent, whereas the hack simply being "possible" is any probability above zero.
It's also possible that the FBI, which was not allowed to inspect the DNC servers, was uncomfortable standing behind the conclusion
of Russian hacking reached by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike.
The original draft read:
Given the combination of factors, we assess it is reasonably likely that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's
private email account."
The edited version from Director Comey's July 5 statement read:
Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal
e-mail account.
Johnson's letter also questions an "
insurance policy " referenced in a text message sent by demoted FBI investigator Peter Strzok to his mistress, FBI attorney Lisa
Page, which read " I want to believe the path you threw out to consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected
-- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40...."
One wonders if the "insurance policy" Strzok sent to Page on
August 15, 2016 was in reference to the original counterintelligence operation launched against Trump of which Strzok became
the lead investigator in "late July" 2016? Of note, Strzok reported directly to
Bill Priestap - the director of Counterintelligence, who told James Comey not to inform congress that the FBI had launched a
counterintelligence operation against then-candidate Trump, per Comey's March 20th testimony to the House Intelligence Committee.
(h/t @TheLastRefuge2 )
Transcript , James Comey Testimony to House Intel Committee, March 20, 2016
The letter from the Senate Committee concludes; "the edits to Director Comey's public statement, made months prior to the conclusion
of the FBI's investigation of Secretary Clinton's conduct, had a significant impact on the FBI's public evaluation of the implications
of her actions . This effort, seen in the light of the personal animus toward then-candidate Trump by senior FBI agents leading the
Clinton investigation and their apparent desire to create an "insurance policy" against Mr. Trump's election, raise profound questions
about the FBI's role and possible interference in the 2016y presidential election and the role of the same agents in Special Counsel
Mueller's investigation of President Trump ."
Johnson then asks the FBI to answer six questions:
Please provide the names of the Department of Justice (DOJ) employees who comprised the "mid-year review team" during the
FBI's investigation of Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server.
Please identify all FBI, DOJ, or other federal employees who edited or reviewed Director Comey's July 5, 2016 statement .
Please identify which individual made the marked changes in the documents produced to the Committee.
Please identify which FBI employee repeatedly changed the language in the final draft statement that described Secretary Clinton's
behavior as "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless. " What evidence supported these changes?
Please identify which FBI employee edited the draft statement to remove the reference to the Intelligence Community . On what
basis was this change made?
Please identify which FBI employee edited the draft statement to downgrade the FBI's assessment that it was "reasonably likely"
that hostile actors had gained access to Secretary Clinton's private email account to merely that than [sic] intrusion was "possible."
What evidence supported these changes?
Please provide unredacted copies of the drafts of Director Comey's statement, including comment bubbles , and explain the
basis for the redactions produced to date.
We are increasingly faced with the fact that the FBI's top ranks have been filled with political ideologues who helped Hillary
Clinton while pursuing the Russian influence narrative against Trump (perhaps as the "insurance" Strzok spoke of). Meanwhile, "hands
off" recused Attorney General Jeff Sessions and assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein don't seem very excited to explore the
issues with a second Special Counsel. As such, we are now almost entirely reliant on the various Committees of congress to pursue
justice in this matter. Perhaps when their investigations have concluded, President Trump will feel he has the political and legal
ammunition to truly clean house at the nation's swampiest agencies.
All I see in this story is that the FBI edits their work to make sure the terminology is consistent throughout. This is not
a smoking gun of anything, except bureaucratic procedure one would find anywhere any legal documents are prepared.
That's not to say Hillary shouldn't have been prosecuted. But what we're seeing here looks like perfectly normal behavior once
the decision has been made not to prosecute; get the statements to be consistent with the conclusion. In a bureaucracy, that requires
a number of people to be involved. And it would necessarily include people who work for Hillary Clinton, since that's whose information
is being discussed.
Now, if Hillary hadn't been such an arrogant bitch, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If she had just take the locked-down
Android of iOS phone they issued her, instead of having to forward everything to herself so she could use her stupid Blackberry
(which can't be locked down to State Dep't. specs), everything would have been both hunky and dory.
And the stuff about how a foreign power might have, or might possibly have, accessed her emails is all BS too. We already know
they weren't hacked, they were leaked.
Maybe people who don't understand complicated organizations see something nefarious here, but nobody who does will. Nothing
will come of this but some staged-for-TV dramatic pronouncements in the House, and on FOX News, and affiliated websites. There's
nothing here.
That obongo of all crooks is involved is a sure fact, but I'd like to see how many remaining defenders of the cause are still
motivated to lose everything for this thing...
In other terms, what are the defection rates in the dem party, because now this must be an avalanche.
Please, EVERYONE with a Twitter account send this message Every Day (tell your friends on facebook):
Mr. President, the time to purge the Obama-Clinton holdovers has long passed. Please get rid of them at once. Make your base
happy. Fire 100+ from DOJ - State - FBI. Hire William K. Black as Special Prosecutor
Debatable re. biggest story being kept quiet. The AWAN Brothers/Family is a Pakistani spy ring operating inside Congress for
more than a decade, and we hear nothing. They had access to virtually everything in every important committee. They had access
to the Congressional servers and all the emails. Biggest spy scandal in our nations hsitory, and........crickets.
Of course, they may all be related, since Debbie Wasserman-Shits brought them in and set them up, then intertwined their work
in Congress with their work for the DNC.
Just more theater. Throwing a bone to the few citizens who think for themselves. Giving us false hope the US legal system isn't
corrupt. This will never be prosecuted, because the deep state remains in control. They've had a year to destroy the incriminating
evidence.
Ryan and his buddies in Congress will make strained faces (as if taking a dump) and wring their hands saying they must hire
a "Special" Investigator to cover up this mess.
They tweet that crap all the time. Usually just a repeat with different names, but always blaming a Ruskie. About every 6 months
they hit on a twist in the wording that causes it to go viral.
Before Trump was elected , I thought the only way to get our country back was through a Military Coup, but it appears there
may be some light at the end of the tunnel.
I wonder if that light is coming from the soon to be gaping hole in the FBI's asshole when the extent of this political activism
by the agency eventually seeps into the public conciousness.
you can't clean up a mess of this magnitude. fire everyone in washington---senator, representative, fbi, cia, nsa ,etc and
start over---has NO chance of happenning
the only hope for a non violent solution is that a true leader emerges that every decent person can rally behind and respect,
honor and dignity become the norm. unfortunately, corruption has become a culture and i don't know if it can be eradicated
Just expose the Congress, McCabe, Lindsey, McCabe, Clinton, all Dem judges, Media, Hollywood, local government dems as pedos;
that will half-drain the swamp.
If Trump gets the swamp cleaned without a military coup, he will be one of our greatest Presidents. There will be people who
hate that more than they hate being in jail.
Precisely. That's actually a very good tool for decoding the Clintons and Obama. "You collaborated with Russia." Means
"I collaborated with Saudi Arabia." It takes a little while and I haven't fully mastered it yet, but you can reverse alinsky-engineer
their statements to figure out what they did.
And get this, Flynn was set up! Yates had the transcript via the (illegal) FISA Court of warrant which relied on the Dirty
Steele Dossier, when Flynn deviated from the transcript they charged him Lying to the FBI. Comey McCabe run around lying 24/7.
Their is no fucking hope left! The swamp WINS ALWAYS.
I have - it's was NBC Nightly News - they spent time on the damning emails from Strozk. Maybe 2-3 minutes. Normal news segment
time. Surprised the hell out of me.
the "MSM" needs to cover their own asses ...like "an insurance policy" just in case the truth comes out... best to be seen
reporting on the REAL issue at least for a couple minutes..
Fox reporter Shannon Brem tweeted that Fox News producer Jake Gibson has obtained 10k texts
between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, one of which says "Trump should go f himself," and "F
TRUMP."
... ... ...
In another tweet posted by Bream, Peter Strzok says "I am riled up. Trump is
a f*cking idiot, is unable to provide a coherrent answer ," and "I CAN'T PULL AWAY, WHAY THE
F*CK HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY (redacted)??!?!"
Page responds "I don't know, But we'll get it back. ..."
... ... ...
In another tweet posted by Bream, Peter Strzok says "I am riled up. Trump is
a f*cking idiot, is unable to provide a coherrent answer ," and "I CAN'T PULL AWAY, WHAY THE
F*CK HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY (redacted)??!?!"
Page responds "I don't know, But we'll get it back. ..."
... ... ...
The messages between Strzok and Page make it abundantly clear that the agents investigating
both candidates for President were extremely biased against then-candidate Trump, while going
extremely easy on Hillary Clinton over her mishandling of classified information.
... ... ...
The messages sent between Strzok and Page, as well as Strzok's conduct in the
Clinton investigation and several prior cases are now under review for political bias by the
Justice Department . Furthermore, the fact that the reason behind Strzok's firing was kept a
secret for months is of keen interest to House investigators. According to
Fox News two weeks ago :
"While Strzok's removal from the Mueller team had been publicly reported in August, the
Justice Department never disclosed the anti-Trump texts to the House investigators."
"Responding to the revelations about Strzok's texts on Saturday, Nunes said he has now
directed his staff to draft contempt-of-Congress citations against Rosenstein and the new FBI
director, Christopher Wray." -Fox News
Strzok also relied on the Trump-Russia dossier created by opposition research firm Fusion
GPS. In August, 2016 - nine months before Robert Mueller's Special Counsel was launched, the
New York Times reported that Strzok was hand picked by FBI brass to supervise an investigation
into allegations of Trump-Russia collusion . The FBI investigation grew legs after they
received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and decided to act on its salacious and largely
unproven claims, According to
Fox News
House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Strzok as a key figure in the
chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and
launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that
ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate.
The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about
then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled by the opposition research firm
Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed that the
project was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. - Fox
News
Weeks before the 2016 election, Peter Strzok's FBI team agreed to pay former MI6 agent and
Fusion GPS operative Christopher Steele $50,000 if he could verify the claims contained within
the dossier - which relied on the cooperation of two senior Kremlin officials.
... ... ...
When Steele was unable to verify the claims in the dossier, the FBI wouldn't
pay him according to the New York Times .
Mr. Steele met his F.B.I. contact in Rome in early October, bringing a stack of new
intelligence reports. One, dated Sept. 14, said that Mr. Putin was facing "fallout" over his
apparent involvement in the D.N.C. hack and was receiving "conflicting advice" on what to
do.
The agent said that, if Mr. Steele could get solid corroboration of his reports, the
F.B.I. would pay him $50,000 for his efforts, according to two people familiar with the
offer. Ultimately, he was not paid . - NYT
Did you catch that? Despite the fact that Steele was not paid by the FBI for the dossier,
Peter Strzok used it to launch a counterintelligence investigation into President Trump's team
. Steele was ultimately paid
$168,000 by Fusion GPS to assemble the dossier.
There's more - according to journalist Sara Carter there are more anti-Trump messages
exchanged between other members of Mueller's team
Sean Hannity: I'm hearing rumors all over the place Sara Carter that there are other
anti-Trump text-emails out there. And we know about them.
Sara Carter: I think you're hearing correctly Sean and I think a lot more is going to come
out. In fact, I know a lot more is going to come out based on the sources I've spoken to.
... ... ...
The text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are highly compromising , and prove
that both FBI investigations into Clinton and Trump were headed by a man, aided by his
mistress, who did not want to see Trump win the White House. Furthermnore, if anti-Trump text
messages were exchanged between other members of Robert Mueller's special counsel, which are
apparently on deck for later this month or January, it's hard to imagine anyone taking anything
concluded by this dog-and-pony show seriously.
So let's see here, I'm looking for the parts about the FBI?/special investigation, or even
anything relevant to the subject matter in your post Jack. Nope nothing there except a
speculation about something that has long since passed and with no real way to determine
actual facts. But hey thanks for taking up all the unused space here on the forum.
Back to revelant speculation...
Melissa Hodgman is the wife of the FBI scum. Guess what she does? She is head of the SEC
enforcement division. I guess that's where 'ol Pete learned how to turn "grossly negligent"
into "extremely careless". I guess that's good enough for the SEC so it should be good enough
for the Effing Bee Eye.
funny how two libtards who are cheating on their partners, can have the audacity to
believe theyre the intelligent ones. Lost, hollow, carcases of human beings they are.
You can not be serious. A FBI investigator can't let any bias influence their
investigations regardless of their personal feelings one way or the other. This Agent saying
that he was in a position to protect the country from Trump puts his bias on full display. I
expect FBI agents to be all Joe Friday all of the time.
When law enforcement is taking pro-active actions to protect Hillary and insure her
presidency...should anyone be shocked that a 'rat' inside her campaign gets murdered and no
one cares?
Sexual Blackmail rings have been around forever. Every 1st world clandestine intel agency
has long since perfected these types of traps. Starts with basic Honey Traps and goes to kids
and much worse crimes than sexual misconduct (think the Godfather when the Senator was set up
at the Brothel and you get a good idea).
Before someone becomes a dependable tool you need to have them by the balls. It has been
estimated that 1 in 3 politicians in D.C. are comprimised this way at some point during their
career. This is how the CIA controls politicians outside the US. It gets quid pro quo from
other intel agencies for internal control (Mossad, MI6, or other). It's an old game. Epstein
is Mossad. The island is a trap outside of U.S. Why would alan dershowitz go there? Simple he
was lured and trapped. Think about it, if you are in this dirty business, how do get a good
Lawyer? Good lawyers who are 'committed' to your cause always come in handy.
This is how real power is and has been aquired. With power comes control.
They're "going all in." Doesn't matter what Hand the Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous
Seditious Psychopaths at the Deep State & their cohorts have been dealt.
Win, stolen or lost. They were going & are going "all in" with the PsyOp, Scripted
False Narrative of Russia hacking the Elections / Russia / Putin / Trump Propaganda gone full
retard via the Deep States Opeatives in the Presstitute Media.
The misconception is that individuals believe we are dealing with normal, sane human
beings. We're not. Far from it. What we are dealing with are sick, twisted, Pure Evil
Criminal, Psychopathic, Satanic / Lucerferian elements from the CIA / Pentagram Temple of Set
Scum literally making Hell on Earth.
What's at Stake is the Deep State Global network of MultiNational Central Banking,
Espionage, Murder, War, Torture, Destabilization Campaigns, BlackMail, Extortion, Child /
Human Trafficking, Drug / Gun Running, Money Laundering, Corruption, NSA spying, Media
control & control of the 17 Intelligence Agencies.
Most importantly, The Deep State controls all the distribution lines of the
aforementioned. Especially the Coaxial Cable Communication lines of Espionage spying &
Surveillance State Apparatus / Infrastructure.
Agencies all built on the British Model of Intelligence. Purely Evil & Highly
Compartmentalized Levels which function as a Step Pyramid Model of Authority / Monarch Reign
Pyramid Model of Authority.
That's what's at Stake. How this plays out is anyone's guess. The Pure Evil Criminal
Psychopath Rogue elements of the Deep State will not go quietly. If not dealt with now,
they'll disappear only to resurface at a later date with one objective:
Total Complete Full Spectrum World Domination they seek through Power & Control.
It's those Select Highly Compartmentalized Criminal Pure Evil Rogue Elements at the Deep
State Top that have had control since the JFK Execution that have entrenched themselves for
decades & refuse to relinquish Control.
This impure evil has been running the world since the time of the Pharoahs, it's ancient
Babylonian mysticism/paganism and it is nothing more than the worship of Lucifer; it has
never died out, it just re-emerges as something far more wicked, vile and sinister. They are
all the sons and daughters of satan and do what he does - kill, steal and destroy.
It would be Nieve to think that hundreds of thousands of years of control over mankind be
simply turned over by the Criminal Pure Evil Psychopathic Elite.
The Deep State will always exist.
However, the Pure Evil Criminal Psychopathic Highly Compartmentalized Rogue Levels of it
are being delt with. Which is what the World is witnessing.
"President Trump needs to do mass firings at the corrupt FBI/DOJ"
Firings? Firings are for Starbucks employees who dip into the cash register. When people
afforded this level of "trust" and responsibility show how deeply corrupt they are - in that
they openly aid and abet horrific criminals (HRC et al) they need to go to JAIL. FOREVER. And
their supervisors - who goddamn well knew what the fuck they were doing - need to be their
cellmates.
The FBI and DOJ have lost ALL integrity, honor, and moral authority. At this point, if I
saw an FBI agent on fire, I wouldn't piss on him to put him out.
Two FBI officials who
would later be assigned to the special counsel's investigation into Donald Trump's
presidential campaign described him as an "idiot" and "loathsome human" in a series of text
messages last year, according to copies released on Tuesday.
One said in an election night text that the prospect of a Trump victory was
"terrifying".
"... I got to thinking today about how neocon and neoliberal are becoming interchangeable terms. ..."
"... As neoconservatism developed, that is with Iraq and Afghanistan, the neocons even came to embrace nation building which had always been anathema to traditional conservatism. Neocons sold this primarily by casting nation building in military terms, the creation and training of police and security forces in the target country. ..."
"... 9/11 too was critical. It vastly increased the scope of the neocon project in spawning the Global War on Terror. It increased the stage of neocon operations to the entire planet. ..."
"... Politically, neoconservatism has become the bipartisan foreign policy consensus. Democrats are every bit as neocon in their views as Republicans. Only a few libertarians on the right and progressives on the left reject it. ..."
"... The roots of neoliberalism are the roots of kleptocracy. Both begin under Carter. Neoliberalism also known at various times and places as the Washington Consensus (under Clinton) and the Chicago School is the political expression for public consumption of the kleptocratic economic philosophy, just as libertarian and neoclassical economics (both fresh and salt water varieties) are its academic and governmental face. The central tenets of neoliberalism are deregulation, free markets, and free trade. If neoliberalism had a prophet or a patron saint, it was Milton Friedman. ..."
"... Again just as neoconservatism and kleptocracy or bipartisan so too is neoliberalism. There really is no daylight between Reaganism/supply side economics/trickledown on the Republican side and Clinton's Washington Consensus or Team Obama on the other. ..."
"... The distinctions between neoconservatism and neoliberalism are being increasingly lost, perhaps because most of our political classes are practitioners of both. ..."
"... At the same time, neoliberalism went from domestic to global, and here I am not just thinking about neoliberal experiments, like Pinochet's Chile or post-Soviet Russia, but the financialization of the world economy and the adoption of kleptocracy as the world economic model. ..."
"... I'm now under the opinion that you can't talk about any of the "neo-isms" without talking about the corporate state. ..."
"... With neocons, it manifests itself through the military-industrial complex (Boeing, Raytheon, etc.), and with neolibs it manifests itself through finance and industrial policy. ..."
"... But each leg has two components, a statist component and a corporate component. ..."
"... It also explains why economic/financial interests (neolib) are now considered national security interests (neocon). The viability of the state is now tied to the viability of the corporation. ..."
"... Corporate/statist (not sure "corporate" captures the looting/rentier aspect though). We see it everywhere, for example in the revolving door. ..."
"... I think you could also make the argument that Obama is perhaps the most ideal combination of neolib & neocon. ..."
"... A reading of the classical liberal economists puts some breaks on the markets, corporations, etc. Neoliberalism goes to the illogical extremes of market theory and iirc, has some influence from the Austrian school ... which gives up on any pretense of scientific exposition of economics or rationality at the micro level, assuming that irrationality will magically become rational behavior in aggregate. ..."
"... Therefore, US conservatives post Eisenhower but especially post Reagan are almost certainly economic neoliberals. Since Clinton, liberals/Democrats have been too (at least the elected ones). You nailed neoconservative and both parties are in foreign policy since at least Clinton ... though here lets not forget to go back as far as JFK and his extreme anti-Communism that led to all sorts of covert operations, The Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Remember, the Soviets put the missiles in Cuba because we put missiles in Turkey and they backed down from Cuba because we agreed to remove the missiles from Turkey; Nikita was nice enough not to talk about that so that Kennedy didn't lose face. ..."
"... Perhaps it should be pointed out that the Clintons became fabulously wealthy just after Bill left office, mostly on the strength of his speaking engagements for the financial sector that he'd just deregulated. ..."
"... The unfortunate fact of the matter is that at that level of politics, the levers of money and power work equally well on both party's nomenklatura. They flock to it like moths to porch light. ..."
"... "Don't believe them, don't fear them, don't ask anything of them" - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn ..."
I got to thinking today about how neocon and neoliberal are becoming interchangeable terms. They did not start out that
way. My understanding is they are ways of rationalizing breaks with traditional conservatism and liberalism. Standard conservatism
was fairly isolationist. Conservatism's embrace of the Cold War put it at odds with this tendency. This was partially resolved by
accepting the Cold War as a military necessity despite its international commitments but limiting civilian programs like foreign
aid outside this context and rejecting the concept of nation building altogether.
With the end of the Cold War conservative internationalism needed a new rationale, and this was supplied by the neoconservatives.
They advocated the adoption of conservatism's Cold War military centered internationalism as the model for America's post-Cold War
international relations. After all, why drop a winning strategy? America had won the Cold War against a much more formidable opponent
than any left on the planet. What could go wrong?
America's ability not simply to project but its willingness to use military power was equated with its power more generally. If
America did not do this, it was weak and in decline. However, the frequent use of military power showed that America was great and
remained the world's hegemon. In particular, the neocons focused on the Middle East. This sales pitch gained them the backing of
both supporters of Israel (because neoconservatism was unabashedly pro-Israel) and the oil companies. The military industrial complex
was also on board because the neocon agenda effectively countered calls to reduce military spending. But neoconservatism was not
just confined to these groups. It appealed to both believers in American exceptionalism and backers of humanitarian interventions
(of which I once was one).
As neoconservatism developed, that is with Iraq and Afghanistan, the neocons even came to embrace nation building which had always
been anathema to traditional conservatism. Neocons sold this primarily by casting nation building in military terms, the creation
and training of police and security forces in the target country.
9/11 too was critical. It vastly increased the scope of the neocon project in spawning the Global War on Terror. It increased
the stage of neocon operations to the entire planet. It effectively erased the distinction between the use of military force against
countries and individuals. Individuals more than countries became targets for military, not police, action. And unlike traditional
wars or the Cold War itself, this one would never be over. Neoconservatism now had a permanent raison d'être.
Politically, neoconservatism has become the bipartisan foreign policy consensus. Democrats are every bit as neocon in their views
as Republicans. Only a few libertarians on the right and progressives on the left reject it.
Neoliberalism, for its part, came about to address the concern of liberals, especially Democrats, that they were too anti-business
and too pro-union, and that this was hurting them at the polls. It was sold to the rubiat as pragmatism.
The roots of neoliberalism are the roots of kleptocracy. Both begin under Carter. Neoliberalism also known at various times and
places as the Washington Consensus (under Clinton) and the Chicago School is the political expression for public consumption of the
kleptocratic economic philosophy, just as libertarian and neoclassical economics (both fresh and salt water varieties) are its academic
and governmental face. The central tenets of neoliberalism are deregulation, free markets, and free trade. If neoliberalism had a
prophet or a patron saint, it was Milton Friedman.
Again just as neoconservatism and kleptocracy or bipartisan so too is neoliberalism. There really is no daylight between Reaganism/supply
side economics/trickledown on the Republican side and Clinton's Washington Consensus or Team Obama on the other.
And just as we saw with neoconservatism, neoliberalism expanded from its core premises and effortlessly transitioned into globalization,
which can also be understood as global kleptocracy.
The distinctions between neoconservatism and neoliberalism are being increasingly lost, perhaps because most of our political
classes are practitioners of both. But initially at least neoconservatism was focused on foreign policy and neoliberalism on
domestic economic policy. As the War on Terror expanded, however, neoconservatism came back home with the creation and expansion
of the surveillance state.
At the same time, neoliberalism went from domestic to global, and here I am not just thinking about neoliberal experiments,
like Pinochet's Chile or post-Soviet Russia, but the financialization of the world economy and the adoption of kleptocracy as the
world economic model.
jest on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 5:55am
I'm now under the opinion that you can't talk about any of the "neo-isms" without talking about the corporate state.
That's really the tie that binds the two things you are speaking of.
With neocons, it manifests itself through the military-industrial complex (Boeing, Raytheon, etc.), and with neolibs it
manifests itself through finance and industrial policy.
For example, you need the US gov't to bomb Iraq (Raytheon) in order to secure oil (Halliburton), which is priced & financed
in US dollars (Goldman Sachs). It's like a 3-legged stool; if you remove one of these legs, the whole thing comes down. But
each leg has two components, a statist component and a corporate component.
The entity that enables all of this is the corporate state.
It also explains why economic/financial interests (neolib) are now considered national security interests (neocon). The viability
of the state is now tied to the viability of the corporation.
lambert on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 9:18am
Corporate/statist (not sure "corporate" captures the looting/rentier aspect though). We see it everywhere, for example in the
revolving door.
I think the stool has more legs and is also more dynamic; more like Ikea furniture. For example, the press is surely critical
in organizing the war.
But the yin/yang of neo-lib/neo-con is nice: It's as if the neo-cons handle the kinetic aspects (guns, torture) and the neo-libs
handle the mental aspects (money, mindfuckery) but both merge (like Negronponte being on the board of Americans Select) over time
as margins fall and decorative aspects like democratic institutions and academic freedom get stripped away. The state and the
corporation have always been tied to each other but now the ties are open and visible (for example, fines are just a cost of doing
business, a rent on open corruption.)
And then there's the concept of "human resource," that abstracts all aspects of humanity away except those that are exploitable.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
jest on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 1:37pm
I like the term much better than Fascist, as it is 1) more accurate, 2) avoids the Godwin's law issue, and 3) makes them sound
totalitarianist.
Yes, I would agree that additional legs make sense. The media aspect is essential, as it neutralizes the freedom of the press,
without changing the constitution. It dovetails pretty well with the notion of Inverted Totalitarianism.
I think you could also make the argument that Obama is perhaps the most ideal combination of neolib & neocon. The
two sides of him flow together so seamlessly, no one seems to notice. But that's in part because he is so corporate.
Lex on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 8:28am
Actually, neoliberalism is an economic term. An economic liberal in the UK and EU is for open markets, capitalism, etc. You're
right that neoliberalism comes heavily from the University of Chicago, but it has little to do with American political liberalism.
A reading of the classical liberal economists puts some breaks on the markets, corporations, etc. Neoliberalism goes to the
illogical extremes of market theory and iirc, has some influence from the Austrian school ... which gives up on any pretense of
scientific exposition of economics or rationality at the micro level, assuming that irrationality will magically become rational
behavior in aggregate.
Therefore, US conservatives post Eisenhower but especially post Reagan are almost certainly economic neoliberals. Since Clinton,
liberals/Democrats have been too (at least the elected ones). You nailed neoconservative and both parties are in foreign policy
since at least Clinton ... though here lets not forget to go back as far as JFK and his extreme anti-Communism that led to all
sorts of covert operations, The Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Remember, the Soviets put the missiles in
Cuba because we put missiles in Turkey and they backed down from Cuba because we agreed to remove the missiles from Turkey; Nikita
was nice enough not to talk about that so that Kennedy didn't lose face.
"Don't believe them, don't fear them, don't ask anything of them" - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Hugh on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 3:57pm
I agree that neoconservatism and neoliberalism are two facets of corporatism/kleptocracy. I like the kinetic vs. white collar
distinction.
The roots of neoliberalism go back to the 1940s and the Austrians, but in the US it really only comes into currency with Clinton
as a deliberate shift of the Democratic/liberal platform away from labor and ordinary Americans to make it more accommodating
to big business and big money. I had never heard of neoliberalism before Bill Clinton but it is easy to see how those tendencies
were at work under Carter, but not under Johnson.
This was a rough and ready sketch. I guess I should also have mentioned PNAC or the Project to Find a New Mission for the MIC.
Hugh on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 10:44pm
I have never understood this love of Clinton that some Democrats have just as I have never understood the attraction of Reagan
for Republicans. There is no Clinton faction. There is no Obama faction. Hillary Clinton is Obama's frigging Secretary of State.
Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, both of whom served as Bill Clinton's Treasury Secretary, were Obama's top financial and economic
advisors. Timothy Geithner was their protégé. Leon Panetta Obama's Director of the CIA and current Secretary of Defense was Clinton's
Director of OMB and then Chief of Staff.
The Democrats as a party are neoconservative and neoliberal as are Obama and the Clintons. As are Republicans.
What does corporations need regulation mean? It is rather like saying that the best way to deal with cancer is to find a cure
for it. Sounds nice but there is no content to it. Worse in the real world, the rich own the corporations, the politicians, and
the regulators. So even if you come up with good ideas for regulation they aren't going to happen.
What you are suggesting looks a whole lot another iteration of lesser evilism meets Einstein's definition of insanity. How
is it any different from any other instance of Democratic tribalism?
Lex on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 11:49pm
Perhaps it should be pointed out that the Clintons became fabulously wealthy just after Bill left office, mostly on the strength
of his speaking engagements for the financial sector that he'd just deregulated. Both he and Hillary hew to a pretty damned neoconservative
foreign policy ... with that dash of "humanitarian interventionism" that makes war palatable to liberals.
But your deeper point is that there isn't enough of a difference between Obama and Bill Clinton to really draw a distinction,
not in terms of ideology. What a theoretical Hillary Clinton presidency would have looked like is irrelevant, because both Bill
and Obama talked a lot different than they walked. Any projection of a Hillary Clinton administration is just that and requires
arguing that it would have been different than Bill's administration and policies.
The unfortunate fact of the matter is that at that level of politics, the levers of money and power work equally well on
both party's nomenklatura. They flock to it like moths to porch light.
That the money chose Obama over Clinton doesn't say all that much, because there's no evidence suggesting that the money didn't
like Clinton or that it would have chosen McCain over Clinton. It's not as if Clinton's campaign was driven into the ground by
lack of funds.
Regardless, that to be a Democrat i would kind of have to chose between two factions that are utterly distasteful to me just
proves that i have no business being a Democrat. And since i wouldn't vote for either of those names, i guess i'll just stick
to third parties and exit the political tribalism loop for good.
"Don't believe them, don't fear them, don't ask anything of them" - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
all talk and smoking guns. never one question answered. If we were on that stand we would
have to answer not mumble and use legal jargon. sick of the whole mess.
What is your take on this fellow Peter P. Strzok II? His back history is purportedly
Georgetown, Army Intelligence (his father PP Strzok I is Army Corp of Engineers), and was
until recently deputy director of counterintelligence at FBI with focus on Russia and China.
He is the fellow who altered Comey's draft to read "extremely careless" instead of "grossly
negligent", he interviewed HRC, Mills, Abedin (and gave the latter two immunity); he pushed
for the continued payment of Steele in the amount of $50,000 for further Dossier research in
the face of some resistance (cf James Rosen); he also interviewed Flynn, and for most of the
first half of 2017 and for all of 2016 appears to have been the most important and
influential agent working on the HRC-Trump-Russia nexus. James Rosen suggests he has CIA
connections as well. The dude has also no internet presence. There is not much information
out there on a person who seems to be pretty influential in DC / FBI / Foreign Intel circles.
He screwed up, and a lawyer, sent texts, and now is gone. Does he strike you as fishy at all,
or is this kind of stuff pretty common for people in his field and position.
Just one day after Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I.in the Russia
investigation, reports have surfaced accusing a veteran investigator in the special probe of
sending disparaging text messages regarding President Donald Trump. The investigator was
removed from the probe a few month ..... #5FastFacts#News#BreakingNews
That damn Comey is the biggest liar and most corrupt person in the Hillary email
investigation. Actually there was no investigation, because he had already determined how she
had done nothing wrong. Pathetic. Also Mueller has set up his group of lawyers, who have all
been connected to contributing to Hillary Clinton's campaign. The damn democrats will do
anything to try to find something corrupt about President Trump. All they need to do is look
in the mirror, if they are looking for corrupt.
Obviously Rosenstein didn't think the DoJ could do the job since he scrambled to appoint a
special counsel at the first opportunity after Comey leaked the memo. Trey Gowdy is one of
the most honest Congressmen in the HoR but he's seemingly a little naive at times. He wants
to believe the best about his colleagues and friends. The facts have to be in his face before
he sees the truth. He's only now beginning to see the light about Mueller, I think.
the f.b.i. just like the i.r.s. the e.p.a. , homeland security and many more govt.
organisations that at one time worked for the very citizens that pay them but now they are
all politicized , even weaponized to be used as a tool against one's political rivals ,
thanks Obummer !! who did not start or do this all on his own but did carry the ball down the
road further than any other before him
FBI your garbage thanks to the Clinton's. I hope to live for 30 more years and your shit
to me. Now I understand why we need rights to guns . To fight you criminals in my government.
I hate liberals but I know some conservatives are just as nasty . McCain is my top choice for
Hillary bent .
I don't think there is an impartial person in the entire world... And I mean that
literally... Everyone from England to Australia to Japan to South Africa is as passionate
about this Trump issue as anyone here in the US.
If Casey and Muller are an example of NO FINER INSTITUTION AND NO FINER PEOPLE THAN THE
FBI..." REALLY? so why are all the PROBER'S HILLARY DONATORS? -----> Wray is a deep state
criminal just like Comey and Mueller
The FBI agent fired by Mueller for sending Anti-Trump text messages was IN charge of the
Russia probe and even asked Micheal Flynn questions. So could it be that this was all a set up
against Trump? More secrets keep unravelling in the Mueller probe, and we'll keep updating you
on this story.
Seeker, Mr. Strzok needs to have a prolonged interrogation done on him , until the lasi
little tidbit of his machinations are wrung out of him until it is a sure bet that he has
nothing left to give up. Stzrok has good friends who invented sure fire techniques that have
guaranteed results. A Thousand Cuts comes to mind ! ! ! Of course that can not happen so let
Hillary in on the scuttlebut that Stzrok is going to rat out everbody in order to save His
behind. In no time flat Mr Stzrok will throw a JIMMY HOFFA ! ! ! ! ! That Hairy , Bull Dagger
, Pussy Hat Wearin , P U S S Y P O S S E of Hillary's is Ruthless ! ! ! ! ! Thank You Seeker
jeebs out
Enjoyed you explanation of neocons. I realized, some years back, we need to change the
Department of Defense to the Department of Offense. I suppose we could rename Homeland
Security to Dept. of Defense, but they are actuating an offensive war on us and our freedoms.
Maybe stop poking our noses in other peoples business and we could eliminate both
departments. So ... what do we call a conservative that is hawkish on Peace? A normal, well
balanced, human being? Haven't seen one of those hanging out around our capitol in a
while.
"... The task will be exceedingly complex, given Strzok's consequential portfolio. He participated in the FBI's fateful interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016 – just days before then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was declining to recommend prosecution of Mrs. Clinton in connection with her use, as secretary of state, of a private email server. ..."
"... As deputy FBI director for counterintelligence, Strzok also enjoyed liaison with various agencies in the intelligence community, including the CIA, then led by Director John Brennan. ..."
"... The Justice Department maintained that the decision to clear Strzok for House interrogation had occurred a few hours prior to the appearance of the Times and Post stories. ..."
"... In addition, Rosenstein is set to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Dec. 13. ..."
"... A top House investigator asked: "If Mueller knew about the texts, what did he know about the dossier?" ..."
"... Carr declined to comment on the extent to which Mueller has examined the dossier and its relationship, if any, to the counterintelligence investigation that Strzok launched during the height of the campaign season. ..."
EXCLUSIVE – Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that
the department's Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary
Clinton email investigation by Peter Stzrok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence
at the FBI who was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this
year, after Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague.
A source close to the matter said the OIG probe, which will examine Strzok's roles in a
number of other politically sensitive cases, should be completed by "very early next year."
The task will be exceedingly complex, given Strzok's consequential portfolio. He
participated in the FBI's fateful interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016 – just
days before then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was declining to recommend prosecution
of Mrs. Clinton in connection with her use, as secretary of state, of a private email
server.
As deputy FBI director for counterintelligence, Strzok also enjoyed liaison with various
agencies in the intelligence community, including the CIA, then led by Director John
Brennan.
House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Stzrok as a key figure in the
chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and
launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that
ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate.
The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about
then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled by the opposition research firm
Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed that the project
was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, D-Calif., has sought documents and
witnesses from the Department of Justice and FBI to determine what role, if any, the dossier
played in the move to place a Trump campaign associate under foreign surveillance.
Strzok himself briefed the committee on Dec. 5, 2016, the sources said, but within months of
that session House Intelligence Committee investigators were contacted by an informant
suggesting that there was "documentary evidence" that Strzok was purportedly obstructing the
House probe into the dossier.
In early October, Nunes personally asked Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein – who
has overseen the Trump-Russia probe since the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions –
to make Strzok available to the committee for questioning, sources said.
While Strzok's removal from the Mueller team had been publicly reported in August, the
Justice Department never disclosed the anti-Trump texts to the House investigators. The denial
of access to Strzok was instead predicated, sources said, on broad "personnel" grounds.
When a month had elapsed, House investigators – having issued three subpoenas for
various witnesses and documents – formally recommended to Nunes that DOJ and FBI be held
in contempt of Congress. Nunes continued pressing DOJ, including a conversation with Rosenstein
as recently as last Wednesday.
That turned out to be 12 days after DOJ and FBI had made Strzok available to the Senate
Intelligence Committee, which is conducting its own parallel investigation into the allegations
of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.
Contempt citations?
Responding to the revelations about Strzok's texts on Saturday, Nunes said he has now
directed his staff to draft contempt-of-Congress citations against Rosenstein and the new FBI
director, Christopher Wray. Unless DOJ and FBI comply with all os his outstanding requests for
documents and witnesses by the close of business on Monday, Nunes said, he would seek a
resolution on the contempt citations before year's end.
"We now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us this
explanation, and at least one reason why they previously refused to make [FBI] Deputy Director
[Andrew] McCabe available to the Committee for an interview," Nunes said in a statement.
Early Saturday afternoon, after Strzok's texts were cited in published reports by the New
York Times and the Washington Post – and Fox News had followed up with inquiries about
the department's refusal to make Strzok available to House investigators – the Justice
Department contacted the office of House Speaker Paul Ryan to establish a date for Strzok's
appearance before House Intelligence Committee staff, along with two other witnesses long
sought by the Nunes team.
Those witnesses are FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and the FBI officer said to have
handled Christopher Steele, the British spy who used Russian sources to compile the dossier for
Fusion GPS. The official said to be Steele's FBI handler has also appeared already before the
Senate panel.
The Justice Department maintained that the decision to clear Strzok for House
interrogation had occurred a few hours prior to the appearance of the Times and Post
stories.
In addition, Rosenstein is set to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Dec.
13.
The Justice Department maintains that it has been very responsive to the House intel panel's
demands, including private briefings for panel staff by senior DOJ and FBI personnel and the
production of several hundred pages of classified materials available in a secure reading room
at DOJ headquarters on Oct. 31.
Sources said Speaker Ryan has worked quietly behind the scenes to try to resolve the clash
over dossier-related evidence and witnesses between the House intel panel on the one hand and
DOJ and FBI on the other. In October, however, the speaker took the unusual step of saying
publicly that the two agencies were "stonewalling" Congress.
All parties agree that some records being sought by the Nunes team belong to categories of
documents that have historically never been shared with the committees that conduct oversight
of the intelligence community.
Federal officials told Fox News the requested records include "highly sensitive raw
intelligence," so sensitive that officials from foreign governments have emphasized to the U.S.
the "potential danger and chilling effect" it could place on foreign intelligence sources.
Justice Department officials noted that Nunes did not appear for a document-review session
that his committee's ranking Democrat, U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., attended, and once
rejected a briefing by an FBI official if the panel's Democratic members were permitted to
attend.
Sources close to the various investigations agreed the discovery of Strzok's texts raised
important questions about his work on the Clinton email case, the Trump-Russia probe, and the
dossier matter.
"That's why the IG is looking into all of those things," a Justice Department official told
Fox News on Saturday.
A top House investigator asked: "If Mueller knew about the texts, what did he know about
the dossier?"
Peter Carr, a spokesman for the special counsel, said: "Immediately upon learning of the
allegations, the Special Counsel's Office removed Peter Strzok from the investigation."
Carr declined to comment on the extent to which Mueller has examined the dossier and its
relationship, if any, to the counterintelligence investigation that Strzok launched during the
height of the campaign season.
The "Bull Dog" of the House has a grave warning for Robert Mueller.
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), known for his tough "prosecutor" persona, sits on the House
Intelligence Committee. The Committee on Saturday
threatened to hold the FBI and Department of Justice in contempt of Congress for
withholding information related to the removal of FBI agent Peter Strzok from Robert Mueller's
Russia investigation.
Rep. Gowdy told Fox News that the Special Counsel faces "integrity" problems after the
revelation that Strzok's removal was due to exchanging anti-Trump text messages with FBI lawyer
Lisa Page–with whom Strzok was having an extramarital affair.
"We met with the
department of justice and they have to go through the texts," Gowdy said.
He then explained the Intelligence Committee's interest in the Strzok text messages.
"We are not entitled to them, nor do we have an interest in purely personal texts. We are
very interested in both anti-Trump and/or pro-Clinton texts . Because, as he made reference
to, he was a very important agent in her investigation, also in the ongoing Russian related
investigation, perhaps the decision for Comey to change the wording in a statement."
Gowdy's remark about "wording in a statement" referred to reports that Strzok
encouraged former FBI director James Comey to describe Hillary Clinton's private email
server actions as "extremely careless" rather than "grossly negligent." The latter term carries
legal weight with potential criminal penalties while the former does not.
Gowdy continued: "He is super important and people have a right to know whether agents are
biased one way or another. The department is going to go through the texts been going to make
them available to us as soon as they can." Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum then asked Gowdy if
he still has confidence in the Mueller probe, to which the South Carolina lawmaker replied.
"I do, but I got to confess to you, and I understand people who think I'm wrong. I got an
email last night from a friend back home saying, 'Look, Gowdy, let go of the prosecutor
stuff.' I still think that Mueller can produce a product that we all have confidence in, but
things like this, make it really difficult -- the perception is, is every bit as important as
the reality, and if the perception is, you're employing people who are biased, it makes us
really difficult for those of us that would like to defend the integrity of former
prosecutors."
Gowdy's comments echo the sentiments of many Americans, who question the integrity of agents
that have investigated two presidential campaigns, but apparently favor one over the other.
"... The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, removed a top F.B.I. agent from his investigation into Russian election meddling after the Justice Department's inspector general began examining whether the agent had sent text messages that expressed anti-Trump political views, according to three people briefed on the matter. The agent, Peter Strzok, is considered one of the most experienced and trusted F.B.I. counterintelligence investigators. He helped lead the investigation into whether Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information on her private email account, and then played a major role in the investigation into links between President Trump's campaign and Russia. ..."
"... Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that the department's Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary Clinton email investigation by Peter Stzrok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence at the FBI who was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this year, after Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague. ..."
"... House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Strzok as a key figure in the chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate. ..."
"... The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed that the project was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. [ ] ..."
"... Strzok himself briefed the committee on Dec. 5, 2016, the sources said, but within months of that session House Intelligence Committee investigators were contacted by an informant suggesting that there was "documentary evidence" that Strzok was purportedly obstructing the House probe into the dossier. ..."
"... Fox News' James Rosen also reveals Strzok played a key role in agreeing to pay ex-MI6 agent Christopher Steele $50,000 to find evidence to further support the dossier's explosive claims. FBI officials were uncomfortable with the validity of Steele's findings, yet they moved forward with FISA surveillance anyways. ..."
Joshua Caplan – In yet another blow to Mueller's investigation
into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, the special counsel was
forced to fire a top FBI agent after possible anti-Trump text messages were discovered.
The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, removed a top F.B.I. agent from his
investigation into Russian election meddling after the Justice Department's inspector general
began examining whether the agent had sent text messages that expressed anti-Trump political
views, according to three people briefed on the matter. The agent, Peter Strzok, is considered
one of the most experienced and trusted F.B.I. counterintelligence investigators. He helped
lead the investigation into whether Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information on her
private email account, and then played a major role in the investigation into links between
President Trump's campaign and Russia.
In August, ABC News reported that Strzok quit Team Mueller for unknown reasons. "It's
unclear why Strzok stepped away from Mueller's team of nearly two dozen lawyers, investigators
and administrative staff. Strzok, who has spent much of his law enforcement career working
counterintelligence cases and has been unanimously praised by government officials who spoke
with ABC News, is now working for the FBI's human resources division," reported Mike
Levine.
Late Saturday night, we learn the Department of Justice has launched a review of Peter
Stzrok's role in the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that the department's
Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary Clinton email
investigation by Peter Stzrok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence at the FBI who
was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this year, after
Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague.
Reacting to Strzok's 'anti-Trump,' texts, House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes
(R-CA)
said , "We now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us
this explanation, and at least one reason why they previously refused to make [FBI] Deputy
Director [Andrew] McCabe available to the Committee for an interview."
Strzok played a key role in analyzing the infamous 'Trump dossier,' supplied by shady
research firm Fusion GPS. The now disgraced FBI agent used disproven elements of the dossier to
spy on members of the Trump campaign.
House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Strzok as a key figure in the
chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and
launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that
ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate.
The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about
then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled by the opposition research firm
Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed that the project
was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. [ ] Strzok himself briefed the committee on Dec. 5, 2016, the sources said, but within months
of that session House Intelligence Committee investigators were contacted by an informant
suggesting that there was "documentary evidence" that Strzok was purportedly obstructing the
House probe into the dossier.
Fox News' James Rosen also reveals Strzok played a key role in agreeing to pay ex-MI6
agent Christopher Steele $50,000 to find evidence to further support the dossier's explosive
claims. FBI officials were uncomfortable with the validity of Steele's findings, yet they moved
forward with FISA surveillance anyways.
Peter Strzok Carried On An Affair With Andrew McCabe's Lawyer, Lisa Page, While Plotting The
Downfall Of President Donald Trump (Lisa Page Seen Walking Behind McCabe.) Andrew McCabe Is The
Acting FBI Director Who Said "First We F*ck Flynn, Then We F*ck Trump."
The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, removed a top F.B.I. agent from his
investigation into Russian election meddling after the Justice Department's inspector general
began examining whether the agent had sent text messages that expressed anti-Trump political
views, according to three people briefed on the matter. The agent, Peter Strzok, is considered
one of the most experienced and trusted F.B.I. counterintelligence investigators. He helped
lead the investigation into whether Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information on her
private email account, and then played a major role in the investigation into links between
President Trump's campaign and Russia. But Mr. Strzok was reassigned this summer from Mr.
Mueller's investigation to the F.B.I.'s human resources department, where he has been stationed
since. The people briefed on the case said the transfer followed the discovery of text messages
in which Mr. Strzok and a colleague reacted to news events, like presidential debates, in ways
that could appear critical of Mr. Trump.
In a statement to the New York Times, Strzok lawyer said"we are aware of the allegation and
are taking any and all appropriate steps."
In August, ABC News reported that Strzok quit
Team Mueller for unknown reasons. "It's unclear why Strzok stepped away from Mueller's team of
nearly two dozen lawyers, investigators and administrative staff. Strzok, who has spent much of
his law enforcement career working counterintelligence cases and has been unanimously praised
by government officials who spoke with ABC News, is now working for the FBI's human resources
division," reported Mike Levine.
Now this
After new details emerged about Strzok's firing, the Washington Post revealed the Justice Department
launched an investigation into "communications between certain individuals." Details of the
mystery probe will be revealed "promptly upon completion of the review of them,' said the
Justice Department. Late Saturday night, we learn the Department of Justice has launched a
review of Peter Stzrok's role in the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that the department's
Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary Clinton email
investigation by Peter Stzrok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence at the FBI
who was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this year,
after Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague.
A source close to the matter said the OIG probe, which will examine Strzok's roles in a
number of other politically sensitive cases, should be completed by "very early next year." [
] He participated in the FBI's fateful interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016 –
just days before then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was declining to recommend
prosecution of Mrs. Clinton in connection with her use, as secretary of state, of a private
email server.
Reacting to Strzok's 'anti-Trump,' texts, House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes
(R-CA)
said , "We now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us
this explanation, and at least one reason why they previously refused to make [FBI] Deputy
Director [Andrew] McCabe available to the Committee for an interview."
This is huge. Read the thread below for the complete context. Peter Strzok was knee deep
in the entire mess!
Hillary investigation, Hillary interview. Cheryl Mills interview and immunity deal. Weiner's
laptop. Trump Dossier, and Russian collusion. All of these investigations are totally
compromised.
https://www.citizenfreepres...
All they did was their best to destroy evidence, bury evidence and deflect any kind of
real investigation of Hilabeast and team....and everybody knows it on the Hill.
So what are you waiting for asleep at the wheel Sessionns.... ? and any other decent
politician.....well....yeah, obviously those don't exist.....
This is crazy how much more corrupt can this get WTF is Session & Wray doing. Then
Mueller puts this guy on his team, as the Lead FBI , as if he didn't know he was a
compromised dirtbag.
Like how Mueller hide it from everyone for 3 months why he was demoted, and they want to
pretend they the honest brokers just looking for the truth and facts/s
Dirty cop Mueller and his team sycophants trying take down the President United States on
some trumped up bull, turn this country into joke and do irreparable damage.
While he did nothing scratch his old balls while Hil & Obama sold out to the
Russians.
"'Review of' FBI Official's Role in Clinton Email Investigation"
Huh? The the entire thing "investigation" is and has been, from Day 1, nothing more than a no
holds barred attack on not only the legally elected POTUS DJT, but equally against his
supporters.
His alleged crime is a series of text messages criticizing Trump.
Mueller removed Strzok from his team , but that is not enough for Trump's supporters, who are seizing on Strzok's role as a pretext
to discredit and remove Mueller, too.
Notable quotes:
"... The newest pseudo-scandal fixates on the role of Peter Strzok, an FBI official who helped tweak the language Comey employed in his statement condemning Clinton's email carelessness and has also worked for Mueller. ..."
"... His alleged crime is a series of text messages criticizing Trump. Mueller removed Strzok from his team , but that is not enough for Trump's supporters, who are seizing on Strzok's role as a pretext to discredit and remove Mueller, too. ..."
"... When Mueller was appointed, legal scholars debated whether Trump had the technical authority to fire him, but even the majority who believed he did assumed such a power existed only in theory. Republicans in Congress, everyone believed, would never sit still for such a blatant cover-up ..."
"... In fact, the risk has swelled. Trump has publicly declared any investigation into his finances would constitute a red line, and that he reserves the option to fire Mueller if he investigates them. Earlier this month, it was reported that Mueller has subpoenaed records at Deutsche Bank , an institution favored both by Trump and the Russian spy network. ..."
The newest pseudo-scandal fixates on the role of Peter Strzok, an FBI official who helped tweak the language Comey employed in
his statement condemning Clinton's email carelessness and has also worked for Mueller.
His alleged crime is a series of text messages criticizing Trump.
Mueller removed Strzok from his team , but that is not enough for Trump's supporters, who are seizing on Strzok's role as a pretext
to discredit and remove Mueller, too.
The notion that a law-enforcement official should be disqualified for privately expressing partisan views is a novel one, and
certainly did not trouble Republicans last year, when Rudy Giuliani was boasting on television about his network of friendly agents.
Yet in the conservative media, Mueller and Comey have assumed fiendish personae of almost Clintonian proportions.
When Mueller was appointed, legal scholars debated whether Trump had the technical authority to fire him, but even the majority
who believed he did assumed such a power existed only in theory. Republicans in Congress, everyone believed, would never sit still
for such a blatant cover-up .
Josh Blackman, a conservative lawyer, argued that Trump could remove the special counsel, but "make no mistake: Mueller's firing
would likely accelerate the end of the Trump administration." Texas representative Mike McCaul declared in July, "If he fired Bob
Mueller, I think you'd see a tremendous backlash, response from both Democrats but also House Republicans." Such a rash move "could
be the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency," Senator Lindsey Graham proclaimed.
In August, members of both parties began drawing up legislation to prevent Trump from sacking Mueller. "The Mueller situation
really gave rise to our thinking about how we can address the current situation," explained Republican senator Thom Tillis, a sponsor
of one of the bills. By early autumn, the momentum behind the effort had slowed; by Thanksgiving, Republican interest had melted
away. "I don't see any heightened kind of urgency, if you're talking about some of the reports around Flynn and others," Tillis said
recently. "I don't see any great risk."
In fact, the risk has swelled. Trump has publicly declared any investigation into his finances would constitute a red line,
and that he reserves the option to fire Mueller if he investigates them. Earlier this month, it was reported that
Mueller has subpoenaed records at Deutsche Bank , an institution favored both by Trump and the Russian spy network.
John Dowd, a lawyer for Trump, recently floated the wildly expansive defense that a "president cannot obstruct justice, because
he is the chief law-enforcement officer." Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett called the investigation "illegitimate and corrupt"
and declared that "the FBI has become America's secret police." Graham is now calling for a special counsel to investigate "Clinton
email scandal, Uranium One, role of Fusion GPS, and FBI and DOJ bias during 2016 campaign" -- i.e., every anti-Mueller conspiracy
theory. And perhaps as ominously, Trump's allies have been surfacing fallback defenses. Yes, "some conspiratorial quid pro quo between
somebody in the Trump campaign and somebody representing Vladimir Putin" is "possible," allowed
Wall Street Journal columnist
Holman Jenkins, but "we would be stupid not to understand that other countries have a stake in the outcome of our elections and,
by omission or commission, try to advance their interests. This is reality." The notion of a criminal conspiracy by a hostile nation
to intervene in the election in return for pliant foreign policy has gone from unthinkable to blasé, an offense only to naïve bourgeois
morality.
It is almost a maxim of the Trump era that the bounds of the unthinkable continuously shrink. The capitulation to Moore was a
dry run for the coming assault on the rule of law.
"... You are correct that there is no public source yet confirming the FBI paid Steele. However, the FBI's refusal to turn over relevant documents regarding their relationship with Steele tells me there was money paid. What is indisputable is that th information in the dossier was used as a predicate to seek permission from a FISA court to go after Trump and his team. That is outrageous. ..."
"... This is increasingly my take as well -- the FBI, CIA and NSA do seem to have "conspired" to destroy Donald Trump. I finger Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice, Benjamin Rhodes, and maybe Samantha Power as being involved in the flood of illegal leaks earlier in the year that did so much to pave the way for Mueller's appointment. ..."
You are correct that there is no public source yet confirming the FBI paid Steele. However, the FBI's refusal to turn over
relevant documents regarding their relationship with Steele tells me there was money paid. What is indisputable is that th information
in the dossier was used as a predicate to seek permission from a FISA court to go after Trump and his team. That is outrageous.
This is increasingly my take as well -- the FBI, CIA and NSA do seem to have "conspired" to destroy Donald Trump. I finger
Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice, Benjamin Rhodes, and maybe Samantha Power as being involved in the flood of illegal leaks earlier
in the year that did so much to pave the way for Mueller's appointment.
What I fail to understand is why Democrats are sitting back and cheering as these agencies work together to destroy a duly
elected President of the USA. Does anyone really believe that if these agencies get away with it this time they will stop with
Trump?
All these agencies are out of control and are completely unaccountable.
"... an angry Senator Senator Grassley - who was previously stonewalled by the FBI and DOJ from getting requested information about Strzok's unexpected removal - has issued a letter demanding FBI documents in advance of an upcoming Senatorial interview with the anti-Trump FBI agent. ..."
"... The Committee has previously written to Mr. Strzok requesting an interview to discuss his knowledge of improper political influence or bias in Justice Department or FBI activities during either the previous or current administration, the removal of James Comey from his position as Director of the FBI, the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Hillary Clinton, the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Donald J. Trump and his associates, and the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Russian interference in the 2016 election. To date, the Committee has received no letter in reply to that request. ..."
"... All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok regarding the decision to close the Clinton investigation without recommending any charges; ..."
"... I doubt that Strzok worked alone. ..."
"... This is one of the best re-caps of this whole sordid FBI obstruction/coverup situation: Strzok and Laufman had also interviewed Hillary. No recordings were made of the session. But Comey testified that it's a "crime to lie to us". Not for the Clintons and their associates. ..."
"... Hillary had told her interviewers that she hadn't received training on handling classified information, but she signed a document testifying that she had. Hillary claimed that she hadn't carried a second phone, but an aide, Justin Cooper, who made the server possible, testified that indeed she did . ..."
Following this weekend's shocking disclosure that Peter Strzok was removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation
of Russia-Trump election (having previously handled the Clinton email server probe and interviewing Michael Flynn) after allegedly
having exchanged anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton text messages with his mistress (who was an FBI lawyer working for Deputy FBI
Director Andrew McCabe), an angry Senator Senator Grassley - who was previously stonewalled by the FBI and DOJ from getting requested
information about Strzok's unexpected removal - has issued a letter demanding FBI documents in advance of an upcoming Senatorial
interview with the anti-Trump FBI agent.
In his letter to FBI director Christopher Wray, Grassley writes:
The Committee has previously written to Mr. Strzok requesting an interview to discuss his knowledge of improper political
influence or bias in Justice Department or FBI activities during either the previous or current administration, the removal of James
Comey from his position as Director of the FBI, the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Hillary Clinton, the DOJ's and FBI's activities
related to Donald J. Trump and his associates, and the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Russian interference in the 2016 election.
To date, the Committee has received no letter in reply to that request.
In advance of Mr. Strzok's interview, please provide the following communications, in the form of text messages or otherwise,
to the Committee no later than December 11, 2017:
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to then Director Comey's draft or final statement closing
the Clinton investigation, including all records related to the change in the portion of the draft language describing Secretary
Clinton's and her associates' conduct regarding classified information from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless";
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok regarding the decision to close the Clinton investigation
without recommending any charges;
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to opening the investigation into potential collusion
by the Trump campaign with the Russian government, including any FBI electronic communication (EC) authored or authorized by Mr.
Strzok and all records forming the basis for that EC;
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to the FBI's interactions with Christopher Steele relating
to the investigation into potential collusion by the Trump campaign with the Russian government, including any communications
regarding potential or realized financial arrangements with Mr. Steele;
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to any instance of the FBI relying on, or referring
to, information in Mr. Steele's memoranda in the course of seeking any FISA warrants, other search warrants, or any other judicial
process;
All FD-302s of FBI interviews of Lt. Gen. Flynn at which Mr. Strzok was present, as well as all related 1A documents (including
any contemporaneous handwritten notes); and
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok containing unfavorable statements about Donald J. Trump or
favorable statements about Hillary Clinton.
Since this will be the first - and so far only - glimpse inside the ideological motivations inside Mueller's prosecutorial team
the public will be greatly interested in finding what they reveal, especially those which show any direct communication between Strzok
and Comey.
"Whoa, and there's more on Peter Strzok. He exchanged anti-Trump texts with Lisa Page, another Mueller team member with whom
he was having an affair. She's deputy to Andrew McCabe."
"Surprise – it was Hillary Clinton supporter Peter Strzok told Comey that there was no proof of "intent" – BEFORE he had interviewed
HRC."
And of course, he was involved with the sketchy interview of Cheryl Mills
And Heather Samuelson
And voila, they were given immunity
He allowed Mills and Samuelson to attend the interview with Hillary
So Strzok exonerated Hillary, led the probe into Weiner's laptop that cleared Hillary, allowed major conflicts in the Clinton
investigation, and then took control of the Steele dossier probe into Trump, all while being a rabid anti-Trump, pro-Clinton partisan
in his personal life.
And when Mueller learned of this behavior he reassigned him instead of firing him, in order to prevent word getting out to
the public.
Sessions is culpable in the obstruction of justice UNLESS there is something big going on behind the scenes. The FBI will not
provide requested documentation. The choice is going to come down to reorganizing the FBI from outside that institution. I wouldn't
have a clue about legality or process of doing that, but that is what it will come down to. You can't expect these criminals to
do it on their own or to voluntarily place their heads in a noose with documentation.
They hire agents directly out of law school (at least it used to be that way). The idea was they NOT have any life experience
(or independent judgment). It's no accident.
They're "going all in." Doesn't matter what Hand the Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths at the Deep State
& their cohorts have been dealt.
Win, stolen or lost. They were going & are going "all in" with the PsyOp, Scripted False Narrative of Russia hacking the Elections
/ Russia / Putin / Trump Propaganda gone full retard via the Deep States Opeatives in the Presstitute Media.
The misconception is that individuals believe we are dealing with normal, sane human beings. We're not. Far from it. What we
are dealing with are sick, twisted, Pure Evil Criminal, Psychopathic, Satanic / Lucerferian elements from the CIA / Pentagram
Temple of Set Scum literally making Hell on Earth.
What's at Stake is the Deep State Global network of MultiNational Central Banking, Espionage, Murder, War, Torture, Destabilization
Campaigns, BlackMail, Extortion, Child / Human Trafficking, Drug / Gun Running, Money Laundering, Corruption, NSA spying, Media
control & control of the 17 Intelligence Agencies.
Most importantly, The Deep State controls all the distribution lines of the aforementioned. Especially the Coaxial Cable Communication
lines of Espionage spying & Surveillance State Apparatus / Infrastructure. Agencies all built on the British Model of Intelligence.
Purely Evil & Highly Compartmentalized Levels which function as a Step Pyramid Model of Authority / Monarch Reign Pyramid Model
of Authority.
That's what's at Stake. How this plays out is anyone's guess. The Pure Evil Criminal Psychopath Rogue elements of the Deep
State will not go quietly. If not dealt with now, they'll disappear only to resurface at a later date with one objective:
Total Complete Full Spectrum World Domination they seek through Power & Control.
It's those Select Highly Compartmentalized Criminal Pure Evil Rogue Elements at the Deep State Top that have had control since
the JFK Execution that have entrenched themselves for decades & refuse to relinquish Control.
This impure evil has been running the world since the time of the Pharoahs, it's ancient Babylonian mysticism/paganism and
it is nothing more than the worship of Lucifer; it has never died out, it just re-emerges as something far more wicked, vile and
sinister. They are all the sons and daughters of satan and do what he does - kill, steal and destroy.
It would be Nieve to think that hundreds of thousands of years of control over mankind be simply turned over by the Criminal
Pure Evil Psychopathic Elite. The Deep State will always exist. However, the Pure Evil Criminal Psychopathic Highly Compartmentalized
Rogue Levels of it are being delt with. Which is what the World is witnessing.
I'd bet there is more to the Pete Strzok story. I don't think Mueller canned him, and tried to keep that on the down-low, based
solely on Strzok's overt, naked partisanship. I'd bet that the content of Strzok's text messages, rather than the (partisan) tone
, will be revealing. Things are heating up...
How about a paragraph or 3 of detail, juxtaposing all of Trump's high crimes & misdemeanors against the Klinton machine? Keep
in mind however, you must go back 30+ years, because there are documented incidents (not rumors, innuendo or hype) of criminality
from the Klinton crime syndicate. Hopefully you have likewise documentation for Trump...
" Trumps Guilty" Guilty of what exactly? Mueller and the boys have been at it for almost a year now and coming up with a big
nothing burger. The charges Flynn peaded guilty to have nothing to do with colusion with the Russians simply ommiting details
of conversations with the Russian ambassador. Alan Dershowicz a prominate progressive and constitutional scholar and no friend
of Trump has stated in an interview he sees no basis for an obstruction of justice charge.
I doubt that Strzok worked alone. He apparently headed up the Hillary Protection Team (HPT) at the FBI. How did he
keep Hillary updated? Via Loretta Lynch?
This info request is limited...what about the Huma/Weiner computer?
The Senate smells blood in the water, but doesn't sense who will win, hence the cautious demand letter.
Pretty clear that FBI and much of DOJ have gone rogue, and no longer respond to the rest of the government.
This scandal will be so significant that it makes Watergate look like jaywalking.
You will know when the tide has turned when Democrat Senators go for DOJ blood (in order to distance themselves).
All of this will eventually be shown as something far more sinister than mere partisan agents. And those details will reveal
a whole new pattern of illegal, immoral, and traitorous conduct.
This is one of the best re-caps of this whole sordid FBI obstruction/coverup situation: Strzok and Laufman had also interviewed
Hillary. No recordings were made of the session. But Comey testified that it's a "crime to lie to us". Not for the Clintons and
their associates.
Hillary had told her interviewers that she hadn't received training on handling classified information, but she
signed a document testifying that she had. Hillary claimed that she hadn't carried a second phone, but an aide, Justin Cooper,
who made the server possible, testified
that indeed she did .
Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills told the same lie. These are the kinds of misstep that Team Mueller would have used to hang a
Trump associate. But Comey testified that Hillary Clinton did not lie. And that meant he was lying. Not only did Clinton's people
lie to the FBI. But the head of the FBI had lied for them.
The fix had been in all along.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WAS COMING FROM INSIDE THE FBI
please provide the following communications, in the form of text messages or otherwise, to the Committee no later than December
11, 2017....
First few questions for Mr. Strzok:
How many cell phones have you owned/used over the past 4 years?
Have you ever owned/used a throw away phone?
How many computers have you had/used over the past 4 years?
Have you ever owned/used/controlled a private server?
Have you ever thrown away a blackberry?
If you wanted to have private, secure communication regarding your obstruction of justice activities, would you avoid using
your office computer or cell phone?
I remain skeptical. After 46% of Americans are informed of some wrongdoing, Trump discovers it too.
Silly me, thinking that Trump, as president and having every law enforcement/spy agency at his command, should be finding out
long before me and I should be reading about what he DID, not what he is TWEETING.
Why isn't he personally confronting the principals? Remember "Your Fired"? I didn't and still don't watch TV, but I thought
he was famous for calling the person directly accountable before him, not tweeting or writing a letter to the editor or a prayer
request.
Trump didn't have this guy removed. His own people did, long ago. This is like the Mafia seeing a made man is so out of hand
that the Mafia itself turns him in.
We should be keen on watching results, not the evidence of what abject morons we are as Americans to have a government so nakedly
corrupt. I think the main problem is Americans, despite great genetics and being born into such wealthy conditions, are operating
with effective IQ's below sub-saharan Africa. If you take in television news as information, that's all a critically thinking
person needs to know about you. You're a three year old in terms of logic and reason.
I'm just too worn out with victory being right around the corner since at least as far back as Whitewater.
"... the news of Strzok's direct role in the statement that ultimately cleared the former Democratic presidential candidate of criminal wrongdoing, now combined with the fact that he was dismissed from special counsel Robert Mueller's team after exchanging private messages with an FBI lawyer that could be seen as favoring Clinton politically, may give ammunition to those seeking ways to discredit Mueller's Russia investigation. ..."
Over the weekend we noted that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's top FBI investigator into
'Russian meddling', agent
Peter Strzok, was removed from the probe due to the discovery of anti-Trump text messages
exchanged with a colleague (a colleague whom he also happened to be having an extra-marital
affair with).
Not surprisingly, the discovery prompted a visceral response from Trump via Twitter:
Tainted (no, very dishonest?) FBI "agent's role in Clinton probe under review." Led Clinton
Email probe. @foxandfriends Clinton money going
to wife of another FBI agent in charge.
Alas, as it turns out, Strzok, who was blatantly exposed as a political hack by his own
wreckless text messages, also had a leading role in the Hillary email investigation. And
wouldn't you know it, as CNN has
apparently just discovered, Strzok not only held a leading role in that investigation but
potentially single-handedly saved Hillary from prosecution by making the now-infamous change in
Comey's final statement to describe her email abuses as "extremely careless" rather than the
original language of "grossly negligent."
A former top counterintelligence expert at the FBI, now at the center of a political uproar
for exchanging private messages that appeared to mock President Donald Trump, changed a key
phrase in former FBI Director James Comey's description of how former secretary of state
Hillary Clinton handled classified information, according to US officials familiar with the
matter.
Electronic records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private
email server as the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division, changed Comey's earlier
draft language describing Clinton's actions as "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless," the
source said. The drafting process was a team effort, CNN is told, with a handful of people
reviewing the language as edits were made, according to another US official familiar with the
matter.
But the news of Strzok's direct role in the statement that ultimately cleared the former
Democratic presidential candidate of criminal wrongdoing, now combined with the fact that he
was dismissed from special counsel Robert Mueller's team after exchanging private messages with
an FBI lawyer that could be seen as favoring Clinton politically, may give ammunition to those
seeking ways to discredit Mueller's Russia investigation.
The FBI and the Justice Department declined to comment.
Of course, as we noted a month ago (see:
First Comey Memo Concluded Hillary Was "Grossly Negligent," Punishable By Jail ), the
change in language was significant since federal law states that "gross negligence" in handling
the nation's intelligence can be punished criminally with prison time or fines whereas "extreme
carelessness" has no such legal definition and/or ramifications.
In fact, Section 793 of federal law states that "gross negligence" with respect to the
handling of national defense documents is punishable by a fine and up to 10 years in prison
...so you can see why that might present a problem for Hillary.
"Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document,
writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan,
map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1)
through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or
delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed,
or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of
custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or
destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to
his superior officer -- shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years,
or both."
And just like that, the farce that has heretofore been referred to as the "Russian meddling
probe" has been exposed for what it really is...an extremely compromised political "witch
hunt".
As the phony Russian Witch Hunt continues, two groups are laughing at this excuse for a lost
election taking hold, Democrats and Russians!
This is the Mueller-Comey FBI crime family at its finest. James Comey was an highly paid
executive at Lockheed Martin just prior to being named FBI director, replacing his close
buddy Mueller who was FBI director. LM was also a high contributor to the Clinton Foundation
in its glory days, with suspicious ties to Comey's lawyer brother. Dickie Mueller seems to be
the brains of the whole cabal.
Where are the emails between this stork and the fbi page named kelly that he was having an
interoffice affair with? Its been proved she hated OUR PRESIDENT TRUMP of US(A). This stork
guy won't be getting the attention from this fbi page that he is in an interoffice
relationship with unless he acts the way she wants. Seems like these emails should be easy to
get by the lamestream wapo, failing nytimes, fakest of fake news cnn, etc.
When Strzok made the change, he provided incontrovertible proof of the FBI's obstruction
of justice in the Clinton case, as this article clearly explains:
Zero of this happens if the President hadn't been hammering in a public way for
intelligence leaks to be plugged and calling out the FBI and Comey relentlessly.....I think
it's a pretty good bet that one of the twenty seven leak investigations going on caught this
idiot..No way an Inspector General just happened upon Storks texts...that takes some
"wiretapping" or other counter measures..Now the dam has burst...Anyone defending the FBI and
it's integrity at this point needs to be hung...
Looks like people stating that Bill and Hillary were really Bonnie and Clyde of Washington political scene were right...
Notable quotes:
"... An Obama appointed government watchdog central to the Hillary Clinton email investigation says that he, his family and his office faced an 'intense backlash' from Clinton allies, who threatened him over findings that Clinton mishandled classified information. ..."
"... Former Inspector General Charles McCullough III told Fox News Chief Intel correspondent Catherine Herridge that he was under intense pressure from senior officials on the left – with one Clinton campaign official threatening that he and another government investigator would be immediately fired under a Hillary Clinton presidency: ..."
"... "It was told in no uncertain terms, by a source directly from the campaign, that we would be the first two to be fired - with [Clinton's] administration. That that was definitely going to happen. " –Charles McCullough III ..."
"... McCullough was recommended to Obama by then-Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, who told McCullough that Clinton's conduct was "extremely reckless," adding "the campaign will have heartburn about that." ..."
"... After the Clapper meeting, McCullough said his team was marginalized. "I was told by senior officials to keep [Clapper] out of it," he said, while acknowledging he tried to keep his boss in the loop. ..."
"... Instead of informing the American public that radical Islam was responsible for the attack, the Obama administration fabricated a story – peddling the lie that anger over an anti-Islamic YouTube video resulted in the attack, which led to the arrest and imprisonment of an innocent man . ..."
"... What's interesting about that, is an anonymous 4chan poster known as "FBI Anon" - whose breadcrumbs of information have been largely correct, posted on July 2, 2016 that Clinton had "SAP level programs on her server, which if made public, would literally cause an uprising and possibly foreign declarations of war." ..."
"... Then, on October 16, 2016 - three weeks before former FBI Director Comey cleared Clinton, "FBI Anon" elaborated on SAP programs and made an unverified claim about Clinton: ..."
"... Special Access Program is an intelligence program classified above top-secret. They are held on closed servers at secret locations. The only way to get one is if you are specifically read on to a program, have a need to know, then you must physically go to a location and pass through several layers of security to even look at the program. A good example in non-classified terms would be the locations and operations of our intelligence operatives around the glove, or our missile silo locations. SAP is granted on a need to know basis, and Hillary did not have any need to know any of the programs on her server. All I can tell you about the SAPs is that Hillary had them, and she did not have proper authority to have any of them. They were leaked to her by someone, and she did sell them to overseas donors. Possessing them alone makes her guilty of treason." - FBI Anon ..."
"... As the Clinton campaign geared up for the 2016 election, WikiLeaks documents reveal that Hillary's inner circle was already starting to spin the investigation – writing in an August 2015 email that "Clinton only used her account for unclassified email. When information is reviewed for public release, it is common for information previously unclassified to be upgraded to classified." ..."
"... This is getting juicy. Wonder what big event(s) is happening to bring this about today?? ..."
"... The whole government is sleazy. They all use secondary and tertiary communications to handle the shit they don't ever want brought before a committee (ie the people). ..."
"... Threatening retaliation against a Federal Inspector General isn't even a crime any more, I don't think. ..."
"... Looks like "obstruction of justice". Where's the MSM? ..."
"... "Hillary has been distressed,biting her nails lately" I don't think so. The woman is a pure psychopath. Noone (even his most ardent supporters) can truthfully deny that Trump is a narcissictic asshole. That's ok, and even admirable by some. But this bitch is pure evil with no conscience and a lust for power and money unequalled in our lifetime. ..."
An Obama appointed government watchdog central to the Hillary Clinton email investigation says that he, his family and his office
faced an 'intense backlash' from Clinton allies, who threatened him over findings that Clinton mishandled classified information.
Former Inspector General Charles McCullough III told
Fox News Chief Intel correspondent Catherine Herridge that he was under intense pressure from senior officials on the left –
with one Clinton campaign official threatening that he and another government investigator would be immediately fired under a Hillary
Clinton presidency:
"It was told in no uncertain terms, by a source directly from the campaign, that we would be the first two to be fired - with
[Clinton's] administration. That that was definitely going to happen. " –Charles McCullough III
As a refresher, over 2,100 classified emails were sent over Clinton's personal server, which was used exclusively for government
business. Despite this, former FBI Director James Comey – who had drafted Clinton's exoneration letter
months before reviewing evidence in the case – recommended that the DOJ not prosecute the case.
McCullough was recommended to Obama by then-Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, who told McCullough that Clinton's
conduct was "extremely reckless," adding "the campaign will have heartburn about that."
Via Fox News:
He [McCullough] said Clapper's Clinton email comments came during an in-person meeting about a year before the presidential
election – in late December 2015 or early 2016. "[Clapper] was as off-put as the rest of us were."
After the Clapper meeting, McCullough said his team was marginalized. "I was told by senior officials to keep [Clapper] out
of it," he said, while acknowledging he tried to keep his boss in the loop.
Egregious violations
In January 2016, McCullough told Republicans on the Senate Intelligence and Foreign Affairs committees that emails classified
above "Top Secret" had been passed through the former secretary of state's private, unsecure server – such as an
email about Benghazi she sent to daughter Chelsea
Clinton (using pseudonym
Diane Reynolds ) on the night of September 11th, 2012 from '@clintonemail.com' which not only divulged highly classified military
intel over a non-government server vulnerable to foreign surveillance – it also revealed that the Obama administration knew that
an "Al Queda-like group" was responsible for the attack.
One wonders what Chelsea's security clearance was at the time?
Instead of informing the American public that radical Islam was responsible for the attack, the Obama administration fabricated
a story – peddling the lie that anger over an anti-Islamic YouTube video resulted in the attack,
which led to the arrest and imprisonment of an innocent man .
Hillary knew it was an "Al Qeda-like group" hours after it happened when she told Chelsea ("Diane Reynolds") top secret information.
pic.twitter.com/LiOJj3jck1
What's interesting about that, is an anonymous 4chan poster known as "FBI Anon" - whose breadcrumbs of information have been
largely correct, posted on July 2, 2016 that
Clinton had "SAP level programs on her server, which if made public, would literally cause an uprising and possibly foreign declarations
of war."
Then, on October 16, 2016 - three weeks before former FBI Director Comey cleared Clinton, "FBI Anon" elaborated on SAP programs
and made an unverified claim about Clinton:
A Special Access Program is an intelligence program classified above top-secret. They are held on closed servers at secret
locations. The only way to get one is if you are specifically read on to a program, have a need to know, then you must physically
go to a location and pass through several layers of security to even look at the program. A good example in non-classified terms
would be the locations and operations of our intelligence operatives around the glove, or our missile silo locations. SAP is granted
on a need to know basis, and Hillary did not have any need to know any of the programs on her server. All I can tell you about the
SAPs is that Hillary had them, and she did not have proper authority to have any of them. They were leaked to her by someone, and
she did sell them to overseas donors. Possessing them alone makes her guilty of treason." -
FBI Anon
Turncoat?
In response to McCullough's findings, Democrats turned their backs on the Obama-appointed Inspector General for doing his job."All
of a sudden I became a shill of the right," McCullough said, adding "And I was told by members of Congress, 'Be careful. You're losing
your credibility. You need to be careful. There are people out to get you.'"
McCullough told Fox of "an effort certainly on the part of the campaign to mislead people into thinking that there was nothing
to see here."
Damage Control
As the Clinton campaign geared up for the 2016 election, WikiLeaks documents reveal that Hillary's inner circle was already
starting to spin the investigation – writing in an August 2015 email that "Clinton only used her account for unclassified email.
When information is reviewed for public release, it is common for information previously unclassified to be upgraded to classified."
McCullough was critical of this response, telling Fox "There was an effort certainly on the part of the campaign to mislead people
into thinking that there was nothing to see here."
In response to the Inspector General's pushback, seven senior Democrats sent a letter to McCullough and his counterpart at the
State Department, raising concerns over the impartiality of the Clinton email investigation. McCullough, however, was not arriving
at any conclusions himself – he was simply passing along the findings of individual government agencies on appropriate classifications
assigned to the emails.
Fox News reports:
McCullough described one confrontation with Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein's office just six weeks before the election, amid
pressure to respond to the letter – which Feinstein had co-signed.
"I thought that any response to that letter would just hyper-politicize the situation," McCullough said. "I recall even offering
to resign, to the staff director. I said, 'Tell [Feinstein] I'll resign tonight. I'd be happy to go. I'm not going to respond to
that letter. It's just that simple."
As Election Day approached, McCullough said the threats went further, singling out him and another senior government investigator
on the email case.
Inquiries sent by Fox to both Feinstein and Clapper were not returned at the time of publication.
Watch:
Herridge: "Was there an effort to deliberately mislead the public about [
@HillaryClinton ] classified emails?" McCullough:
"Absolutely." pic.twitter.com/UOwC5BoJ41
Trial? She will never be brought to trial. At WORST she gets a slap on the cankle that Trump pardons her for right afterwords.
The whole government is sleazy. They all use secondary and tertiary communications to handle the shit they don't ever want
brought before a committee (ie the people).
This pisses me off the most out of the entire thread. How this is possible is both amazing and unsustainable. People should
be rolled up and in supermax with red eyes from being questioned 24/7
Everyone seems to have missed the process that is going on here. There are numerous steps required to "lock her up", and they
must be taken in the correct order. These include things like "overthrowing the Saudi government and replacing it with a more
friendly leader", "destroying the credibility of the MSM", "exposing the crimes of the intelligence community", "exposing sexual
(and other) abuse among the neoliberal donor class", etc.
This is a massive and complicated system that is being unwound. It was never going to happen overnight. Prosecutions will come,
but only after they have lost their ability to evade the consequences of their actions. I suspect we are getting very close now.
I think it will happen before the midterms.
There is some reason this won't die? Strange these people keep coming out of the woodwork?
Trump could save a lot of face if he could get, at a minimum, public acceptance of Hillary and the Clinton group exposed and
verified as corrupt and dishonest. Could we see a trial, not sure but think a special counsel that drags out the truth would be
most helpful.
Hillary has been distressed, biting her nails lately but then she just did a glory days speech in China where she hit at Trump
and Tillerson for poor performance? She may be attempting to collect herself knowing she faces some critical headwinds shortly,
one can hope?
Getting ready to cover another false flag event perhaps? They're gonna need to bring down more high-risers to sweep this under
the rug. What's Mossad up to these days?
"Hillary has been distressed,biting her nails lately" I don't think so. The woman is a pure psychopath. Noone (even his
most ardent supporters) can truthfully deny that Trump is a narcissictic asshole. That's ok, and even admirable by some. But this
bitch is pure evil with no conscience and a lust for power and money unequalled in our lifetime.
why do they use the SARS law against me when I want to bank with money over $10,000 or at 10 (hell I don't even know what the
details of this BS law is exactly but I know it BITES "normal people" if you screw up) so why not use that against the Clinton
Foundation, or Soros. Then they can be in supermax awaiting trial. And we can start getting a new narrative that holds truth and
therefore light at the end of this dark hell. If SOROS, and CLINTON and Lynch and Holder and on and can't be arrested then there's
no LAW ANYMORE
they are the ones actually funding domestic terrorists vs me or grandma ripping off our savings and saying we're scum
you think the chains that keep the dogs from biting will hold much longer? You better be right.
I doubt anything will happen to her, that's why mueller was appointed, so he can destroy any damaging evidence, and he has
a boatload of clintonista backup.
Actually Trump pardoning her would not necessarily be a bad thing. According to the Supreme Court a pardon is an admission
of guilt and therefore claiming the 5th amendment is no longer a viable alternative. So if Trump were to pardon Hillary, she would
be forced to provide testimony on EVERYTHING. Sure she wouldn't go to jail (unless she lies under oath) but her and Bill's corruption
scheme would be completely destroyed and she would be done forever.
I am not saying this is preferable but it is an alternative.
Obama-Appointed Federal Inspector Threatened By Clinton Campaign Over Email Investigation
My response: I will bet there were a lot of people who wanted to come forward, but were afraid for their lives and well being
if they did come forward.
I completely agree. It is astounding on how much illegal and unconstitutional Obama's actions were and yet he is boasted as
being such an amazing president. It is also incredibly odd that the MSM forgets how Obama literally used the intelligence apparatus
to spy on journalists and had raids done on them for publishing leaks.
kidbuck has worked at a half dozen government agencies both federal and state. Saw felonious behavior at every site. The whistle
blower ALWAYS fared worse than the felons. It has to do with the fact that so many people observed the illegal behavior and said
and did nothing that they were effectively condoning it and thus guilty themselves.
I have no doubt that the Secret Service would love to drop her worthless ass off at prison and be done with the old hag. However,
this brings up an interesting point. If she were sentenced to prison, would she be required to forfeit her Secret Service protective
detail?
It's the mechanism of how Crime Syndicate's function specifically the Criminal Globalist Administions that have been able to
Tyrannically Govern with Impunity decade after decade.
Present Administration's never Investigate previous ones out of fear that future Administrations may investigate the current
one.
Thus, making them Criminal Accessories to previous Administrations War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity & Crimes Against The
American People.
War Criminal Obama's "moving forward" on War Criminal Bush Administration Torture, Lying The American People into War, the
beginning of mass Surveillance of The American room 641A at Criminal AT&T are but just some examples of the Tyrannical Lawlessness
we see before us.
There are absolutely No stature of limitations on War Crimes.
She had SAP documents that she was not authorized to have in her possession, she sold them to overseas donors and yet Sessions
is doing NOTHING about this? Trump needs to fire that asshole along with every FBI motherfucker that has obstructed or otherwise
delayed/obfuscated this fact. Also, a full investigation on who leaked this information to Hillary. There are only a handful of
people read in on any specific program. It shouldn't be hard to polygraph each one of those read in to the specific program they
found on her server. This is a fucking outrage and the fact that idiot Sessions is doing nothing is just as great an outrage as
Hillary. They are both fucking traitors!
Sessions is too busy going after States that legalized cannabis and ramping up civil asset forfeiture. Sessions will never
go after Clinton because he is deathly afraid of prosecuting politicians and believes "only banana republics go after political
opponents." So there you have it, straight from the AG's mouth. Criminals can be successful and immune from prosecution if they
are in the club of "politics." As a politician, anything goes. Rules for thee and not for me as the saying goes. Thanks, Jeff!
Fucking coward!
Sessions (and big pharma) needs to face the reality that legal weed is here to stay. If they let the industry access the banking
system ( instead of risking money laundering and wire fraud charges) it would grow even faster.
Let's face it, GOVT hates small entrepreneurship business so that means they hate us, hate job growth, hate widespread prosperity.
Sessions' most current statements do not reflect that. CAF is becoming a problem in terms of crooked cops and ordinary people
exploited by them however, these laws may help crush groups such as MS13 as well as some swamp creatures so it may be a necessary
evil for a time. We just need to stay vigilant and apply great pressure when abuse occurs.
She sold out America to foreign enemies. In former days when we had a Rule of Law, Hillary would be indicted and found guilty
of espionage (at the least) and executed.
"... "The FBI is out of control. It is stunning that the FBI 'found' these Clinton-Lynch tarmac records only after we caught the
agency hiding them in another lawsuit," stated Judicial Watch Tom Fitton. "Judicial Watch will continue to press for answers about the
FBI's document games in court. In the meantime, the FBI should stop the stonewall and release these new records immediately." ..."
"... This case has also forced the FBI to release to the public the FBI's Clinton investigative file, although more than half of
the records remain withheld. The FBI has also told Judicial Watch that it anticipates completing the processing of these materials by
July 2018. ..."
"... There is significant controversy about whether the FBI and Obama Justice Department investigation gave Clinton and other witnesses
and potential targets preferential treatment. ..."
"... So what say you? Will Judicial Watch finally manage to release documents that expose collusion between a former U.S. President,
the FBI and the sitting Attorney General to cover-up a massive Clinton scandal or will they simply release more heavily redacted documents
that tell us precisely nothing. We'll let you know on Thursday ..."
"... Get rid of all alphabet agencies. Judicial watch can replace the eff bee eye ..."
"... They certainly don't give off the dashing, danger seeking, savior-faire, panache vibe that the Alinsky press so luuuv's to
talk about, like with "former British spies" delivering the fake goods but ...when it comes right down to it... ..."
"... I highly recommend making charitable contributions to Judicial Watch. Freedom isn't free, and JW is helping, a whole lot more
than the MSM which isn't doing its job very well. But Kudos to the reporter who spotted Clinton and Lynch on the tarmac in Phoenix!
..."
"... I think it's foolish for JW to claim victory before seeing the documents. How would it have hurt to just wait a couple of days
before coming out with this story? If this turns out to be a nothing burger it just strengthens Clinton and makes JW look stupid. ..."
After originally being told by the FBI there were no documents to produce in response to their July 2016 FOIA request, Judicial
Watch's Tom Fitton was subsequently told in October 2017 that the FBI had simply overlooked 30 pages worth of relevant docs... 30
pages which Fitton now says will mark the "beginning of the end" of the DOJ's "cover-up" when they're released this Thursday.
FBI Hid Clinton/Lynch Tarmac Meeting Records. But the cover-up begins to end -- thanks to @JudicialWatch -- the day after tomorrow.
@RealDonaldTrump needs to clean house at FBI/DOJ.
Of course, Fitton expressed his frustration with the botched FOIA response back in October after describing the FBI as "out of
control" and saying it's " stunning that the FBI 'found' these Clinton-Lynch tarmac records only after we caught the agency hiding
them in another lawsuit." Per
Judicial Watch :
"The FBI is out of control. It is stunning that the FBI 'found' these Clinton-Lynch tarmac records only after we caught
the agency hiding them in another lawsuit," stated Judicial Watch Tom Fitton. "Judicial Watch will continue to press for answers
about the FBI's document games in court. In the meantime, the FBI should stop the stonewall and release these new records immediately."
This case has also forced the FBI to release to the public the FBI's Clinton investigative file, although more than half of
the records remain withheld. The FBI has also told Judicial Watch that it anticipates completing the processing of these materials
by July 2018.
There is significant controversy about whether the FBI and Obama Justice Department investigation gave Clinton and other witnesses
and potential targets preferential treatment.
So what say you? Will Judicial Watch finally manage to release documents that expose collusion between a former U.S. President,
the FBI and the sitting Attorney General to cover-up a massive Clinton scandal or will they simply release more heavily redacted
documents that tell us precisely nothing. We'll let you know on Thursday.
They certainly don't give off the dashing, danger seeking, savior-faire, panache vibe that the Alinsky press so luuuv's
to talk about, like with "former British spies" delivering the fake goods but ...when it comes right down to it...
"Do you want 10yrs of ass pounding prison with a guy named Daisy we know or do you want to give up the goods we can prove you
have?"
...even Grand Inquisitor Mueller will buckle and sob like a pussyhat wearing feminist on inauguration day 2017.
Loyalty only goes as far as the last check with them and the money's running out ;-)
I highly recommend making charitable contributions to Judicial Watch. Freedom isn't free, and JW is helping, a whole lot
more than the MSM which isn't doing its job very well. But Kudos to the reporter who spotted Clinton and Lynch on the tarmac in
Phoenix!
One wonders how the Clinton's found out about Lynch being there, as it certainly wasn't a coincidence.
I think it's foolish for JW to claim victory before seeing the documents. How would it have hurt to just wait a couple
of days before coming out with this story? If this turns out to be a nothing burger it just strengthens Clinton and makes JW look
stupid.
"... An early draft of former FBI Director James Comey's statement closing out the Hillary Clinton email case accused the former Secretary of State of having been 'grossly negligent" in handling classified information, new memos to Congress show. ..."
"... "There is evidence to support a conclusion that Secretary Clinton, and others, used the email server in a manner that was grossly negligent with respect to the handling of classified information," reads the statement, one of Comey's earliest drafts. ..."
"... Of course, Comey's final statement, while critical of Hillary's email usage, alleged that no prosecutor would pursue charges against actions which he described only as "extremely careless." ..."
"... Meanwhile, Section 793 of federal law states that "gross negligence" with respect to the handling of national defense documents is punishable by a fine and up to 10 years in prison ...so you can see why that might present a problem for Hillary. ..."
"... ...that said, we're going to go out on a limb and question whether it just might have had something to do with that infamous meeting between Bill Clinton and then Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Comey's boss, that happened just 6 days before Comey made his statement? ..."
The Hill , early drafts of former FBI Director James Comey's statement on Hillary Clinton's email case accused the former Secretary
of State of "gross negligence" in her handling of classified information as opposed to the "extremely careless" phrase that made
its way into the final statement.
As The Hill further points out, the change in language is significant since federal law states that "gross negligence" in handling
the nation's intelligence can be punished criminally with prison time or fines whereas "extreme carelessness" has no such legal definition
and/or ramifications.
An early draft of former FBI Director James Comey's statement closing out the Hillary Clinton email case accused the former
Secretary of State of having been 'grossly negligent" in handling classified information, new memos to Congress show.
The tough language was changed to the much softer accusation that Clinton had been "extremely careless" in her handling of classified
information when Comey announced in July 2016 there would be no charges against her.
The draft, written weeks before the announcement of no charges, was described by multiple sources who saw the document both before
and after it was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee this past weekend.
"There is evidence to support a conclusion that Secretary Clinton, and others, used the email server in a manner that was
grossly negligent with respect to the handling of classified information," reads the statement, one of Comey's earliest drafts.
Those sources said the draft statement was subsequently changed in red-line edits to conclude that the handling of 110 emails
containing classified information that were transmitted by Clinton and her aides over her insecure personal email server was "extremely
careless."
Of course, Comey's final statement, while critical of Hillary's email usage, alleged that no prosecutor would pursue charges
against actions which he described only as "extremely careless."
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling
of the classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified
information."
"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those
with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."
Meanwhile, Section 793 of federal law states that "gross negligence" with respect to the handling of national defense documents
is punishable by a fine and up to 10 years in prison ...so you can see why that might present a problem for Hillary.
"Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch,
photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national
defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in
violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally
removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or
destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer -- shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
Unfortunately, The Hill's sources couldn't confirm the most important detail behind this bombshell new revelation, namely who
made the call to the change the language...
The sources, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media, said the memos show
that at least three top FBI officials were involved in helping Comey fashion and edit the statement, including Deputy Director Andrew
McCabe, General Counsel James Baker and Chief of Staff Jim Rybicki.
The documents turned over to Congress do not indicate who recommended the key wording changes, the sources said. The Senate Judiciary
Committee is likely to demand the FBI identify who made the changes and why, the sources said.
...that said, we're going to go out on a limb and question whether it just might have had something to do with that infamous
meeting between Bill Clinton and then Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Comey's boss, that happened just 6 days before Comey made his
statement?
The mere presence of a private server that sent/received classified information is THE EVIDENCE that she intended to mishandle
classified information. Jesus H. Christ on a cracker what are these people smoking? That's like saying that just because you were
drunk and decided to drive that you didn't intend to drive drunk.
" ...early drafts of former FBI Director James Comey's statement on Hillary Clinton's email case accused the former Secretary
of State of "gross negligence" in her handling of classified information as opposed to the "extremely careless" phrase that made
its way into the final statement."
"... The pressure this time emanated from a federal lawsuit that brought the documents to light. Specifically, the lawsuit was filed
by Judicial Watch to determine exactly when FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe recused himself from the Clinton email investigation,
which was codenamed "Mid Year." McCabe was forced to step aside due to questions about a possible conflict of interest involving hundreds
of thousands of dollars of money that flowed to his wife's political campaign from a Clinton ally. ..."
"... The newly disclosed documents, presented in their entirety below, reveal that McCabe did not recuse himself from the long-running
investigation until Nov. 1, 2016, just six days before the probe was officially ended and eight days before Trump defeated Clinton in
one of the greatest upset victories in modern presidential politics. ..."
"... After months of inexplicable delays, the chairman of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and
Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), announced a joint investigation into how the Justice Department handled last year's investigation into Hillary
Clinton's private email server. The Senate Judiciary Committee had announced its own investigation weeks earlier. ..."
"... The bureau's decision to release the documents is a sign that new FBI Director Chris Wray, is attempting to build his own relationship
with Congress amid multiple oversight investigations. ..."
In September, Comey, - much like Hillary's former IT consultant Paul Combetta who admitted to deleting Hillary's emails despite
the existence of a Congressional subpoena - had his very own "oh shit" moment when a witness confirmed during Congressional testimony
that Comey started drafting his letter excusing Clinton months before the investigation was finished. Since then, the bureau has
decided to begin turning over all documents requested by Congress, including memos pertaining to the infamous 'Trump dossier' after
initially resisting a subpoena from the House Intel committee.
... ... ...
The pressure this time emanated from a federal lawsuit that brought the documents to light. Specifically, the lawsuit was filed
by Judicial Watch to determine exactly when FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe recused himself from the Clinton email investigation,
which was codenamed "Mid Year." McCabe was forced to step aside due to questions about a possible conflict of interest involving
hundreds of thousands of dollars of money that flowed to his wife's political campaign from a Clinton ally.
On Friday, Bloomberg
reported that in their quest to discover the the FBI Deputy Director may know, Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee
threatened to subpoena McCabe next week unless he agrees to appear before their panel.
They intend on pressing McCabe on topics including his role in the FBI's investigation into former White House National Security
Advisor Michael Flynn, said the official, who asked not to be identified discussing the members' plans. Interest in McCabe goes beyond
Flynn, however, the official said.
McCabe's role in the Clinton probe is especially conflicted: last October,
the WSJ reported
that the political organization of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, an influential Democrat with longstanding ties to Bill and Hillary
Clinton, gave nearly $500,000 to the election campaign of McCabe's wife, shortly before he helped oversee the FBI "investigation"
into Clinton's email use.
Campaign finance records show Mr. McAuliffe's political-action committee donated $467,500 to the 2015 state Senate campaign of
Dr. Jill McCabe, who is married to Andrew McCabe, now the deputy director of the FBI.
The Virginia Democratic Party, over which Mr. McAuliffe exerts considerable control, donated an additional $207,788 worth of support
to Dr. McCabe's campaign in the form of mailers, according to the records. That adds up to slightly more than $675,000 to her candidacy
from entities either directly under Mr. McAuliffe's control or strongly influenced by him. The figure represents more than a third
of all the campaign funds Dr. McCabe raised in the effort.
The newly disclosed documents, presented in their entirety below, reveal that McCabe did not recuse himself from the long-running
investigation until Nov. 1, 2016, just six days before the probe was officially ended and eight days before Trump defeated Clinton
in one of the greatest upset victories in modern presidential politics.
After months of inexplicable delays, the chairman of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and
Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), announced a joint investigation into how the Justice Department handled last year's investigation into Hillary
Clinton's private email server. The Senate Judiciary Committee had announced its own investigation weeks earlier.
The bureau's decision to release the documents is a sign that new FBI Director Chris Wray, is attempting to build his own
relationship with Congress amid multiple oversight investigations.
If Sessions appoints a special prosecutor for Uranium-1, on the basis that all that lovely yellow cake has left the country
for parts unknown, contravening guarantees made to Congress (the FBI informant hopefully this week is key), obviously there is
no link to Hillary that could affect Sessions recusal - because the MSM have been telling us ad infinitum there is nothing to
see there...
Sessions and his recusal are then out of the frame, and the SP can go down every fucking rabbit hole he chooses (same as Mueller
is doing). If, perchance, they lead him to the doors of the Clinton Foundation, or God forbid, the scroat herself, that is fuck
all to do with the AG.
In order to have zero influence in the control of the evidence from hereon in, McCabe and Rosenstein (and likely many of their
Obama placeholder deputies in the FBI and DoJ) need to be removed immediately.
The evidence is all on the Weiner laptop, and on all the Awan laptops and desktops. But they do have to actually look at them....
Looks like Sessions is being skunked and humiliated by the DoJ permanent staff who always adored Hillary and Obama, and still
do.
FBI officials declined to comment. "We don't have any information for you," spokeswoman Carol Cratty told The Hill.
That is not acceptable spokeswoman Carol Cratty. You are a servant to the people and answer to us! Now get your ass in gear
and bring out the information or you will also be charged with obstruction of justice.
Sessions is a spinless douche bag. He recused himself from Clinton fountion because he said something negative about the candidate
and it might hurt his objectivity? What a coward this guy is, he wants nothing to do with prosecuting Clinton. Fire this pussy
already Trump!!
My guess is TPTB are seeing their stories are becoming so fantastic and hard to believe they're straining their last tiny threads
of credulity so they're trying to placate with these batches of files.. The lovely and charming mrs. chunga likes to watch the
weather report in the morning. She normally has the discipline to not get too fired up about fake news because she's convinced
it's all fake but this AM she was livid.
The little fake news pinhead said Trump was fleeing the country because he was in grave danger of Mueller and the Russian collusion
business was closing in on him. He said the Uranium One thing had been "thouroughly debunked". No mention of Brazile. No mention
of Warren.
Then some tribe guy legal expert came on and said Sessions was again in Trump's dog house and any attempt to push him around
was a desperate diversion tactic and the "Murikan people want Mueller to continue without interference. LoL!
My theory is Comey re-opened the investigation when the Weiner laptop popped up. Then it was closed 8 days later after it had
positively been secured and everyone who'd seen it was sufficiently threatened and/or killed by federal black hats.
FBI Turns Over Hundreds Of Pages Of New Clinton Probe Documents
My response: IT IS ABOUT TIME!!!! What an absolute screwed up mess this whole CLINTON episode has become.
IF YOU WANT IT REALLY SCREWED UP, JUST LET THE MARXIST PROGRESS LIBERAL LAWYERS AND JUDGES GET INVOLVED.
AG Jeff Sessions really needs to step up to the bar here or GET THE HELL OUT!!!!
By the way, AG Sessions better make RICE, LOIS LERNER (IRS), HOLDER, LYNCH and OBAMA a key focus in the weeks ahead. These
people are corrupt to the core.
Yes I mean both of them. McAuliffe too. McAuliffe is the one who stood down the Virginia police and is responsible for all
the mayhem in Charlottesville.
Go to jail Terry you corrupt son of a b****. Terry was on the board of the Clinton Foundation.
And while we're at it there's Tim Kaine former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, which apparently was bankrupt
enough for Hillary Clinton to take over with some of her ill-gotten gains to guarantee herself the Democratic nomination and steal
the nomination from Bernie Sanders. And we can see how corrupt the DNC is can't we?
So we can dump Kaine because he had to know about uranium one. He had to know about the Perkins Coie pissgate "dossier". He
is thick in this too.
Smashed hard drives, deleted emails, pleading the 5th, immunity deals. This is politics at the highest level. No one goes to
jail that is or was in a position of power and spotlight. It's a failure of government and a failure of justice. All it does is
what the left wants - divide and conquer.
As a reminder, all the data to date suggests that Hillary broke the following 11 US CODES. I provided the links for your convenience.
HRC needs to immediately be apprehended, Arrested, Indicted, Enprisoned, Tried, Convicted & Executed.
CEO aka "President" TRUMP was indeed correct when he said: "FBI Director Comey was the best thing that ever happened to Hillary
Clinton in that he gave her a free pass for many bad deeds!"
18 USC Sec. 2384?TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE?PART I - CRIMES?CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE
ACTIVITIES http://trac.syr.edu/laws/18/18USC02384.html
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their
enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or
shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of
holding any office under the United States. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381
The Preponderance of Evidence suggests that she broke these Laws, Knowingly, Willfully and Repeatedly. This pattern indicates
a habitual/career Criminal, who belongs in Federal Prison awaiting Trail for Treason, Sedition, Crimes Against Humanity & Crimes
Against The American People.
**Side Note**
Mueller, Comey, Obama, Lynch, Jarrett, Clapper, Brennan, Wasserman-Shultz are not immune from the above charges.
Comey is actually a politician. And he definitely wanted to keep Russiagate hot, and probably was
instrumental in creating it ... As this situation suits him political desire for higher autonomy from
Justice Department
Notable quotes:
"... James Comey asserted in his extraordinary testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is authorized to override Justice Department oversight procedures, a questionable claim which if true would raise serious questions about long-standing rules aimed at preventing abuses by federal law enforcement officials. ..."
"... The former head of the FBI told the Senate panel that he believed he had received a direction from the president in February that the FBI end its investigation of Michael Flynn's alleged involvement with Russia -- a direction with which he and his kitchen-cabinet of "FBI senior leadership" unilaterally decided not to comply. The Comey cabinet then decided that it would not report the receipt of this direction to Attorney General Jeff Sessions or any other Justice Department superior. ..."
"... Rosenstein criticized Comey's decision to act without consultation from the Department of Justice as usurping the Attorney General's authority and an attempt to "supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. Comey had violated a "well-established process" for how to deal with situations where to Attorney General faces a conflict of interest, according to Rosenstein. ..."
"... "The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016," Rosenstein wrote. "The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department . ..."
"... Comey's assertion that the FBI can override standard protocols could endanger that independence, according to a former high-ranking federal law enforcement official. ..."
"... "Mr. Comey is describing an FBI director who essentially answers to no one. But the police powers of the government are awesome and often abused, and the only way to prevent or correct abuses is to report to elected officials who are accountable to voters. A director must resist intervention to obstruct an investigation, but he and the agency must be politically accountable or risk becoming the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover," the Wall Street Journal wrote . ..."
"... A 2005 report from the FBI's Office of Inspector General on the Department of Justice's guidelines for FBI investigations stated, "Attorneys General and FBI leadership have uniformly agreed that the Attorney General Guidelines are necessary and desirable, and they have referred to the FBI's adherence to the Attorney General Guidelines as the reason why the FBI should not be subjected to a general legislative charter or to statutory control over the exercise of some of its most intrusive authorities. " ..."
James Comey asserted in his extraordinary testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee
that the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is authorized to override Justice Department
oversight procedures, a questionable claim which if true would raise serious questions about long-standing
rules aimed at preventing abuses by federal law enforcement officials.
The former head of the FBI told the Senate panel that he believed he had received a direction
from the president in February that the FBI end its investigation of Michael Flynn's alleged involvement
with Russia -- a direction with which he and his kitchen-cabinet of "FBI senior leadership" unilaterally
decided not to comply. The Comey cabinet then decided that it would not report the receipt of this
direction to Attorney General Jeff Sessions or any other Justice Department superior.
The group decided that it could override standard FBI protocol and possibly legal obligations
to report the incident because of its expectations that Sessions would recuse himself from the Russia
matter, although that recusal would not come until weeks later. The Comey cabinet also decided that
it wasn't obligated to approach the acting Deputy Attorney General because he would likely be replaced
soon.
"We concluded it made little sense to report it to Attorney General Sessions, who we expected
would likely recuse himself from involvement in Russia-related investigations. (He did so two weeks
later.) The Deputy Attorney General's role was then filled in an acting capacity by a United States
Attorney, who would also not be long in the role," Comey said. "After discussing the matter, we decided
to keep it very closely held, resolving to figure out what to do with it down the road as our investigation
progressed."
According to three different former federal law enforcement officials, who spoke on the condition
of anonymity, there is no precedent for the director of the FBI to refuse to inform a Deputy Attorney
General of a matter because of his or her "acting" status nor to use the expectation of a recusal
as a basis for withholding information.
"This is an extraordinary usurpation of power. Not something you'd expect from the supposedly
by-the-books guys at the top of the FBI," one of those officials told Breitbart News.
The closest precedent to the Comey cabinet's decision to conceal information from Justice Department
superiors is likely Comey's widely criticized earlier decision to go public about the investigation
of Hillary Clinton's emails. That decision received a sharp rebuke in the May 9 memo by Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein that formed the basis for Comey's firing by Trump.
Rosenstein criticized Comey's decision to act without consultation from the Department of
Justice as usurping the Attorney General's authority and an attempt to "supplant federal prosecutors
and assume command of the Justice Department. Comey had violated a "well-established process" for
how to deal with situations where to Attorney General faces a conflict of interest, according to
Rosenstein.
"The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016," Rosenstein
wrote. "The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta
Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and
assume command of the Justice Department . There is a well-established process for other
officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however,
the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation's most sensitive criminal investigation,
without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders."
Comey's testimony on Thursday seemed to double-down on this defense, which amounts to a claim
that the FBI's top agents can act outside of the ordinary processes intended to establish oversight
and accountability at the nation's top law enforcement agency.
The FBI's adherence to Department of Justice guidelines and instructions from Attorneys General
has been a centerpiece of its ongoing independence, often cited by officials as a reason why the
FBI does not need a general legislative charter that would restrict or control by statute its authority.
Comey's assertion that the FBI can override standard protocols could endanger that independence,
according to a former high-ranking federal law enforcement official.
"He's not only put the credibility of the bureau in doubt, he's now putting the entire basis for
our independence in jeopardy," the official said.
The official pointed to an editorial in the Wall Street Journal as explaining the dangers of an
FBI that decides not to inform the Department of Justice of its activities.
"Mr. Comey is describing an FBI director who essentially answers to no one. But the police
powers of the government are awesome and often abused, and the only way to prevent or correct abuses
is to report to elected officials who are accountable to voters. A director must resist intervention
to obstruct an investigation, but he and the agency must be politically accountable or risk becoming
the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover," the
Wall Street
Journal wrote .
A 2005 report from the FBI's
Office of Inspector General on the Department of Justice's guidelines for FBI investigations stated,
"Attorneys General and FBI leadership have uniformly agreed that the Attorney General Guidelines
are necessary and desirable, and they have referred to the FBI's adherence to the Attorney General
Guidelines as the reason why the FBI should not be subjected to a general legislative charter or
to statutory control over the exercise of some of its most intrusive authorities. "
Neocons still dream of Trump impeachment. Neutering him is not enough... the number of potentially illegal wiretaps of Trump associates
suggests that threr was a plan to derail plan in three letter agencies headquarters (with blessing of Obama). Plan of interfere with
the US election to be exact.
Notable quotes:
"... Reports that the FBI wiretapped former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort are a further sign of the seriousness of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's investigation. But there's still a great deal we don't know about the implications, if any, for the broader inquiry into possible Russian ties to the Trump campaign. ..."
"... The other import of this news involves the possible implications if Manafort is charged. The New York Times reported Monday that when Manafort's home was searched in July, investigators told him he should expect to be indicted. ..."
"... A typical white-collar investigation often proceeds by building cases against lower-level participants in a scheme -- the little fish -- and then persuading them to cooperate in the investigation of the bigger fish. Trump and his associates therefore may have reason to be concerned about what Manafort could tell investigators, if he were indicted and chose to cooperate. ..."
"... Again, much of this is speculation. Due to grand jury secrecy and the secrecy surrounding the FISA process, we don't know many of the details. And given the typical pace of these investigations, whatever happens likely will not happen quickly. ..."
Then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort at the Republican National Convention. (Matt Rourke/Associated Press)
Reports that the FBI wiretapped former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort are a further sign of the seriousness of special counsel
Robert S. Mueller III's investigation. But there's still a great deal we don't know about the implications, if any, for the broader
inquiry into possible Russian ties to the Trump campaign.
CNN
reported
Monday night that the FBI obtained a warrant to listen in on Manafort's phone calls back in 2014. The warrant was part of an
investigation into U.S. firms that may have performed undisclosed work for the Ukrainian government. The surveillance reportedly
lapsed for a time but was begun again last year when the FBI learned about possible ties between Russian operatives and Trump associates.
This news is a big deal primarily because of what it takes to obtain such a wiretap order. The warrant reportedly was issued under
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. A FISA warrant requires investigators to demonstrate to the FISA court that there is probable
cause to believe the target may be acting as an unlawful foreign agent.
When
news broke last month that Mueller was using a grand jury to conduct his investigation, many reported it with unnecessary breathlessness.
Although a grand jury investigation is certainly significant, a prosecutor does not need court approval or a finding of probable
cause to issue a grand jury subpoena, and Mueller's use of a grand jury
was not unexpected .
A FISA warrant is another matter. It means investigators have demonstrated probable cause to an independent judicial authority.
Obtaining a warrant actually says much more about the strength of the underlying allegations than issuing a grand jury subpoena.
That's also why the search warrant
executed at Manafort's home in July was such a significant step in the investigation. Unlike a grand jury subpoena, the search
warrant required Mueller's team to demonstrate to a judge that a crime probably had been committed.
But it's important not to get too far in front of the story. The FBI surveillance of Manafort reportedly began in 2014, long before
he was working as Trump's campaign manager. So the initial allegations, at least, appear to have involved potential crimes having
nothing to do with the Trump campaign. And most or all of the surveillance apparently took place before Mueller was even appointed
and was not at his direction.
Mueller's involvement now does suggest that the current focus relates to Manafort's role in the Trump campaign. But we don't know
exactly how, if at all, any alleged crimes by Manafort relate to his work in that role. And we don't know whether any other individuals
involved in the campaign are potentially implicated.
We also don't know what evidence was obtained as a result of the surveillance. The fact that warrants were issued does not mean
any evidence of criminal conduct was actually found.
The other import of this news involves the possible implications if Manafort is charged. The New York Times
reported
Monday that when Manafort's home was searched in July, investigators told him he should expect to be indicted. Even if Mueller
were to indict Manafort for crimes not directly related to the Trump campaign, it would be a significant development. A typical
white-collar investigation often proceeds by building cases against lower-level participants in a scheme -- the little fish -- and
then persuading them to cooperate in the investigation of the bigger fish. Trump and his associates therefore may have reason to
be concerned about what Manafort could tell investigators, if he were indicted and chose to cooperate.
Again, much of this is speculation. Due to grand jury secrecy and the secrecy surrounding the FISA process, we don't know
many of the details. And given the typical pace of these investigations, whatever happens likely will not happen quickly.
But news of the FISA surveillance is the latest evidence that Mueller's investigation is serious, aggressive and will be with
us for some time.
Randall D. Eliason teaches white-collar criminal law at George Washington University Law School.
The neoliberal "the new class" to which Clintons belong like nomenklatura in the USSR are above the law.
Notable quotes:
"... After months of inexplicable delays, the chairman of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), announced moments ago a joint investigation into how the Justice Department handled last year's investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server. ..."
"... Oh goody, Trey Gowdy doing another investigation. Isn't he 0 for many on his investigations. 0 as in zero, nada, nill, squat, zippo. He is another political empty suit with a bad haircut. ..."
"... Well said. The Clinton network leads to the real money in this game. Any real investigation would expose many of the primary players. It would also expose the network for what it is, that being a mechanism to scam both the American people and the people of the world. ..."
"... Perhaps a real investigation will now only be done from outside the system (as the U.S. political system seems utterly incapable of investigating or policing itself). ..."
"... You're probably right, but there's a chance this whole thing could go sidewise on Hillary in a hurry, Weinstein-style. ..."
"... We already know Honest Hill'rey's other IT guy (Bryan Pagliano) ignored subpoenas from congress...twice. ..."
"... Another classic case of "the Boy that cried wolf" for the Trumpettes to believe justice is coming to the Clintons. The House Judiciary and Oversight committees, will turn up nothing, apart from some procedural mistakes. A complete waste of time and tax payer money. Only the Goldfish will be happy over another charade. Killary is immune from normal laws. ..."
"... Potemkin Justice. Not a damn thing will come of it unless they find that one of Hillary's aides parked in a handicapped spot. ..."
"... The TV showed me Trump saying, "She's been through enough" and "They're good people" when referring to Hillary and Bill Clinton. ..."
"... Stopped reading at "they do not recognize wealth, power, or social status." ..."
Hillary's former IT consultant Paul Combetta who admitted to deleting Hillary's emails despite the existence of a Congressional
subpoena, it seems as though James Comey has just had his very own "oh shit" moment.
After months of inexplicable delays, the chairman of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and
Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), announced moments ago a joint investigation into how the Justice Department handled last year's investigation
into Hillary Clinton's private email server.
Among other things, Goodlatte and Gowdy said that the FBI must answer for why it chose to provide public updates in the Clinton
investigation but not in the Trump investigation and why the FBI decided to " appropriate full decision making in respect to charging
or not charging Secretary Clinton," a power typically left to the DOJ.
"Our justice system is represented by a blind-folded woman holding a set of scales. Those scales do not tip to the right or the
left; they do not recognize wealth, power, or social status. The impartiality of our justice system is the bedrock of our republic
and our fellow citizens must have confidence in its objectivity, independence, and evenhandedness. The law is the most equalizing
force in this country. No entity or individual is exempt from oversight.
"Decisions made by the Department of Justice in 2016 have led to a host of outstanding questions that must be answered. These
include, but are not limited to:
FBI's decision to publicly announce the investigation into Secretary Clinton's handling of classified information but not
to publicly announce the investigation into campaign associates of then-candidate Donald Trump;
FBI's decision to notify Congress by formal letter of the status of the investigation both in October and November of 2016;
FBI's decision to appropriate full decision making in respect to charging or not charging Secretary Clinton to the FBI rather
than the DOJ;
FBI's timeline in respect to charging decisions.
'The Committees will review these decisions and others to better understand the reasoning behind how certain conclusions were
drawn. Congress has a constitutional duty to preserve the integrity of our justice system by ensuring transparency and accountability
of actions taken."
Of course, this comes just one day after
Comey revealed his secret Twitter account which led the internet to wildly speculate that he may be running for a political office...which,
these days, being under investigation by multiple Congressional committees might just mean he has a good shot.
Finally, we leave you with one artist's depiction of how the Comey 'investigation' of Hillary's email scandal played out...
"Our justice system is represented by a blind-folded woman holding a set of scales. Those scales do not tip to the right or
the left; they do not recognize wealth, power, or social status. The impartiality of our justice system is the bedrock of our
republic..."
Oh goody, Trey Gowdy doing another investigation. Isn't he 0 for many on his investigations. 0 as in zero, nada, nill,
squat, zippo. He is another political empty suit with a bad haircut.
It's nice publicity to hear that the Congress is "investigating". It's NOT nice to know that the DOJ is doing nothing. Probably
50 top level people at the FBI need to be fired as well as another 50 at DOJ to get the ball rolling toward a Grand Jury. Until
then, it's all eyewash and BULLSHIT!
Well said. The Clinton network leads to the real money in this game. Any real investigation would expose many of the primary
players. It would also expose the network for what it is, that being a mechanism to scam both the American people and the people
of the world.
Perhaps a real investigation will now only be done from outside the system (as the U.S. political system seems utterly
incapable of investigating or policing itself). Though in time all information will surface, as good players leak the info
of the bad players into the open. Which of course is why the corrupt players go after the leakers, as it is one key way they can
be taken down. Also remember that they need the good players in any organization to be used as cover (as those not in the know
can be used to work on legit projects). Once the good players catch on to the ruse and corruption it is, beyond a certain tipping
point, all over, as the leaked information goes from drop to flood. There will simply be no way to deny it.
You're probably right, but there's a chance this whole thing could go sidewise on Hillary in a hurry, Weinstein-style.
If the criminal stench surrounding her gets strong enough, the rats will begin to jump ship. People will stop taking orders
and doing her dirty work. She's wounded right now, if there was ever a time to finish her, it would be now. Where the fuck is
the big-talking Jeff Sessions? I think they got to him--he even LOOKS scared shitless.
It's just not possible to have any respect for these politician people.
We already know Honest Hill'rey's other IT guy (Bryan Pagliano) ignored subpoenas from congress...twice. Remember
Chaffetz "subpoenas are not suggestions"? Yeah, well they are. Chaffetz turned around and sent a letter about this to "attorney
general" jeff sessions and he's done exactly shit about about it. (Look it up, that's a true story)
Then we've got president maverick outsider simply ignoring Julian Assange and Wikileaks while he squeals daily about fake news.
Wikileaks has exposed more fraud than Congress ever has.
Sessions is the Attorney General. Give the man some credit. He recused himself from the Russia/Trump collusion, and this decision
may very well save the republic.
If Sessions was actively involved, half the nation would never accept the findings, no matter the outcome. With Sessions voluntarily
sidelined, the truth will eventually expose the criminal conspirators; all the way to the top.
Wikileaks and Assange have documented proof of criminal behavior from Obama, Lynch, Holder, Hillary, W. Bush, and more. This
will be the biggest scandal to hit the world stage. Ever.
lol Another classic case of "the Boy that cried wolf" for the Trumpettes to believe justice is coming to the Clintons.
The House Judiciary and Oversight committees, will turn up nothing, apart from some procedural mistakes. A complete waste of time
and tax payer money. Only the Goldfish will be happy over another charade. Killary is immune from normal laws.
Congress can't do shit without DOJ and FBI, which are both compromised and corrupt to the core.
That should have been Sessions' first order of business.
He can still get it rolling by firing Rosenstein and replacing him with someone that will do the job.They can strike down the
Comey immunity deals and arrest people for violating Congressional subpeona.
They can also assemble a Grand Jury to indict Rosenstein and Mueller for the Russian collusion conspiracy to commit Espionage
and Sabotage of our National Security resources. Half of Mueller's staff will then be indicted, along with Clinton, Obama, Lynch,
Holder, and Comey.
Replacement of Rosenstein is the crucial first step.
Why they decided to resume investigation now ? What new facts were uncovered? What hidden storm
hit "deep state" so the for stability they need to sacrifice Hillary Clinton
How this correlates with the discovery that DNC paid for Steele dossier? Judging from
John Sipher a is
a former member of the CIA's Senior Intelligence Service attempt
to defend Steele dossier in his
Slate article (Sept, 2017), just a month before current revelations. As retied CIA agents
usually avoid public spotlight it might well be that he was "adviced" to write his
evaluation and, if this is the case, then CIA and may be personally Brennan were also involved
in "Steele dossier" fiasco.
Notable quotes:
"... The ousted FBI director James Comey and the former attorney general Loretta Lynch spoke at length to Congress about that investigation last year, and it is the subject of a continuing review by the justice department's inspector general. ..."
"... Nunes has separately signed off on subpoenas that sought the banking records of Fusion GPS, the political research company behind a dossier of allegations about Trump's connections to Russia. A lawyer for the company said in a statement Tuesday the subpoena was "overly broad" and without any legitimate purposes ..."
The Republican leaders of the House judiciary and oversight panels said in a statement they were
opening investigations into the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation and the decision
not to prosecute her – the subject of hours-long congressional hearings last year.
The Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee, Devin Nunes, also announced a separate
investigation into a uranium deal brokered during Barack Obama's tenure as president.
The House judiciary committee chairman, Robert Goodlatte of Virginia, and the oversight committee
chairman, Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, said the inquiry would be aimed at the
FBI and its decisions in the Clinton investigation . The ousted FBI director James Comey
and the former attorney general Loretta Lynch spoke at length to Congress about that investigation
last year, and it is the subject of a continuing review by the justice department's inspector general.
The two panels have declined to investigate Russia's interference in the 2016 elections, leaving
those inquiries to Senate committees and the House intelligence committee.
Nunes has separately signed off on subpoenas that sought the banking records of Fusion GPS,
the political research company behind a dossier of allegations about Trump's connections to Russia.
A lawyer for the company said in a statement Tuesday the subpoena was "overly broad" and without
any legitimate purposes.
"Our justice system is represented by a blind-folded woman holding a set of scales. Those
scales do not tip to the right or the left; they do not recognize wealth, power, or social
status. The impartiality of our justice system is the bedrock of our republic..."
NEW YORK ! It seemed as if Anthony Weiner had hit rock bottom when he resigned from Congress
in 2011.
"Bye-bye, pervert!" one heckler shouted as the Democrat quit amid revelations that he had
sent graphic pictures of himself to women on social media. Time has shown his self-destructive
drama had only just begun.
Weiner, 53, is set to be sentenced Monday for sending obscene material to a 15-year-old girl
in a case that may have also have played a role in costing Hillary Clinton ! former boss of
Weiner's wife, Huma Abedin ! the presidential election.
Federal prosecutors have asked for a sentence of slightly more than two years behind bars
because of the seriousness of the crime, in which Weiner sent adult porn to the girl and got
her to take her clothes off for him on Skype.
"The defendant did far more than exchange typed words on a lifeless cellphone screen with a
faceless stranger," prosecutors wrote to the judge. "Transmitting obscenity to a minor to
induce her to engage in sexually explicit conduct by video chat and photo ! is far from mere
'sexting.'"
McClatchy
points out, since March 2015 Judicial Watch has been engaged in a back and forth battle with
the National Archives which argues that "the documents should be kept secret [to preserve]
grand jury secrecy and Clinton's personal privacy."
Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group that files Freedom of Information Act
requests, wants copies of the documents that the National Archives and Records Administration
has declined to release. It filed a FOIA request for the documents in March 2015 and in October
2015 the group sued for the 238 pages of responsive records.
According to Judicial Watch: " The National Archives argues that the documents should be
kept secret, citing grand jury secrecy and Clinton's personal privacy."
But Judicial Watch says that because so much about the Whitewater case has already been made
public, "there is no secrecy or privacy left to protect."
The documents in question are alleged drafts of indictments written by Hickman Ewing, the
chief deputy of Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel appointed to investigate Bill and
Hillary Clinton's alleged involvement in fraudulent real estate dealings dating back to the
70's.
Ewing told investigators he drafted the indictments in April 1995. According to Judicial
Watch, the documents pertain to allegations that Hillary Clinton provided false information and
withheld information from those investigating the Whitewater scandal.
Meanwhile, for those who haven't been alive long enough to remember some of the original
Clinton scandals dating back to the 1970's, the Whitewater scandal revolved around a series of
shady real estate deals in the Ozarks, not to mention a couple of illegal, federally-insured
loans, back when Bill was Governor of Arkansas.
Of course, like with all Clinton scandals, while several other people ended up in jail as a
result of the FBI's Whitewater investigation, Bill and Hillary emerged unscathed. Wikipedia
offers more details:
The Whitewater controversy, Whitewater scandal (or simply Whitewater), was an American
political episode of the 1990s that began with an investigation into the real estate
investments of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their associates, Jim McDougal and Susan McDougal,
in the Whitewater Development Corporation, a failed business venture in the 1970s and
1980s.
A March 1992 New York Times article published during the 1992 U.S. presidential campaign
reported that the Clintons, then governor and first lady of Arkansas, had invested and lost
money in the Whitewater Development Corporation. The article stimulated the interest of L. Jean
Lewis, a Resolution Trust Corporation investigator who was looking into the failure of Madison
Guaranty Savings and Loan, also owned by Jim and Susan McDougal.
Lewis looked for connections between the savings and loan company and the Clintons, and on
September 2, 1992, she submitted a criminal referral to the FBI naming Bill and Hillary Clinton
as witnesses in the Madison Guaranty case. Little Rock U.S. Attorney Charles A. Banks and the
FBI determined that the referral lacked merit, but Lewis continued to pursue the case. From
1992 to 1994, Lewis issued several additional referrals against the Clintons and repeatedly
called the U.S. Attorney's Office in Little Rock and the Justice Department regarding the case.
Her referrals eventually became public knowledge, and she testified before the Senate
Whitewater Committee in 1995.
David Hale, the source of criminal allegations against the Clintons, claimed in November
1993 that Bill Clinton had pressured him into providing an illegal $300,000 loan to Susan
McDougal, the Clintons' partner in the Whitewater land deal. The allegations were regarded as
questionable because Hale had not mentioned Clinton in reference to this loan during the
original FBI investigation of Madison Guaranty in 1989; only after coming under indictment
himself in 1993, did Hale make allegations against the Clintons. A U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission investigation resulted in convictions against the McDougals for their role in the
Whitewater project. Jim Guy Tucker, Bill Clinton's successor as governor, was convicted of
fraud and sentenced to four years of probation for his role in the matter. Susan McDougal
served 18 months in prison for contempt of court for refusing to answer questions relating to
Whitewater.
Neither Bill Clinton nor Hillary were ever prosecuted, after three separate inquiries found
insufficient evidence linking them with the criminal conduct of others related to the land
deal.
Just more attempts to "criminalize behavior that is normal"...
"National Security" Will Prevail Again. Hillary's health and mental condition are at
risk.
Hillary/Diezapam 2020
Holy war? FFS people, this shit's straight out of the End of Days stories or numerous
religious, spiritual and philosophical belief systems. Yes, the war between good and evil is
real and evil has the upper hand at the moment. Greatly has the upper hand.
Edit and More Importantly, Andre Ward's announced his retirement from boxing Man was a
thing of beauty in the ring....
In 1999, nine years before the Calabrese interview, Zeifman told the Scripps-Howard news
agency: "If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her." In a 2008 interview on "The
Neal Boortz Show," Zeifman was asked directly whether he fired her. His answer: "Well, let me
put it this way. I terminated her, along with some other staff members who were ! we no
longer needed, and advised her that I would not ! could not recommend her for any further
positions."
They owned the property of what was most likely a drug smuggling operation in Paron,
Arkansas.
That property has ties with the Rose law firm in Little Rock , in which Hillary Rodham
Clinton was formerly a partner. While some observers believe the property was intended as an
additional presidential residence - the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, for example, reported it
was rumored to be a "White House West"; and contractors who worked on it whimsically tagged
it "Camp Chelsea" - there are strong indications something quite different might be taking
place in Paron
Simultaneous with this, residents said there was an increase in low-flying airplanes over
the property. Unlike the military aircraft that occasionally fly over the area, these were
"small Cessna-like" aircraft, according to Hill. He said the planes typically fly through a
pass in the Cockspur Mountains on Southeast's property, several miles from the main road.
"After the planes leave, 20 to 30 minutes will go by, and small trucks and Jeeps leave the
property at two different entrances," said Hill. He added that neighbors, during a flurry of
aircraft activity, had logged the details, which they then passed on to federal
authorities
The ones with Vince Foster's fingerprints on them?
" After nearly two years of searches and subpoenas, the White House said this evening that
it had unexpectedly discovered copies of missing documents from Hillary Rodham Clinton's law
firm that describe her work for a failing savings and loan association in the 1980's.
"The mysterious appearance of the billing records, which had been the specific subject of
various nvestigative subpoenas for two year s, sparked intense interest about how they
surfaced and where they had been"
"But Whitewater investigators believe that the billing records show significant
representation. They argue that the records prove that Ms. Clinton was not only directly
involved in the representation of Madison, but more specifically, in providing legal work on
the fraudulent Castle Grande land deal."
"Investigators believe this suggests that, at some point, this copy was passed from Vince
Foster to Hillary Clinton for her review.
In addition, investigators had the FBI conduct fingerprint analysis of the billing
records. Of significance, the prints of Vince Foster and Hillary Clinton were found."
It is extremely unfortunate that criminal behavior is now considered normal! The Clintons
are responsible for that.
The Clintons were extremely guilty of Whitewater for profiteering on a failed real estate
deal at Arkansas' residents expense, in addition to dozens of other crimes! I often wonder
how life could be much better if the Clintons were never elected! The invasive and rampant
corruption in virtually every sector of our society, has made this country 100%
dysfunctional!
There had been criminal activity at the local level in government in some regions, but
Clinton nationalized it, and legitimized it. Nixon was impeached, and resigned, giving people
belief that nobody was above the law.
Now, Trump has not committed a single impeachable offense, and all that they ever talk
about is impeachment!
I recall reading that Starr had DNC loyalties. My guess is that Republicans were more
concerned with a President Gore, than a President Clinton.
Although Hillary Clinton has blamed numerous factors and people for her loss to Donald Trump in
last year's election, no one has received as much blame as the Russian government. In an effort to
avoid blaming the candidate herself by turning the election results into a national scandal, accusations
of Kremlin-directed meddling soon surfaced. While such accusations have largely been discredited
by both
computer analysts and
award-winning journalists like Seymour Hersh, they continue to be repeated as the
investigation into Donald Trump's alleged collusion with the Russian government picks up steam.
However,
newly released Clinton emails suggest that that the former secretary of state's disdain for the
Russian government is a relatively new development. The emails, obtained by conservative watchdog
group Judicial Watch, show that the Russian government was included in invitations to exclusive Clinton
Foundation galas that began less than two months after Clinton became the top official at the U.S.
State Department.
In March of 2009, Amitabh Desai, then-Clinton Foundation director of foreign policy, sent invitations
to numerous world leaders, which included Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, then-Russian President
Dmitry Medvedev, and former President of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev. Desai's emails were
cc'd to Assistant Secretary of State Andrew Shapiro and later forwarded to top Clinton aide Jake
Sullivan.
The Clinton Foundation's activities during Hillary's tenure as secretary of state have been central
to the accusations that the Clinton family used their "charitable" foundation as a means of enriching
themselves via a massive "Pay to Play" scheme. Emails leaked by Wikileaks, particularly
the Podesta emails , offered
ample evidence connecting foreign donations to the Clintons and their foundation with preferential
treatment by the U.S. State Department.
"... My observation is that the New Class (professionals, lobbyists, financiers, teachers, engineers, etc.) have ruled the country in recent decades. For much of the twentieth century this class was in some tension with corporations, and used their skills at influencing government policy to help develop and protect the welfare state, since they needed the working class as a counterweight to the natural influence of corporate money and power. However, somewhere around 1970 I think this tension collapsed, since corporate managers and professionals realized that they shared the same education, background and interests. ..."
"... This "peace treaty" between former rivals allowed the whole newly enlarged New Class to swing to the right, since they really didn't particularly need the working class politically anymore. And since it is the hallmark of this class to seek prestige, power and money while transferring risk away from themselves, the middle class and blue collar community has been the natural recipient. Free trade (well, for non-professionals, anyway), neoliberalism, ruthless private equity job cutting, etc., etc. all followed very naturally. The re-alignment of the Democratic Party towards the right was a natural part of this evolution. ..."
"... They also sense that organized politics in this country – being chiefly the province of the New Class – has left them with little leverage to change any of this. ..."
"... the New Class has very strong internal solidarity – and since somebody has to pay for these little mistakes, everyone outside that class is "fair game." ..."
"... So in that sense–to the extent that you define liberal as the ideology of the New Class (neoliberal, financial-capitalistic, big corporate-friendly but opposed to non-meritocratic biases like racism, sexism, etc.) is "liberalism", I think it is reasonable to say that it has bred resistance and anger among the "losers." As far as having "failed", well, we'll see: the New Class still controls almost all the levers of power. It has many strategies for channeling lower-class anger and I think under Trump we'll see those rolled out. ..."
"... Perhaps some evolution in "the means of production" or in how governments are influenced will ultimately develop to divide or downgrade the New Class, and break its lock on the corridors of power, but I don't see it on the horizon just yet. If anyone else does, I'd love to hear more about it. ..."
"... A little puzzled by the inclusion of teachers, alongside financiers and the like, in William Meyer's list of the New Class rulers. Enablers of those rulers, no doubt, but not visibly calling the shots. But then I'm probably just another liberal elitist failing to recognize my own hegemony, like Chris. ..."
"... I assume he meant certain professors [of economics]. Actually on @4, there's a good chapter on the topic in a Thomas Franks latest. ..."
Obviously Mr. Deerin is, on its face, utilizing a very disputable definition
of "liberal."
However, I think a stronger case could be made for something like Mr.
Deerin's argument, although it doesn't necessarily get to the same conclusion.
My observation is that the New Class (professionals, lobbyists, financiers,
teachers, engineers, etc.) have ruled the country in recent decades. For
much of the twentieth century this class was in some tension with corporations,
and used their skills at influencing government policy to help develop and
protect the welfare state, since they needed the working class as a counterweight
to the natural influence of corporate money and power. However, somewhere
around 1970 I think this tension collapsed, since corporate managers and
professionals realized that they shared the same education, background and
interests.
Vive la meritocracy. This "peace treaty" between former rivals allowed
the whole newly enlarged New Class to swing to the right, since they really
didn't particularly need the working class politically anymore. And since
it is the hallmark of this class to seek prestige, power and money while
transferring risk away from themselves, the middle class and blue collar
community has been the natural recipient. Free trade (well, for non-professionals,
anyway), neoliberalism, ruthless private equity job cutting, etc., etc.
all followed very naturally. The re-alignment of the Democratic Party towards
the right was a natural part of this evolution.
I think the 90% or so of the community who are not included in this class
are confused and bewildered and of course rather angry about it. They
also sense that organized politics in this country – being chiefly the province
of the New Class – has left them with little leverage to change any of this.
Watching the bailouts and lack of prosecutions during the GFC made
them dimly realize that the New Class has very strong internal solidarity
– and since somebody has to pay for these little mistakes, everyone outside
that class is "fair game."
So in that sense–to the extent that you define liberal as the ideology
of the New Class (neoliberal, financial-capitalistic, big corporate-friendly
but opposed to non-meritocratic biases like racism, sexism, etc.) is "liberalism",
I think it is reasonable to say that it has bred resistance and anger among
the "losers." As far as having "failed", well, we'll see: the New Class
still controls almost all the levers of power. It has many strategies for
channeling lower-class anger and I think under Trump we'll see those rolled
out.
Let me be clear, I'm not saying Donald Trump is leading an insurgency
against the New Class – but I think he tapped into something like one and
is riding it for all he can, while not really having the slightest idea
what he's doing.
Perhaps some evolution in "the means of production" or in how governments
are influenced will ultimately develop to divide or downgrade the New Class,
and break its lock on the corridors of power, but I don't see it on the
horizon just yet. If anyone else does, I'd love to hear more about it.
A little puzzled by the inclusion of teachers, alongside financiers
and the like, in William Meyer's list of the New Class rulers. Enablers
of those rulers, no doubt, but not visibly calling the shots. But then I'm
probably just another liberal elitist failing to recognize my own hegemony,
like Chris.
"... My observation is that the New Class (professionals, lobbyists, financiers, teachers, engineers, etc.) have ruled the country in recent decades. For much of the twentieth century this class was in some tension with corporations, and used their skills at influencing government policy to help develop and protect the welfare state, since they needed the working class as a counterweight to the natural influence of corporate money and power. However, somewhere around 1970 I think this tension collapsed, since corporate managers and professionals realized that they shared the same education, background and interests. ..."
"... This "peace treaty" between former rivals allowed the whole newly enlarged New Class to swing to the right, since they really didn't particularly need the working class politically anymore. And since it is the hallmark of this class to seek prestige, power and money while transferring risk away from themselves, the middle class and blue collar community has been the natural recipient. Free trade (well, for non-professionals, anyway), neoliberalism, ruthless private equity job cutting, etc., etc. all followed very naturally. The re-alignment of the Democratic Party towards the right was a natural part of this evolution. ..."
"... They also sense that organized politics in this country – being chiefly the province of the New Class – has left them with little leverage to change any of this. ..."
"... the New Class has very strong internal solidarity – and since somebody has to pay for these little mistakes, everyone outside that class is "fair game." ..."
"... So in that sense–to the extent that you define liberal as the ideology of the New Class (neoliberal, financial-capitalistic, big corporate-friendly but opposed to non-meritocratic biases like racism, sexism, etc.) is "liberalism", I think it is reasonable to say that it has bred resistance and anger among the "losers." As far as having "failed", well, we'll see: the New Class still controls almost all the levers of power. It has many strategies for channeling lower-class anger and I think under Trump we'll see those rolled out. ..."
"... Perhaps some evolution in "the means of production" or in how governments are influenced will ultimately develop to divide or downgrade the New Class, and break its lock on the corridors of power, but I don't see it on the horizon just yet. If anyone else does, I'd love to hear more about it. ..."
"... A little puzzled by the inclusion of teachers, alongside financiers and the like, in William Meyer's list of the New Class rulers. Enablers of those rulers, no doubt, but not visibly calling the shots. But then I'm probably just another liberal elitist failing to recognize my own hegemony, like Chris. ..."
"... I assume he meant certain professors [of economics]. Actually on @4, there's a good chapter on the topic in a Thomas Franks latest. ..."
Obviously Mr. Deerin is, on its face, utilizing a very disputable definition
of "liberal."
However, I think a stronger case could be made for something like Mr.
Deerin's argument, although it doesn't necessarily get to the same conclusion.
My observation is that the New Class (professionals, lobbyists, financiers,
teachers, engineers, etc.) have ruled the country in recent decades. For
much of the twentieth century this class was in some tension with corporations,
and used their skills at influencing government policy to help develop and
protect the welfare state, since they needed the working class as a counterweight
to the natural influence of corporate money and power. However, somewhere
around 1970 I think this tension collapsed, since corporate managers and
professionals realized that they shared the same education, background and
interests.
Vive la meritocracy. This "peace treaty" between former rivals allowed
the whole newly enlarged New Class to swing to the right, since they really
didn't particularly need the working class politically anymore. And since
it is the hallmark of this class to seek prestige, power and money while
transferring risk away from themselves, the middle class and blue collar
community has been the natural recipient. Free trade (well, for non-professionals,
anyway), neoliberalism, ruthless private equity job cutting, etc., etc.
all followed very naturally. The re-alignment of the Democratic Party towards
the right was a natural part of this evolution.
I think the 90% or so of the community who are not included in this class
are confused and bewildered and of course rather angry about it. They
also sense that organized politics in this country – being chiefly the province
of the New Class – has left them with little leverage to change any of this.
Watching the bailouts and lack of prosecutions during the GFC made
them dimly realize that the New Class has very strong internal solidarity
– and since somebody has to pay for these little mistakes, everyone outside
that class is "fair game."
So in that sense–to the extent that you define liberal as the ideology
of the New Class (neoliberal, financial-capitalistic, big corporate-friendly
but opposed to non-meritocratic biases like racism, sexism, etc.) is "liberalism",
I think it is reasonable to say that it has bred resistance and anger among
the "losers." As far as having "failed", well, we'll see: the New Class
still controls almost all the levers of power. It has many strategies for
channeling lower-class anger and I think under Trump we'll see those rolled
out.
Let me be clear, I'm not saying Donald Trump is leading an insurgency
against the New Class – but I think he tapped into something like one and
is riding it for all he can, while not really having the slightest idea
what he's doing.
Perhaps some evolution in "the means of production" or in how governments
are influenced will ultimately develop to divide or downgrade the New Class,
and break its lock on the corridors of power, but I don't see it on the
horizon just yet. If anyone else does, I'd love to hear more about it.
A little puzzled by the inclusion of teachers, alongside financiers
and the like, in William Meyer's list of the New Class rulers. Enablers
of those rulers, no doubt, but not visibly calling the shots. But then I'm
probably just another liberal elitist failing to recognize my own hegemony,
like Chris.
"... However, one senior NSA official, now retired, recalled the kerfuffle with Team Clinton in early 2009 about Blackberrys. "It was the usual Clinton prima donna stuff," he explained, "the whole 'rules are for other people' act that I remembered from the '90s." Why Ms. Clinton would not simply check her personal email on an office computer, like every other government employee less senior than the president, seems a germane question, given what a major scandal email-gate turned out to be. "What did she not want put on a government system, where security people might see it?" the former NSA official asked, adding, "I wonder now, and I sure wish I'd asked about it back in 2009." ..."
"... one of the most controversial of Ms. Clinton's emails released by the State Department under judicial order was one sent on June 8, 2011, to the Secretary of State by Sidney Blumenthal, Ms. Clinton's unsavory friend and confidant who was running a private intelligence service for Ms. Clinton. This email contains an amazingly detailed assessment of events in Sudan, specifically a coup being plotted by top generals in that war-torn country. Mr. Blumenthal's information came from a top-ranking source with direct access to Sudan's top military and intelligence officials, and recounted a high-level meeting that had taken place only 24 hours before. ..."
"... Mr. Blumenthal, a private citizen who had enjoyed no access to U.S. intelligence for over a decade when he sent that email, somehow got hold of SIGINT about the Sudanese leadership and managed to send it, via open, unclassified email, to his friend Ms. Clinton only one day later. ..."
"... Specifically, this information was illegally lifted from four different NSA reports, all of them classified "Top Secret / Special Intelligence." Worse, at least one of those reports was issued under the GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was). GAMMA is properly viewed as a SIGINT Special Access Program, or SAP, several of which from the CIA Ms. Clinton compromised in another series of her "unclassified" emails. ..."
"... Suspicion naturally falls on Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA senior official who was Mr. Blumenthal's intelligence fixer, his supplier of juicy spy gossip, who conveniently died last August before email-gate became front-page news. However, he, too, had left federal service years before and should not have had any access to current NSA reports. ..."
"... How did nobody on Secretary Clinton's staff notice that this highly detailed reporting looked exactly like SIGINT from the NSA? Last, why did the State Department see fit to release this email, unredacted, to the public? ..."
Mar 18, 2016
The documents
, though redacted, detail a bureaucratic showdown between Ms. Clinton and NSA at the outset of
her tenure at Foggy Bottom. The new secretary of state, who had gotten "hooked" on her
Blackberry during her failed 2008 presidential bid, according to a top State Department
security official, wanted to use that Blackberry anywhere she went.
That, however, was impossible, since Secretary Clinton's main office space at Foggy Bottom
was actually a Secure Compartment Information Facility, called a SCIF (pronounced "skiff") by
insiders. A SCIF is required for handling any Top Secret-plus information. In most Washington,
D.C., offices with a SCIF, which has to be certified as fully secure from human or technical
penetration, that's where you check Top-Secret email, read intelligence reports and conduct
classified meetings that must be held inside such protected spaces.
But personal electronic devices!your cellphone, your Blackberry!can never be brought into a
SCIF. They represent a serious technical threat that is actually employed by many intelligence
agencies worldwide. Though few Americans realize it, taking remote control over a handheld
device, then using it to record conversations, is surprisingly easy for any competent spy
service. Your smartphone is a sophisticated surveillance device!on you, the user!that also
happens to provide phone service and Internet access.
As a result, your phone and your Blackberry always need to be locked up before you enter any
SCIF. Taking such items into one represents a serious security violation. And Ms. Clinton and
her staff really hated that. Not even one month into the new administration in early 2009, Ms.
Clinton and her inner circle were chafing under these rules. They were accustomed to having
their personal Blackberrys with them at all times, checking and sending emails nonstop, and
that was simply impossible in a SCIF like their new office.
This resulted in a February 2009 request by Secretary Clinton to the NSA, whose Information
Assurance Directorate (IAD for short: see here for an
explanation of Agency organization) secures the sensitive communications of many U.S.
government entities, from Top-Secret computer networks, to White House communications, to the
classified codes that control our nuclear weapons.
The contents of Sid Blumenthal's June 8, 2011, email to Hillary Clinton!to her personal,
unclassified account!were based on highly sensitive NSA information.
IAD had recently created a special,
custom-made secure Blackberry for Barack Obama, another technology addict. Now Ms. Clinton
wanted one for herself. However, making the new president's personal Blackberry had been a
time-consuming and expensive exercise. The NSA was not inclined to provide Secretary Clinton
with one of her own simply for her convenience: there had to be clearly demonstrated need.
And that seemed dubious to IAD since there was no problem with Ms. Clinton checking her
personal email inside her office SCIF. Hers, like most, had open (i.e. unclassified) computer
terminals connected to the Internet, and the secretary of state could log into her own email
anytime she wanted to right from her desk.
But she did not want to. Ms. Clinton only checked her personal email on her Blackberry: she
did not want to sit down at a computer terminal. As a result, the NSA informed Secretary
Clinton in early 2009 that they could not help her. When Team Clinton kept pressing the point,
"We were politely told to shut up and color" by IAD,
explained the state security official.
The State Department has not released the full document trail here, so the complete story
remains unknown to the public. However, one senior NSA official, now retired, recalled the
kerfuffle with Team Clinton in early 2009 about Blackberrys. "It was the usual Clinton prima
donna stuff," he explained, "the whole 'rules are for other people' act that I remembered from
the '90s." Why Ms. Clinton would not simply check her personal email on an office computer,
like every other government employee less senior than the president, seems a germane question,
given what a major scandal email-gate turned out to be. "What did she not want put on a
government system, where security people might see it?" the former NSA official asked, adding,
"I wonder now, and I sure wish I'd asked about it back in 2009."
He's not the only NSA affiliate with pointed questions about what Hillary Clinton and her
staff at Foggy Bottom were really up to!and why they went to such trouble to circumvent federal
laws about the use of IT systems and the handling of classified information. This has come to a
head thanks to Team Clinton's gross mishandling of highly classified NSA intelligence.
As I
explained in this column in January, one of the most controversial of Ms. Clinton's
emails released by the State Department under judicial order was one sent on June 8, 2011, to
the Secretary of State by Sidney Blumenthal, Ms. Clinton's unsavory
friend and confidant who was running a private intelligence service for Ms. Clinton. This email
contains an amazingly detailed assessment of events in Sudan, specifically a coup being plotted
by top generals in that war-torn country. Mr. Blumenthal's information came from a top-ranking
source with direct access to Sudan's top military and intelligence officials, and recounted a
high-level meeting that had taken place only 24 hours before.
To anybody familiar with intelligence reporting, this unmistakably signals intelligence,
termed SIGINT in the trade. In other words, Mr. Blumenthal, a private citizen who had
enjoyed no access to U.S. intelligence for over a decade when he sent that email, somehow got
hold of SIGINT about the Sudanese leadership and managed to send it, via open, unclassified
email, to his friend Ms. Clinton only one day later.
NSA officials were appalled by the State Department's release of this email, since it bore
all the hallmarks of Agency reporting. Back in early January when I reported this , I was
confident that Mr. Blumenthal's information came from highly classified NSA sources, based on
my years of reading and writing such reports myself, and one veteran agency official told me it
was NSA information with "at least 90 percent confidence."
Now, over two months later, I can confirm that the contents of Sid Blumenthal's June 8,
2011, email to Hillary Clinton, sent to her personal, unclassified account, were indeed based
on highly sensitive NSA information. The agency investigated this compromise and determined
that Mr. Blumenthal's highly detailed account of Sudanese goings-on, including the retelling of
high-level conversations in that country, was indeed derived from NSA intelligence.
Specifically, this information was illegally lifted from four different NSA reports, all
of them classified "Top Secret / Special Intelligence." Worse, at least one of those reports
was issued under the GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is
applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between
top foreign leadership, as this was). GAMMA is properly viewed as a SIGINT Special Access
Program, or SAP, several of which from the CIA Ms. Clinton compromised in another
series of her "unclassified" emails.
Currently serving NSA officials have told me they have no doubt that Mr. Blumenthal's
information came from their reports. "It's word-for-word, verbatim copying," one of them
explained. "In one case, an entire paragraph was lifted from an NSA report" that was classified
Top Secret / Special Intelligence.
How Mr. Blumenthal got his hands on this information is the key question, and there's no
firm answer yet. The fact that he was able to take four separate highly classified NSA
reports!none of which he was supposed to have any access to!and pass the details of them to
Hillary Clinton via email only hours after NSA released them in Top Secret / Special
Intelligence channels indicates something highly unusual, as well as illegal, was going on.
Suspicion naturally falls on Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA senior official who was
Mr. Blumenthal's intelligence fixer, his supplier of juicy spy gossip, who
conveniently died last August before email-gate became front-page news. However, he, too,
had left federal service years before and should not have had any access to current NSA
reports.
There are many questions here about what Hillary Clinton and her staff at Foggy Bottom were
up to, including Sidney Blumenthal, an integral member of the Clinton organization, despite his
lack of any government position. How Mr. Blumenthal got hold of this Top Secret-plus reporting
is only the first question. Why he chose to email it to Ms. Clinton in open channels is another
question. So is: How did nobody on Secretary Clinton's staff notice that this highly
detailed reporting looked exactly like SIGINT from the NSA? Last, why did the State Department
see fit to release this email, unredacted, to the public?
These are the questions being asked by officials at the NSA and the FBI right now. All of
them merit serious examination. Their answers may determine the political fate of Hillary
Clinton!and who gets elected our next president in November.
"... "According to a source familiar with the matter, McMaster is trying to dismiss anyone involved with a controversial memo arguing that the so-called "deep state" is engaged in a Maoist-style insurgency against the Trump administration. The author of that memo, NSC staffer Rich Higgins, has already been fired, and at least two other anti-globalist NSC staffers have also been forced out." ..."
"According to a source familiar with the matter, McMaster is trying to dismiss anyone involved with a controversial memo arguing
that the so-called "deep state" is engaged in a Maoist-style insurgency against the Trump administration. The author of that memo,
NSC staffer Rich Higgins, has already been fired, and at least two other anti-globalist NSC staffers have also been forced out."
Heh heh heh the trumpeters Vs the corporatists - every oppressive theocracy should be made to play this game; of course the audience
is susceptible to table-tennis watchers neck from swivelling to follow the dried dog turd bouncing back n forth, but the popcorn
is pretty good.
"... Days earlier, the financier from suburban Lake Forest gave an interview to the Journal about his quest, and it published stories about his efforts beginning in late June. The Journal also reported it had seen emails written by Smith showing his team considered retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, then a top adviser to Republican Donald Trump's campaign, as an ally. Flynn briefly was President Trump's national security adviser and resigned after it was determined he had failed to disclose contacts with Russia. ..."
"... The Journal stories said it was on Labor Day weekend in 2016 that Smith had assembled a team to acquire emails the team theorized might have been stolen from the private server Clinton had used while secretary of state. Smith's focus was the more than 30,000 emails Clinton said she deleted because they related to personal matters. A huge cache of other Clinton emails were made public. ..."
"... Smith told the Journal he believed the missing emails might have had been obtained by Russian hackers. He also said he thought the correspondence related to Clinton's official duties. He told the Journal he worked independently and was not part of the Trump campaign. He also told the Journal he and his team found five groups of hackers - two of them Russian groups - who claimed to have Clinton's missing emails. ..."
"... Investigations into any possible links between the Russian government and people associated with Trump's presidential campaign now are underway in Congress and by former FBI chief Robert Mueller. He is acting as a special counsel for the Department of Justice. Mueller spokesman Peter Carr declined to comment on the Journal's stories on Smith or his death. Washington attorney Robert Kelner, who represents Flynn, had no comment on Thursday. ..."
"... Smith's death occurred at the Aspen Suites in Rochester, records show. They list the cause of death as "asphyxiation due to displacement of oxygen in confined space with helium." ..."
"... The employee, who spoke on the condition he not be identified because of the sensitive nature of Smith's death, described the tank as being similar in size to a propane tank on a gas grill. He did not recall seeing a bag that Smith would have placed over his head. He said the coroner and police were there and that he "didn't do a lot of looking around." ..."
"... Peter Smith wrote two blog posts dated the day before he was found dead. One challenged U.S. intelligence agency findings that Russia interfered with the 2016 election. Another post predicted: "As attention turns to international affairs, as it will shortly, the Russian interference story will die of its own weight." ..."
A Republican donor and operative from Chicago's North Shore who said he had
tried to obtain Hillary Clinton's missing emails from Russian hackers killed himself in a
Minnesota hotel room days after talking to The Wall Street Journal about his efforts, public
records show.
In a room at a Rochester hotel used almost exclusively by Mayo Clinic patients and
relatives, Peter W. Smith, 81, left a carefully prepared file of documents, which includes a
statement police called a suicide note in which he said he was in ill health and a life
insurance policy was expiring.
Days earlier, the financier from suburban Lake Forest gave an interview to the Journal
about his quest, and it published stories about his efforts beginning in late June. The Journal
also reported it had seen emails written by Smith showing his team considered retired Lt. Gen.
Michael Flynn, then a top adviser to Republican Donald Trump's campaign, as an ally. Flynn
briefly was President Trump's national security adviser and resigned after it was determined he
had failed to disclose contacts with Russia.
At the time, the newspaper reported Smith's May 14 death came about 10 days after he granted
the interview. Mystery shrouded how and where he had died, but the lead reporter on the stories
said on a podcast he had no reason to believe the death was the result of foul play and that
Smith likely had died of natural causes.
However, the Chicago Tribune obtained a Minnesota state death record filed in Olmsted County
that says Smith committed suicide in a hotel near the Mayo Clinic at 1:17 p.m. on Sunday, May
14. He was found with a bag over his head with a source of helium attached. A medical
examiner's report gives the same account, without specifying the time, and a report from
Rochester police further details his suicide.
In the note recovered by police, Smith apologized to authorities and said that "NO FOUL PLAY
WHATSOEVER" was involved in his death. He wrote that he was taking his own life because of a
"RECENT BAD TURN IN HEALTH SINCE JANUARY, 2017" and timing related "TO LIFE INSURANCE OF $5
MILLION EXPIRING."
One of Smith's former employees told the Tribune he thought the elderly man had gone to the
famed clinic to be treated for a heart condition. Mayo spokeswoman Ginger Plumbo said Thursday
she could not confirm Smith had been a patient, citing medical privacy laws.
The Journal stories said it was on Labor Day weekend in 2016 that Smith had assembled a
team to acquire emails the team theorized might have been stolen from the private server
Clinton had used while secretary of state. Smith's focus was the more than 30,000 emails
Clinton said she deleted because they related to personal matters. A huge cache of other
Clinton emails were made public.
Smith told the Journal he believed the missing emails might have had been obtained by
Russian hackers. He also said he thought the correspondence related to Clinton's official
duties. He told the Journal he worked independently and was not part of the Trump campaign. He
also told the Journal he and his team found five groups of hackers - two of them Russian groups
- who claimed to have Clinton's missing emails.
Smith had a history of doing opposition research, the formal term for unflattering
information that political operatives dig up about rival candidates.
For years, Democratic President Bill Clinton was Smith's target. The wealthy businessman had
a hand in exposing the "Troopergate" allegations about Bill Clinton's sex life. And he
discussed financing a probe of a 1969 trip Bill Clinton had taken while in college to the
Soviet Union, according to Salon magazine.
Investigations into any possible links between the Russian government and people
associated with Trump's presidential campaign now are underway in Congress and by former FBI
chief Robert Mueller. He is acting as a special counsel for the Department of Justice. Mueller
spokesman Peter Carr declined to comment on the Journal's stories on Smith or his death.
Washington attorney Robert Kelner, who represents Flynn, had no comment on Thursday.
Smith's death occurred at the Aspen Suites in Rochester, records show. They list the
cause of death as "asphyxiation due to displacement of oxygen in confined space with
helium."
Rochester Police Chief Roger Peterson on Wednesday called his manner of death "unusual," but
a funeral home worker said he'd seen it before.
An employee with Rochester Cremation Services, the funeral home that responded to the hotel,
said he helped remove Smith's body from his room and recalled seeing a tank.
The employee, who spoke on the condition he not be identified because of the sensitive
nature of Smith's death, described the tank as being similar in size to a propane tank on a gas
grill. He did not recall seeing a bag that Smith would have placed over his head. He said the
coroner and police were there and that he "didn't do a lot of looking around."
"When I got there and saw the tank, I thought, 'I've seen this before,' and was able to put
two and two together," the employee said.
An autopsy was conducted, according to the death record. The Southern Minnesota Regional
Medical Examiner's Office declined a Tribune request for the autopsy report and released
limited information about Smith's death.
The Final Exit Network, a Florida-based nonprofit, provides information and support to
people who suffer from a terminal illness and want to kill themselves.
Fran Schindler, a volunteer with the group, noted that the best-selling book Final Exit,
written by Derek Humphry in 1991 and revised several times since, explains in detail the helium
gas method.
"Many people obtain that information from his book," Schindler said. "It's a method that has
been around for many years and is well known."
Smith's remains were cremated in Minnesota, the records said. He was married to Janet L.
Smith and had three children and three grandchildren, according to his obituary. Tribune calls
to family members were not returned.
His obituary
said Smith was involved in public affairs for more than 60 years and it heralded him as a
"quietly generous champion of efforts to ensure a more economically and politically secure
world." Smith led private equity firms in corporate acquisitions and venture investments for
more than 40 years. Earlier, he worked with DigaComm, LLC, from 1997 to 2014 and as the
president of Peter W. Smith & Company, Inc. from 1975 to 1997. Prior to that, he was a
senior officer of Field Enterprises, Inc., a firm that owned the Chicago Sun-Times then and was
held by the Marshall Field family, his obituary said.
A private family memorial was planned, the obituary said. Friends posted online tributes to
Smith after his death. One was from his former employee, Jonathan Safron, 26, who lives in
Chicago's Loop and worked for Smith for about two years.
Safron, in an interview, said he was working for a tutoring firm when Smith became his
client. His job entailed teaching Smith how to use a MacBook, Safron said. At the time Smith
was living in a condominium atop the Four Seasons Hotel Chicago. Safron said Smith later
employed him at Corporate Venture Alliances, a private investment firm that Smith ran, first
out of the same condo and later from an office in the Hancock Building.
Safron, who said he had a low-level job with the Illinois Republican Party in 2014, said he
had no knowledge of Smith's bid to find hackers who could locate emails missing from Clinton's
service as secretary of state. In his online tribute to his former employer, he called Smith
the "best boss I could ever ask for ... a mentor, friend and model human being."
Safron said he worked part-time for Smith, putting in about 15 hours a week. But the two
grew close, often having lunch together at a favorite Smith spot: the Oak Tree Restaurant &
Bakery Chicago on North Michigan Ave. He called Smith a serious man who was "upbeat,"
"cosmopolitan" and "larger than life." He was aware Smith was in declining health, saying the
older man sometimes had difficulty breathing and told work colleagues he had heart problems.
Weeks before he took his life, he had become fatigued walking down about four or five flights
of stairs during a Hancock Building fire drill and later emailed Safron saying he was "dizzy,"
he said.
Smith's last will and testament, signed last Feb. 21, is seven pages long and on file in
Probate Court in Lake County. The will gives his wife his interest in their residential
property and his tangible personal property and says remaining assets should be placed into two
trusts.
He was born Feb. 23, 1936, in Portland, Maine, according to the death record.
His late father, Waldo Sterling Smith, was a manufacturer's representative for women's
apparel firms, representing them in department stores in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont,
according to the father's 2002 obituary. The elder Smith died at age 92 in St. Augustine, Fla.,
and his obit noted that he had been active in St. Johns County, Fla. Republican affairs and
with a local Methodist church
Peter Smith wrote two blog posts dated the day before he was found dead. One challenged
U.S. intelligence agency findings that Russia interfered with the 2016 election. Another post
predicted: "As attention turns to international affairs, as it will shortly, the Russian
interference story will die of its own weight."
Skiba reported from Washington, Heinzmann reported from Rochester and Lighty from
Chicago. Lauren Rosenblatt of the Tribune Washington Bureau and Dan Moran of the Lake County
News-Sun contributed to this story.
"... "Have you ever met or talked to any Russian official or relative of any Russian banker, or any Russian or even read Gogol, now or in the past?" ..."
"... Progressives joined the FBI/CIA's 'Russian Bear' conspiracy: " Russia intervened and decided the Presidential election" – no matter that millions of workers and rural Americans had voted against Hillary Clinton, Wall Street's candidate and no matter that no evidence of direct interference was ever presented. Progressives could not accept that 'their constituents', the masses, had rejected Madame Clinton and preferred 'the Donald'. They attacked a shifty-eyed caricature of the repeatedly elected Russian President Putin as a subterfuge for attacking the disobedient 'white trash' electorate of 'Deploralandia'. ..."
"... Progressive demagogues embraced the coifed and manicured former 'Director Comey' of the FBI, and the Mr. Potato-headed Capo of the CIA and their forty thugs in making accusations without finger or footprints. ..."
"... Then Progressives turned increasingly Orwellian: Ignoring Obama's actual expulsion of over 2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump for promising to eventually expel 5 million more! ..."
"... Progressives, under Obama, supported seven brutal illegal wars and pressed for more, but complained when Trump continued the same wars and proposed adding a few new ones. At the same time, progressives out-militarized Trump by accusing him of being 'weak' on Russia, Iran, North Korea and China. They chided him for his lack support for Israel's suppression of the Palestinians. They lauded Trump's embrace of the Saudi war against Yemen as a stepping-stone for an assault against Iran, even as millions of destitute Yemenis were exposed to cholera. The Progressives had finally embraced a biological weapon of mass destruction, when US-supplied missiles destroyed the water systems of Yemen! ..."
"... Thank you for putting your finger on the main problem right there in the first paragraph. There were exceptions of course. I supported Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic Primary that gave us the first black etc. But I never voted for Obama. Throughout the Cheney Admin I pleaded with progressives to bolt the party. ..."
"... This is an excellent summary of the evolution of "progressives" into modern militarist fascists who tolerate identity politics diversity. There is little to add to Mr. Petras' commentary. ..."
"... Barak Obama is America's biggest con man who accomplished nothing "progressive" during eight years at the top, and didn't even try. (Obamacare is an insurance industry idea supported by most Republicans, which is why it recently survived.) Anyone who still likes Obama should read about his actions since he left office. Obama quickly signed a $65 million "book deal", which can only be a kickback since there is no way the publisher can sell enough books about his meaningless presidency to justify that sum. Obama doesn't get royalties based on sales, but gets the money up front for a book he has yet to write, and will have someone do that for him. (Book deals and speaking fees are legal forms of bribery in the USA.) ..."
"... Then Obama embarked on 100 days of ultra expensive foreign vacations with taxpayers covering the Secret Service protection costs. He didn't appear at charity fundraisers, didn't campaign for Democrats, and didn't help build homes for the poor like Jimmy Carter. He returns from vacation this week and his first speech will be at a Wall Street firm that will pay him $400,000, then he travels to Europe for more paid speeches. ..."
"... They chose power over principles. Nobel War Prize winner Obomber was a particularly egregious chameleon, hiding his sociopathy through two elections before unleashing his racist warmongering in full flower throughout his second term. ..."
"... Like a huge collective 'Monica Lewinsky' robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party bent over and swallowed Clinton's vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act ..."
Over the past quarter century progressive writers, activists and academics have followed a trajectory
from left to right – with each presidential campaign seeming to move them further to the right. Beginning
in the 1990's progressives mobilized millions in opposition to wars, voicing demands for the transformation
of the US's corporate for-profit medical system into a national 'Medicare For All' public
program. They condemned the notorious Wall Street swindlers and denounced police state legislation
and violence. But in the end, they always voted for Democratic Party Presidential candidates who
pursued the exact opposite agenda.
Over time this political contrast between program and practice led to the transformation of the
Progressives. And what we see today are US progressives embracing and promoting the politics of the
far right.
To understand this transformation we will begin by identifying who and what the progressives are
and describe their historical role. We will then proceed to identify their trajectory over the recent
decades.
We will outline the contours of recent Presidential campaigns where Progressives were deeply
involved.
We will focus on the dynamics of political regression: From resistance to submission, from
retreat to surrender.
We will conclude by discussing the end result: The Progressives' large-scale, long-term embrace
of far-right ideology and practice.
Progressives by Name and Posture
Progressives purport to embrace 'progress', the growth of the economy, the enrichment of society
and freedom from arbitrary government. Central to the Progressive agenda was the end of elite corruption
and good governance, based on democratic procedures.
Progressives prided themselves as appealing to 'reason, diplomacy and conciliation', not brute
force and wars. They upheld the sovereignty of other nations and eschewed militarism and armed intervention.
Progressives proposed a vision of their fellow citizens pursuing incremental evolution toward
the 'good society', free from the foreign entanglements, which had entrapped the people in unjust
wars.
Progressives in Historical Perspective
In the early part of the 20th century, progressives favored political equality while opposing
extra-parliamentary social transformations. They supported gender equality and environmental preservation
while failing to give prominence to the struggles of workers and African Americans.
They denounced militarism 'in general' but supported a series of 'wars to end all wars'
. Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson embodied the dual policies of promoting peace at home
and bloody imperial wars overseas. By the middle of the 20th century, different strands emerged
under the progressive umbrella. Progressives split between traditional good government advocates
and modernists who backed socio-economic reforms, civil liberties and rights.
Progressives supported legislation to regulate monopolies, encouraged collective bargaining and
defended the Bill of Rights.
Progressives opposed wars and militarism in theory until their government went to war.
Lacking an effective third political party, progressives came to see themselves as the 'left
wing' of the Democratic Party, allies of labor and civil rights movements and defenders of civil
liberties.
Progressives joined civil rights leaders in marches, but mostly relied on legal and
electoral means to advance African American rights.
Progressives played a pivotal role in fighting McCarthyism, though ultimately it was the Secretary
of the Army and the military high command that brought Senator McCarthy to his knees.
Progressives provided legal defense when the social movements disrupted the House UnAmerican Activities
Committee.
They popularized the legislative arguments that eventually outlawed segregation, but it was courageous
Afro-American leaders heading mass movements that won the struggle for integration and civil rights.
In many ways the Progressives complemented the mass struggles, but their limits were defined by
the constraints of their membership in the Democratic Party.
The alliance between Progressives and social movements peaked in the late sixties to mid-1970's
when the Progressives followed the lead of dynamic and advancing social movements and community organizers
especially in opposition to the wars in Indochina and the military draft.
The Retreat of the Progressives
By the late 1970's the Progressives had cut their anchor to the social movements, as the anti-war,
civil rights and labor movements lost their impetus (and direction).
The numbers of progressives within the left wing of the Democratic Party increased through recruitment
from earlier social movements. Paradoxically, while their 'numbers' were up, their caliber had declined,
as they sought to 'fit in' with the pro-business, pro-war agenda of their President's party.
Without the pressure of the 'populist street' the 'Progressives-turned-Democrats' adapted
to the corporate culture in the Party. The Progressives signed off on a fatal compromise: The corporate
elite secured the electoral party while the Progressives were allowed to write enlightened manifestos
about the candidates and their programs . . . which were quickly dismissed once the Democrats took
office. Yet the ability to influence the 'electoral rhetoric' was seen by the Progressives as a sufficient
justification for remaining inside the Democratic Party.
Moreover the Progressives argued that by strengthening their presence in the Democratic Party,
(their self-proclaimed 'boring from within' strategy), they would capture the party membership,
neutralize the pro-corporation, militarist elements that nominated the president and peacefully transform
the party into a 'vehicle for progressive changes'.
Upon their successful 'deep penetration' the Progressives, now cut off from the increasingly disorganized
mass social movements, coopted and bought out many prominent black, labor and civil liberty activists
and leaders, while collaborating with what they dubbed the more malleable 'centrist' Democrats.
These mythical creatures were really pro-corporate Democrats who condescended to occasionally converse
with the Progressives while working for the Wall Street and Pentagon elite.
The Retreat of the Progressives: The Clinton Decade
Progressives adapted the 'crab strategy': Moving side-ways and then backwards but never forward.
Progressives mounted candidates in the Presidential primaries, which were predictably defeated
by the corporate Party apparatus, and then submitted immediately to the outcome. The election of
President 'Bill' Clinton launched a period of unrestrained financial plunder, major wars of aggression
in Europe (Yugoslavia) and the Middle East (Iraq), a military intervention in Somalia and secured
Israel's victory over any remnant of a secular Palestinian leadership as well as its destruction
of Lebanon!
Like a huge collective 'Monica Lewinsky' robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party bent
over and swallowed Clinton's vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act, thereby opening
the floodgates for massive speculation on Wall Street through the previously regulated banking sector.
When President Clinton gutted welfare programs, forcing single mothers to take minimum-wage jobs
without provision for safe childcare, millions of poor white and minority women were forced to abandon
their children to dangerous makeshift arrangements in order to retain any residual public support
and access to minimal health care. Progressives looked the other way.
Progressives followed Clinton's deep throated thrust toward the far right, as he outsourced manufacturing
jobs to Mexico (NAFTA) and re-appointed Federal Reserve's free market, Ayn Rand-fanatic, Alan Greenspan.
Progressives repeatedly kneeled before President Clinton marking their submission to the Democrats'
'hard right' policies.
The election of Republican President G. W. Bush (2001-2009) permitted Progressive's to temporarily
trot out and burnish their anti-war, anti-Wall Street credentials. Out in the street, they protested
Bush's savage invasion of Iraq (but not the destruction of Afghanistan). They protested the media
reports of torture in Abu Ghraib under Bush, but not the massive bombing and starvation of millions
of Iraqis that had occurred under Clinton. Progressives protested the expulsion of immigrants from
Mexico and Central America, but were silent over the brutal uprooting of refugees resulting from
US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the systematic destruction of their nations' infrastructure.
Progressives embraced Israel's bombing, jailing and torture of Palestinians by voting unanimously
in favor of increasing the annual $3 billion dollar military handouts to the brutal Jewish State.
They supported Israel's bombing and slaughter in Lebanon.
Progressives were in retreat, but retained a muffled voice and inconsequential vote in favor of
peace, justice and civil liberties. They kept a certain distance from the worst of the police state
decrees by the Republican Administration.
Progressives and Obama: From Retreat to Surrender
While Progressives maintained their tepid commitment to civil liberties, and their highly 'leveraged'
hopes for peace in the Middle East, they jumped uncritically into the highly choreographed Democratic
Party campaign for Barack Obama, 'Wall Street's First Black President'.
Progressives had given up their quest to 'realign' the Democratic Party 'from within':
they turned from serious tourism to permanent residency. Progressives provided the foot soldiers
for the election and re-election of the warmongering 'Peace Candidate' Obama. After the election,
Progressives rushed to join the lower echelons of his Administration. Black and white politicos joined
hands in their heroic struggle to erase the last vestiges of the Progressives' historical legacy.
Obama increased the number of Bush-era imperial wars to attacking seven weak nations under American's
'First Black' President's bombardment, while the Progressives ensured that the streets were quiet
and empty.
When Obama provided trillions of dollars of public money to rescue Wall Street and the bankers,
while sacrificing two million poor and middle class mortgage holders, the Progressives only criticized
the bankers who received the bailout, but not Obama's Presidential decision to protect and reward
the mega-swindlers.
Under the Obama regime social inequalities within the United States grew at an unprecedented rate.
The Police State Patriot Act was massively extended to give President Obama the power to order the
assassination of US citizens abroad without judicial process. The Progressives did not resign when
Obama's 'kill orders' extended to the 'mistaken' murder of his target's children and other family
member, as well as unidentified bystanders. The icon carriers still paraded their banner of the
'first black American President' when tens of thousands of black Libyans and immigrant workers
were slaughtered in his regime-change war against President Gadhafi.
Obama surpassed the record of all previous Republican office holders in terms of the massive numbers
of immigrant workers arrested and expelled – 2 million. Progressives applauded the Latino protestors
while supporting the policies of their 'first black President'.
Progressive accepted that multiple wars, Wall Street bailouts and the extended police state were
now the price they would pay to remain part of the "Democratic coalition' (sic).
The deeper the Progressives swilled at the Democratic Party trough, the more they embraced the
Obama's free market agenda and the more they ignored the increasing impoverishment, exploitation
and medical industry-led opioid addiction of American workers that was shortening their lives. Under
Obama, the Progressives totally abandoned the historic American working class, accepting their degradation
into what Madam Hillary Clinton curtly dismissed as the 'deplorables'.
With the Obama Presidency, the Progressive retreat turned into a rout, surrendering with one flaccid
caveat: the Democratic Party 'Socialist' Bernie Sanders, who had voted 90% of the time with the Corporate
Party, had revived a bastardized military-welfare state agenda.
Sander's Progressive demagogy shouted and rasped on the campaign trail, beguiling the young electorate.
The 'Bernie' eventually 'sheep-dogged' his supporters into the pro-war Democratic Party corral.
Sanders revived an illusion of the pre-1990 progressive agenda, promising resistance while demanding
voter submission to Wall Street warlord Hillary Clinton. After Sanders' round up of the motley progressive
herd, he staked them tightly to the far-right Wall Street war mongering Hillary Clinton. The Progressives
not only embraced Madame Secretary Clinton's nuclear option and virulent anti-working class agenda,
they embellished it by focusing on Republican billionaire Trump's demagogic, nationalist, working
class rhetoric which was designed to agitate 'the deplorables'. They even turned on the working
class voters, dismissing them as 'irredeemable' racists and illiterates or 'white trash' when
they turned to support Trump in massive numbers in the 'fly-over' states of the central US.
Progressives, allied with the police state, the mass media and the war machine worked to defeat
and impeach Trump. Progressives surrendered completely to the Democratic Party and started to advocate
its far right agenda. Hysterical McCarthyism against anyone who questioned the Democrats' promotion
of war with Russia, mass media lies and manipulation of street protest against Republican elected
officials became the centerpieces of the Progressive agenda. The working class and farmers had disappeared
from their bastardized 'identity-centered' ideology.
Guilt by association spread throughout Progressive politics. Progressives embraced J. Edgar Hoover's
FBI tactics: "Have you ever met or talked to any Russian official or relative of any Russian
banker, or any Russian or even read Gogol, now or in the past?" For progressives, 'Russia-gate'
defined the real focus of contemporary political struggle in this huge, complex, nuclear-armed superpower.
Progressives joined the FBI/CIA's 'Russian Bear' conspiracy: "Russia intervened and decided
the Presidential election" – no matter that millions of workers and rural Americans had voted
against Hillary Clinton, Wall Street's candidate and no matter that no evidence of direct interference
was ever presented. Progressives could not accept that 'their constituents', the masses, had rejected
Madame Clinton and preferred 'the Donald'. They attacked a shifty-eyed caricature of the repeatedly
elected Russian President Putin as a subterfuge for attacking the disobedient 'white trash' electorate
of 'Deploralandia'.
Progressive demagogues embraced the coifed and manicured former 'Director Comey' of the FBI,
and the Mr. Potato-headed Capo of the CIA and their forty thugs in making accusations without finger
or footprints.
The Progressives' far right - turn earned them hours and space on the mass media as long
as they breathlessly savaged and insulted President Trump and his family members. When they managed
to provoke him into a blind rage . . . they added the newly invented charge of 'psychologically
unfit to lead' – presenting cheap psychobabble as grounds for impeachment. Finally! American
Progressives were on their way to achieving their first and only political transformation: a Presidential
coup d'état on behalf of the Far Right!
Progressives loudly condemned Trump's overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as appeasement
and betrayal!
In return, President Trump began to 'out-militarize' the Progressives by escalating US involvement
in the Middle East and South China Sea. They swooned with joy when Trump ordered a missile strike
against the Syrian government as Damascus engaged in a life and death struggle against mercenary
terrorists. They dubbed the petulant release of Patriot missiles 'Presidential'.
Then Progressives turned increasingly Orwellian: Ignoring Obama's actual expulsion of over
2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump for promising to eventually expel 5 million
more!
Progressives, under Obama, supported seven brutal illegal wars and pressed for more, but complained
when Trump continued the same wars and proposed adding a few new ones. At the same time, progressives
out-militarized Trump by accusing him of being 'weak' on Russia, Iran, North Korea and China. They
chided him for his lack support for Israel's suppression of the Palestinians. They lauded Trump's
embrace of the Saudi war against Yemen as a stepping-stone for an assault against Iran, even as millions
of destitute Yemenis were exposed to cholera. The Progressives had finally embraced a biological
weapon of mass destruction, when US-supplied missiles destroyed the water systems of Yemen!
Conclusion
Progressives turned full circle from supporting welfare to embracing Wall Street; from preaching
peaceful co-existence to demanding a dozen wars; from recognizing the humanity and rights of undocumented
immigrants to their expulsion under their 'First Black' President; from thoughtful mass media critics
to servile media megaphones; from defenders of civil liberties to boosters for the police state;
from staunch opponents of J. Edgar Hoover and his 'dirty tricks' to camp followers for the 'intelligence
community' in its deep state campaign to overturn a national election.
Progressives moved from fighting and resisting the Right to submitting and retreating; from retreating
to surrendering and finally embracing the far right.
Doing all that and more within the Democratic Party, Progressives retain and deepen their ties
with the mass media, the security apparatus and the military machine, while occasionally digging
up some Bernie Sanders-type demagogue to arouse an army of voters away from effective resistance
to mindless collaboration.
But in the end, they always voted for Democratic Party Presidential candidates who pursued
the exact opposite agenda.
Thank you for putting your finger on the main problem right there in the first paragraph.
There were exceptions of course. I supported Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic Primary that gave
us the first black etc. But I never voted for Obama. Throughout the Cheney Admin I pleaded with
progressives to bolt the party.
This piece accurately traces the path from Progressive to Maoist. It's a pity the Republican
Party is also a piece of shit. I think it was Sara Palin who said "We have two parties. Pick one."
This should be our collective epitaph.
This is an excellent summary of the evolution of "progressives" into modern militarist
fascists who tolerate identity politics diversity. There is little to add to Mr. Petras' commentary.
"Progressives loudly condemned Trump's overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as
appeasement and betrayal!"
Perhaps the spirit of Senator Joseph McCarthy is joyously gloating as progressives (and democrats)
take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House UnAmerican
Activities Committee.
The great Jimmy Dore is a big thorn for the Democrats. From my blog:
Apr 29, 2017 – Obama is Scum!
Barak Obama is America's biggest con man who accomplished nothing "progressive" during
eight years at the top, and didn't even try. (Obamacare is an insurance industry idea supported
by most Republicans, which is why it recently survived.) Anyone who still likes Obama should read
about his actions since he left office. Obama quickly signed a $65 million "book deal", which
can only be a kickback since there is no way the publisher can sell enough books about his meaningless
presidency to justify that sum. Obama doesn't get royalties based on sales, but gets the money
up front for a book he has yet to write, and will have someone do that for him. (Book deals and
speaking fees are legal forms of bribery in the USA.)
Then Obama embarked on 100 days of ultra expensive foreign vacations with taxpayers covering
the Secret Service protection costs. He didn't appear at charity fundraisers, didn't campaign
for Democrats, and didn't help build homes for the poor like Jimmy Carter. He returns from vacation
this week and his first speech will be at a Wall Street firm that will pay him $400,000, then
he travels to Europe for more paid speeches.
Obama gets over $200,000 a year in retirement, just got a $65 million deal, so doesn't need
more money. Why would a multi-millionaire ex-president fly around the globe collecting huge speaking
fees from world corporations just after his political party was devastated in elections because
Americans think the Democratic party represents Wall Street? The great Jimmy Dore expressed his
outrage at Obama and the corrupt Democratic party in this great video.
Left in the good old days meant socialist, socialist meant that governments had the duty of
redistributing income from rich to poor. Alas in Europe, after 'socialists' became pro EU and
pro globalisation, they in fact became neoliberal. Both in France and the Netherlands 'socialist'
parties virtually disappeared.
So what nowadays is left, does anyone know ?
Then the word 'progressive'. The word suggests improvement, but what is improvement, improvement
for whom ? There are those who see the possibility for euthanasia as an improvement, there are
thos who see euthanasia as a great sin.
Discussions about left and progressive are meaningless without properly defining the concepts.
They chose power over principles. Nobel War Prize winner Obomber was a particularly egregious
chameleon, hiding his sociopathy through two elections before unleashing his racist warmongering
in full flower throughout his second term. But, hey, the brother now has five mansions, collects
half a mill per speech to the Chosen People on Wall Street, and parties for months at a time at
exclusive resorts for billionaires only.
Obviously, he's got the world by the tail and you don't. Hope he comes to the same end as Gaddaffi
and Ceaușescu. Maybe the survivors of nuclear Armageddon can hold a double necktie party with
Killary as the second honored guest that day.
Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson embodied the dual policies of promoting peace at home
and bloody imperial wars overseas.
You left out the other Roosevelt.
Like a huge collective 'Monica Lewinsky' robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party
bent over and swallowed Clinton's vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act
Hilarious!
Ignoring Obama's actual expulsion of over 2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump
for promising to eventually expel 5 million more!
so it's not just conservative conspiracy theory stuff as some might argue.
Still, the overall point of this essay isn't affected all that much. Open borders is still
a "right wing" (in the sense this author uses the term) policy–pro-Wall Street, pro-Big Business.
So Obama was still doing the bidding of the donor class in their quest for cheap labor.
I've seen pro-immigration types try to use the Obama-deportation thing to argue that we don't
need more hardcore policies. After all, even the progressive Democrat Obama was on the ball when
it came to policing our borders, right?! Who needed Trump?
@Carlton Meyer If Jimmy keeps up these attacks on Wall Street, the Banksters, and rent-seekers
he is going to get run out of the Progressive movement for dog-whistling virulent Anti-Semitism.
Look at how the media screams at Trump every time he mentions Wall Street and the banks.
Mr. Petra has penned an excellent and very astute piece. Allow me a little satire on our progressive
friends, entitled "The path to hell is paved with good intentions".
The early socialist/progressive travellers were well-intentioned but naïve in their understanding
of human nature and fanatical about their agenda. To move the human herd forward, they had no
compulsions about resorting to harsher and harsher prodding and whipping. They felt entitled to
employ these means because, so they were convinced, man has to be pushed to move forward and they,
the "progressives", were the best qualified to lead the herd. Scoundrels, psychopaths, moral defectives,
and sundry other rascals then joined in the whipping game, some out of the sheer joy of wielding
the whip, others to better line their pockets.
So the "progressive" journey degenerates into a forced march. The march becomes the progress,
becoming both the means and the end at the same time. Look at the so-called "progressive" today
and you will see the fanatic and the whip-wielder, steadfast about the correctness of his beliefs.
Tell him/her/it that you are a man or a woman and he retorts "No, you are free to choose, you
are genderless". What if you decline such freedom? "Well, then you are a bigot, we will thrash
you out of your bigotry", replies the progressive. "May I, dear Sir/Madam/Whatever, keep my hard-earned
money in my pocket for my and my family's use" you ask. "No, you first have to pay for our peace-making
wars, then pay for the upkeep of refugees, besides which you owe a lot of back taxes that are
necessary to run this wonderful Big Government of ours that is leading you towards greener and
greener pastures", shouts back the progressive.
Fed up, disgusted, and a little scared, you desperately seek a way out of this progress. "No
way", scream the march leaders. "We will be forever in your ears, sometimes whispering, sometimes
screaming; we will take over your brain to improve your mind; we will saturate you with images
on the box 24/7 and employ all sorts of imagery to make you progress. And if it all fails, we
will simply pack you and others like you in a basket of deplorables and forget about you at election
time."
Knowing who is "progressive" and know who is "far-right" is like knowing who is "fascist" and
who is not. For obvious historical reasons, the Russian like to throw the "fascist" slogan against
anyone who is a non-Russian nationalist. However, I accept the eminent historian Carroll Quigley's
definition of fascism as the incorporation of society and the state onto single entity on a permanent
war footing. The state controls everything in a radically authoritarian social structure. As Quigley
states, the Soviet Union was the most complete embodiment of fascism in WWII. In WWII Germany,
on the other hand, industry retained its independence and in WWII Italy fascism was no more than
an empty slogan.
Same for "progressives". Everyone wants to be "progressive", right? Who wants to be "anti-progressive"?
However, at the end of the day, "progressive" through verbal slights of hand has been nothing
more than a euphemism for "socialist" or, in the extreme, "communist" the verbal slight-of-hand
because we don't tend to use the latter terms in American political discourse.
"Progressives" morphing into a new "far-right" in America is no more mysterious than the Soviet
Union morphing from Leninism to Stalinism or, the Jewish (Trotskyite) globalists fleeing Stalinist
nationalism and then morphing into, first, "Scoop" Jackson Democrats and then into Bushite Republicans.
As you might notice, the real issue is the authoritarian vs. the non-authoritarian state. In
this context, an authoritarian government and social order (as in communism and neoconservatism)
are practical pre-requisites necessity to force humanity to transition to their New World Order.
Again, the defining characteristic of fascism is the unitary state enforced via an authoritarian
political and social structure. Ideological rigor is enforced via the police powers of the state
along with judicial activism and political correctness. Ring a bell?
In the ongoing contest between Trump and the remnants of the American "progressive" movement,
who are the populists and who the authoritarians? Who are the democrats and who are the fascists?
I would say that who lands where in this dichotomy is obvious.
@Alfa158 Is Jimmy Dore really a "Progressive?" (and what does that mean, anyway?) Isn't Jimmy's
show hosted by the Young Turks Network, which is unabashedly Libertarian?
Anyway, what's so great about "the Progressive movement?" Seems to me, they're just pathetic
sheepdogs for the war-crazed Dems. Jimmy should be supporting the #UNRIG movement ("Beyond Trump
& Sanders") for ALL Americans:
On 1 May 2017 Cynthia McKinney, Ellen Brown, and Robert Steele launched
Petras, for some reason, low balls the number of people ejected from assets when the mafia
came to seize real estate in the name of the ruling class and their expensive wars, morality,
the Constitution or whatever shit they could make up to fuck huge numbers of people over. Undoubtedly
just like 9/11, the whole thing was planned in advance. Political whores are clearly useless when
the system is at such extremes.
Banks like Capital One specialize in getting a signature and "giving" a car loan to someone
they know won't be able to pay, but is simply being used, shaken down and repossessed for corporate
gain. " No one held a gun to their head! " Get ready, the police state will in fact put a gun
to your head.
Depending on the time period in question, which might be the case here, more than 20 million
people were put out of homes and/or bankrupted with more to come. Clearly a bipartisan effort
featuring widespread criminal conduct across the country – an attack on the population to sustain
militarism.
If I may add:
"and you also have to dearly pay for you being white male heterosexual for oppressing all colored,
all the women and all the sexually different through the history".
"And if it all fails, we will simply pack you and others like you in a basket of deplorables
and forget about you at election time. If we see that you still don't get with the program we
will reeducate you. Should you resist that in any way we'll incarcerate you. And, no, normal legal
procedure does not work with racists/bigots/haters/whatever we don't like".
"Progressives loudly condemned Trump's overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as appeasement
and betrayal!"
Perhaps the spirit of Senator Joseph McCarthy is joyously gloating as progressives (and democrats)
take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House UnAmerican
Activities Committee.
take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House
UnAmerican Activities Committee
which itself was a progressive invention. There was no "right wing" anywhere in sight when
it was estsblished in 1938.
"... The fact that the Hersh piece was published in one of Germany's ueber-establishment organs, Die Welt, is significant. It means that Germany is no longer on board, and I don't see Macron, though he is an empty suit, doing a 180 like some fear, since he takes many of his orders from Merkel. ..."
exiled off mainstreet | Jun 27, 2017 10:33:18 AM |
25
I go along with comments 14 and 15 and see it actually as a response intended to defend
against the inference from the Hersh piece that Trump revealed himself to be a moron for
succumbing despite the evidence to media propaganda.
I think that the problem is that Trump
is less than fully in control of elements of his government, possibly even Spicer, as evidenced
by the failure to inform the state dept, military and others of the statement, which may
not have been fully vetted. I wouldn't be surprised if Spicer's time as press secretary
is limited.
The fact that the Hersh piece was published in one of Germany's ueber-establishment organs,
Die Welt, is significant. It means that Germany is no longer on board, and I don't see Macron,
though he is an empty suit, doing a 180 like some fear, since he takes many of his orders
from Merkel.
It is seriously disconcerting that the neocons still seem to be able to rule
the roost. If any "chemical" attack occurs within a few days or longer away, it will be
extremely suspect. Meanwhile, the Russia conspiracy stories in the US seem to be in the
early stages of blowing up, with a CNN official being exposed as admitting it was all propaganda,
and Loretta Lynch, the ex-Justice Minister, appearing to be becoming a target based on her defence of the Harpy from criminal liability for the email server during the 2016 campaign.
In light of these facts, I think the whole thing more likely shows weakness and disarray,
not a serious conspiratorial threat of armageddon, though it could end up blowing up in
that direction.
"... The reasoning was simple and is not hard to understand: Carthago delenda est. ..."
"... In a way McCain can be viewed now as a caricature of the Roman senator Cato the Elder, who is said to have used it as the conclusion to all his speeches. ..."
Your discussion just again had shown that there is no economics, only a political economy.
And all those neoliberal perversions, which are sold as an economic science is just an apologetics
for the financial oligarchy.
Apologetics of plunder in this particular case.
In a way the USSR with its discredited communist ideology, degenerated Bolshevik leadership
(just look at who was at the Politburo of CPSU at the time; people much lower in abilities then
Trump :-) and inept and politically naïve Mikhail Gorbachev at the helm had chosen the most inopportune
time to collapse :-)
And neoliberal vultures instantly circled the corpse and have had a feast. Geopolitical goals
of the USA also played important role in amplifying the scope of plunder.
No comparison of performance of Russia vs. China makes any sense if it ignores this fact.
While I would argue with the economic advice given the Russian government after 1988, I am simply
trying to understand the reasoning behind the advice, no more than that.
The reasoning was simple and is not hard to understand: Carthago delenda est.
In a way McCain can be viewed now as a caricature of the Roman senator Cato the Elder,
who is said to have used it as the conclusion to all his speeches.
History repeats "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."
"... If America were a free and democratic country, with a free press and independent publishing houses (and assuming, of course, that Americans were a literate people), Williamson's book would topple the Clinton regime, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the rest of the criminal cabal that inhabits the world of modern corporate statism faster than you could say "Jonathan Hay." ..."
"... Hay, for those who need an introduction to the international financial buccaneers who control our lives, was the general director of the Harvard Institute of International Development (HIID) in Moscow (1992-1997), who facilitated the crippling of the Russian economy and the plundering of its industrial and manufacturing infrastructure with a strategy concocted by Larry Summers, Andre Schliefer (HIID's Cambridge-based manager), Jeffrey Sachs and his Swedish sidekick Anders Aslund, and a host of private players from banks and investment houses in Boston and New York - a plan approved and assisted by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. ..."
"... These third-generation Bolsheviks - led by former Pravda hack Yegor Gaidar, grandson of a Bolshevik who achieved prominence as the teenage mass murderer of White Army officers, now heads the Moscow-based Institute for Economies in Transition - became instant millionaires (or billionaires) and left the Russian workers virtual slaves of them and their new foreign investors. ..."
"... Ironically, when Harvard's Sachs and Hay started identifying Russians they could work with, they ignored - or shunned - the most capable talent at hand: those numerous Russian economists who for 20 years had been studying the Swiss economist Wilhelm von Roepke and his disciple, Ludwig Erhard, father of Germany's "economic miracle" in anticipation of the day when Communism would collapse. Somewhat sardonically, Williamson notes that one, probably unintended, benefit of Gorbachev's perestroika was the recruitment of these Russian economists by top U.S. universities. ..."
"... On another level, Contagion is about the workings of international finance, the consolidation of capital into fewer and fewer hands, and the ruthless, death-dealing policies it inflicts on its target countries through currency manipulation, inflation, depression, taxation and war - with emphasis on Russia but with attention also given to Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia, the Balkans, and other countries, and how it uses its control over money to produce social chaos. ..."
"... Those who read Williamson's book will find particularly interesting her treatment of the Federal Reserve, and how this "bank" was designed to plunder the wealth of America through war, debt, and taxation, in order to maintain what is nothing more nor less than a giant pyramid scheme that depends on domination of the earth and its resources. ..."
"... The policies inflicted on Russia by the banks were cruel to the Nth degree; but the policy implementers - Williamson employs the derogatory Russian word m yakigolovy ("soft-headed ones") applied to the Americans - were a foppish lot, streaming into Russia by the thousands (the IMF, alone, with 150 staffers) with their outrageous salaries and per diem allowances, renting out the finest dachas, bringing in their exotic consumer goods, driving up prices for goods and rents, spurring a boom in the drug and prostitution businesses, and then watching, cold-heartedly, the declining fortunes of their hosts as they lost everything - including the artistic heritage of the country. ..."
"... Gore, who was raised to be President, has impeccable Russian connections. His father, of course, was Lenin financier Armand Hammer's pocket senator, and it was Hammer who paid for Al Jr.'s expensive St. Alban's Prep schooling; and, as Williamson reports, Al Jr.'s daughter married Andrew Schiff, grandson of Jacob, who, as a member of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., underwrote anti-czarist political agitation for two decades before Lenin's coup, and congratulated Lenin upon his successful revolution. ..."
"... By March 1999, Russia was now a financial basket case, and billions, if not tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer-backed loans had vanished into the secret bank accounts of both Russian and American gangster capitalists, and the news was starting to make little vibrations on Capitol Hill. "The U.S. administration's response to the debacle was repulsively similar to a typical Bill Clinton bimbo-eruption operation: Having ruined Russia by cosseting her in debt, meddling ignorantly in her internal affairs, and funding a drunken usurper, his agents denied all error and slandered ('slimed') her," writes Williamson. ..."
"... The cost to the American taxpayers of Clinton regime bailouts in a three-and-a-half-year period, Williamson notes, is more than $180 billion! The "new financial architecture" Clinton has erected, she writes, "isn't new at all, but rather something the international public lenders have been wanting for decades, i.e., an automatic bailout for their own bad practices." ..."
"... As the extent of the corruption of the Clinton-Yeltsin "reform" plan for Russia unfolded last year, with the attendant Bank of New York scandal, the mysterious death of super banker Edmond Safra in his Monte Carlo penthouse, the collapse of the Russian stock market, and the whiplash effect in Southeast Asia, Congress was pressed to hold hearings. ..."
"... What resulted, as Williamson accurately narrates it, was just a smoke screen, show hearings that barely rose above the seriousness of a Gilbert and Sullivan farce - though they did result in proposed new domestic banking laws that, if passed, will effectively make banks another federal police force responsible for reporting to the U.S. government the most minute financial transactions of U.S. citizens. ..."
"... In this regard, it is instructive to quote Williamson at length: "If the FBI, [Manhattan District Attorney] Robert Morgenthau, or Congress were serious about getting to the bottom of the plundering of Russia's assets and U.S. taxpayers' resources, they would show far more professional interest in exactly what was said and agreed in the private meetings [U.S. Treasury secretary] Larry Summers, Strobe Talbott, and [former Treasury Secretary] Robert Rubin conducted with Anatoly Chubais [former Russian finance minister, who oversaw the distribution and sale of Russian industries], and Sergie Vasiliev [Yeltsin's principal legal adviser, and a member of the Chubais clan], and later Chubais again in June and July of 1998. ..."
"... And why did Michel Camdessus [who left the presidency of the IMF earlier this year] announce his sudden retirement so soon after Moscow newspapers reported that a $200,000 payment was made to him from a secret Kremlin bank account? . . . ..."
"... You see, as this book explains, the Clinton's Russia policy did not just plunder Russians, leaving them destitute while creating a new and ruthless class of international capitalist gangsters at U.S. taxpayer expense; it had the double consequence of bringing all Americans deeper into the bankers' New World Order by increasing their debt load, decreasing their privacy, and restricting their civil rights. If only Americans cared. ..."
After 1991 Eastern Europe and FSU were mercilessly looted. That was tremendous one time transfer
of capital (and scientists and engineers) to Western Europe and the USA. Which helped to secure
"Clinton prosperity period"
China were not plundered by the West. Russia and Eastern Europe were. That's the key difference.
For Russia this period was called by Anne Williamson in her testimony before the Committee
on Banking and Financial Services of the United States House of Representatives "The economic
rape of Russia"
How Clinton & Company & The Bankers Plundered Russia by Paul Likoudis
May 4, 2000
The other day I was surprised to learn that Jeffrey Sachs, the creator of "shock therapy"
capitalism, who participated in the looting of Russia in the 1990s, is now NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo's
top adviser for health care. So we in NY will get shock therapy, much as the Russians did two
decades ago. Here is a story I wrote for The Wanderer in 2000:
===
How Clinton & Company & The Bankers Plundered Russia
by Paul Likoudis
In an ordinary election year, Anne Williamson's Contagion would be political dynamite, a
bombshell, a block-buster, a regime breaker.
If America were a free and democratic country, with a free press and independent publishing
houses (and assuming, of course, that Americans were a literate people), Williamson's book
would topple the Clinton regime, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the rest
of the criminal cabal that inhabits the world of modern corporate statism faster than you could
say "Jonathan Hay."
Hay, for those who need an introduction to the international financial buccaneers who
control our lives, was the general director of the Harvard Institute of International Development
(HIID) in Moscow (1992-1997), who facilitated the crippling of the Russian economy and the
plundering of its industrial and manufacturing infrastructure with a strategy concocted by
Larry Summers, Andre Schliefer (HIID's Cambridge-based manager), Jeffrey Sachs and his Swedish
sidekick Anders Aslund, and a host of private players from banks and investment houses in Boston
and New York - a plan approved and assisted by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Contagion can be read on many different levels.
At its simplest, it is a breezy, slightly cynical, highly entertaining narrative of Russian
history from the last months of Gorbachev's rule to April 2000 - a period which saw Russia
transformed from a decaying socialist economy (which despite its shortcomings, provided a modest
standard of living to its citizens) to a "managed economy" where home-grown gangsters and socialist
theoreticians from the West, like Hay and his fellow Harvardian Jeffrey Sachs, delivered 2,500%
inflation and indescribable poverty, and transferred the ownership of Russian industry to Western
financiers.
Williamson was an eyewitness who lived on and off in Russia for more than ten years, where
she reported on all things Russian for The New York Times, Th e Wall Street Journal, and a
host of other equally reputable publications. She knew and interviewed just about everybody
involved in this gargantuan plundering scheme: Russian politicians and businessmen, the new
"gangster" capitalists and their American sponsors from the IMF, the World Bank, USAID, Credit
Suisse First Boston, the CIA, the KGB - all in all, hundreds of sources who spoke candidly,
often ruthlessly, of their parts in this terrible human drama.
Her account is filled with quotations from interviews with top aides of Yeltsin and Clinton,
all down through the ranks of the two hierarchical societies to the proliferating mass of Russian
destitute, pornographers, pimps, drug dealers, and prostitutes. Some of the principal characters,
of course, refused to talk to Williamson, such as Bill Clinton's longtime friend from Oxford,
Strobe Talbott, now a deputy secretary of state and, Williamson suspects, a onetime KGB operative
whose claim to fame is a deceitful translation of the Khrushchev Memoirs. (A KGB colonel refused
to confirm or deny to Williamson that Clinton and Talbott visited North Vietnam together in
1971 - though he did confirm their contacts with the KGB for their protests against the U.S.
war in Vietnam in Moscow. See especially footnote 1, page 210.)
The 546-page book (the best part of which is the footnotes) gives a nearly day-by-day report
on what happened to Russia; left unstated, but implied on every page, is the assumption that
those in the United States who think what happened in Russia "can't happen here" better realize
it can happen here.
Once the Clinton regime and its lapdogs in the media defined Russian thug Boris Yeltsin
as a "democrat," the wholesale looting of Russia began. According to the socialist theoreticians
at Harvard, Russia needed to be brought into the New World Order in a hurry; and what better
way to do it than Sachs' "shock therapy" - a plan that empowered the degenerate, third-generation
descendants of the original Bolsheviks by assigning them the deeds of Russia's mightiest state-owned
industries - including the giant gas, oil, electrical, and telecommunications industries, the
world's largest paper, iron, and steel factories, the world's richest gold, silver, diamond,
and platinum mines, automobile and airplane factories, etc. - who, in turn, sold some of their
shares of the properties to Westerners for a song, and pocketed the cash, while retaining control
of the companies.
These third-generation Bolsheviks - led by former Pravda hack Yegor Gaidar, grandson
of a Bolshevik who achieved prominence as the teenage mass murderer of White Army officers,
now heads the Moscow-based Institute for Economies in Transition - became instant millionaires
(or billionaires) and left the Russian workers virtual slaves of them and their new foreign
investors.
When Russian members of the Supreme Soviet openly criticized the looting of the national
patrimony by these new gangsters early in the U.S.-driven "reform" program, in 1993, before
all Soviet institutions were destroyed, Yeltsin bombed Parliament.
Ironically, when Harvard's Sachs and Hay started identifying Russians they could work
with, they ignored - or shunned - the most capable talent at hand: those numerous Russian economists
who for 20 years had been studying the Swiss economist Wilhelm von Roepke and his disciple,
Ludwig Erhard, father of Germany's "economic miracle" in anticipation of the day when Communism
would collapse. Somewhat sardonically, Williamson notes that one, probably unintended, benefit
of Gorbachev's perestroika was the recruitment of these Russian economists by top U.S. universities.
In the new, emerging global economy, it's clear that Russia is the designated center for
heavy manufacturing - just as Asia is for clothing and computers - with its nearly unlimited
supply of hydroelectric power, iron and steel, timber, gold and other precious metals.
This helps explain why America's political elites don't give a fig about the closing down
of American industries and mines. As Williamson observes, Russia is viewed as some kind of
"closet."
What is important for Western readers to understand - as Williamson reports - is that when
Western banks and corporations bought these companies at bargain basement prices, they bought
more than just industrial equipment. In the Soviet model, every unit of industrial production
included workers' housing, churches, opera houses, schools, hospitals, supermarkets, etc.,
and the whole kit-and-caboodle was included in the selling price. By buying large shares of
these companies, Western corporations became, ipso facto, town managers.
Another Level
On another level, Contagion is about the workings of international finance, the consolidation
of capital into fewer and fewer hands, and the ruthless, death-dealing policies it inflicts
on its target countries through currency manipulation, inflation, depression, taxation and
war - with emphasis on Russia but with attention also given to Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia,
the Balkans, and other countries, and how it uses its control over money to produce social
chaos.
Those who read Williamson's book will find particularly interesting her treatment of
the Federal Reserve, and how this "bank" was designed to plunder the wealth of America through
war, debt, and taxation, in order to maintain what is nothing more nor less than a giant pyramid
scheme that depends on domination of the earth and its resources.
Williamson is of that small but noble school of economics writers who believe that the academic
field of economics is not some esoteric science that can only be comprehended by those with
IQs in four digits, and she - drawing on such writers as Hayek and von Mises, Roepke and the
late American Murray Rothbard - explains in layman's vocabulary the nuts and bolts of sound
economic principles and the real-world effects of the Fed's policies on hapless Americans.
Contagion also serves up a severe indictment of the World Bank, the International Monetary
Fund, and the other international "lending" agencies spawned by the Council on Foreign Relations
and similar "councils" and "commissions" which are fronts for the big banks run by the Houses
of Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg, et al.
The policies inflicted on Russia by the banks were cruel to the Nth degree; but the
policy implementers - Williamson employs the derogatory Russian word m yakigolovy ("soft-headed
ones") applied to the Americans - were a foppish lot, streaming into Russia by the thousands
(the IMF, alone, with 150 staffers) with their outrageous salaries and per diem allowances,
renting out the finest dachas, bringing in their exotic consumer goods, driving up prices for
goods and rents, spurring a boom in the drug and prostitution businesses, and then watching,
cold-heartedly, the declining fortunes of their hosts as they lost everything - including the
artistic heritage of the country.
Williamson describes brilliantly that heady atmosphere in Moscow in the early days of the
IMF/USAID loan-scamming: a 24-hour party. There were bars like the Canadian-operated Hungry
Duck, which lured Russian teenage girls into its bar with a male striptease and free drinks,
"who, once thoroughly intoxicated, were then exposed to crowds of anxious young men the club
admitted only late in the evening."
The Third Level
At a third and more intriguing level, Contagion is about America's criminal politics in
the Clinton regime, and, inevitably, the reader will put Williamson's book down with the sense
that Al Gore will be the next occupier of the White House.
Gore, who was raised to be President, has impeccable Russian connections. His father,
of course, was Lenin financier Armand Hammer's pocket senator, and it was Hammer who paid for
Al Jr.'s expensive St. Alban's Prep schooling; and, as Williamson reports, Al Jr.'s daughter
married Andrew Schiff, grandson of Jacob, who, as a member of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., underwrote
anti-czarist political agitation for two decades before Lenin's coup, and congratulated Lenin
upon his successful revolution.
Williamson also documents Gore's intimate involvement with powerful Wall Street financial
houses, and his New York breakfast meeting with multibillionaire George Soros (a key Russian
player) just as the Russian collapse was underway.
Williamson tells an interesting story of Gore's response to the IMF/World Bank/USAID plunder
of U.S. taxpayers for the purpose of hobbling Russia.
By March 1999, Russia was now a financial basket case, and billions, if not tens of
billions of U.S. taxpayer-backed loans had vanished into the secret bank accounts of both Russian
and American gangster capitalists, and the news was starting to make little vibrations on Capitol
Hill. "The U.S. administration's response to the debacle was repulsively similar to a typical
Bill Clinton bimbo-eruption operation: Having ruined Russia by cosseting her in debt, meddling
ignorantly in her internal affairs, and funding a drunken usurper, his agents denied all error
and slandered ('slimed') her," writes Williamson.
"Pundits and academics joined government officials in bemoaning Mother Russia's thieving
ways, her bottomless corruption and constant chaos, all the while wringing their soft hands
with a schoolmarm's exasperation. Russia's self-appointed democracy coach Strobe Talbott ('Pro-Consul
Strobe' to the Russians) would get it right. An equally sanctimonious Albert Gore - the same
Al Gore who'd been so quick to return the CIA's 1995 report detailing Viktor Chernomyrdin's
and Anatoly Chubais' personal corruption with the single word 'Bullshit' scrawled across it
- took the low road and sniffed that the Russians would just have to get their own economic
house in order and cut their own deal with the IMF. . . ."
The cost to the American taxpayers of Clinton regime bailouts in a three-and-a-half-year
period, Williamson notes, is more than $180 billion! The "new financial architecture" Clinton
has erected, she writes, "isn't new at all, but rather something the international public lenders
have been wanting for decades, i.e., an automatic bailout for their own bad practices."
As the extent of the corruption of the Clinton-Yeltsin "reform" plan for Russia unfolded
last year, with the attendant Bank of New York scandal, the mysterious death of super banker
Edmond Safra in his Monte Carlo penthouse, the collapse of the Russian stock market, and the
whiplash effect in Southeast Asia, Congress was pressed to hold hearings.
What resulted, as Williamson accurately narrates it, was just a smoke screen, show hearings
that barely rose above the seriousness of a Gilbert and Sullivan farce - though they did result
in proposed new domestic banking laws that, if passed, will effectively make banks another
federal police force responsible for reporting to the U.S. government the most minute financial
transactions of U.S. citizens.
Double Effect
In this regard, it is instructive to quote Williamson at length: "If the FBI, [Manhattan
District Attorney] Robert Morgenthau, or Congress were serious about getting to the bottom
of the plundering of Russia's assets and U.S. taxpayers' resources, they would show far more
professional interest in exactly what was said and agreed in the private meetings [U.S. Treasury
secretary] Larry Summers, Strobe Talbott, and [former Treasury Secretary] Robert Rubin conducted
with Anatoly Chubais [former Russian finance minister, who oversaw the distribution and sale
of Russian industries], and Sergie Vasiliev [Yeltsin's principal legal adviser, and a member
of the Chubais clan], and later Chubais again in June and July of 1998.
"Instead of allowing Larry Summers to ramble casually in response to questions at a banking
committee hearing, the Treasury secretary should be asked exactly who suckered him - his Russian
friends, his own boss [former Harvard associate Robert Rubin, his boss at Treasury who was
once cochairman at Goldman Sachs], or private sector counterparts of the Working Committee
on Financial Markets [a White House group whose membership is drawn from the country's main
financial and market institutions: the Fed, Treasury, SEC, and the Commodities & Trading Commission].
. . . Or did he just bungle the entire matter on account of wishful thinking? Or was it gross
incompetence?
"The FBI and Congress ought to be very interested in establishing for taxpayers the truth
of any alleged 'national security' issues that justified allowing the Harvard Institute of
International Development to privatize U.S. bilateral assistance. It too should be their brief
to discover the relationship between the [Swedish wheeler-dealer and crony of Sachs, Anders]
Aslund/Carnegie crowd and Treasury and exactly what influence that relationship may have had
on the awarding of additional grants to Harvard without competition. On what basis did Team
Clinton direct their financial donor, American International Group's (AIG) Maurice Greenberg
(a man nearly as ubiquitous as any Russian oligarch in sweetheart public-funding deals), to
Brunswick Brokerage when sniffing out a $300 million OPIC guarantee for a Russian investment
fund. . . .
And why did Michel Camdessus [who left the presidency of the IMF earlier this year]
announce his sudden retirement so soon after Moscow newspapers reported that a $200,000 payment
was made to him from a secret Kremlin bank account? . . .
"American and Russian citizens can never be allowed to learn what really happened to the
billions lent to Yeltsin's government; it would expose the unsavory and self-interested side
of our political, financial, and media elites. . . . Instead, the [House] Banking Committee
hearings will use the smoke screen of policing foreign assistance flows to pass legislation
that will effectively end U.S. citizens' financial privacy while making them prisoners of their
citizenship. . . . The Banking Committee will use the opportunity the Russian dirty money scandal
presents to reanimate the domestic 'Know Your Customer' program, which charges domestic banks
with monitoring and reporting on the financial transactions in which middle-class Americans
engage. This data is collected and used by various government agencies, including the IRS;
meaning that if a citizen sells the family's beat-up station wagon or their 'starter' home,
the taxman is alerted immediately that the citizen's filing should reflect the greater tax
obligation in that year of the sale. . . . Other data on citizens for which the government
has long thirsted will also be collected by government's newest police force, the banks. .
. ."
You see, as this book explains, the Clinton's Russia policy did not just plunder Russians,
leaving them destitute while creating a new and ruthless class of international capitalist
gangsters at U.S. taxpayer expense; it had the double consequence of bringing all Americans
deeper into the bankers' New World Order by increasing their debt load, decreasing their privacy,
and restricting their civil rights. If only Americans cared.
"When you have a former head of the FBI, a deeply respected person"
That's funny. Can you spell 9/11. He served as President George W. Bush's deputy attorney general
(D.A.G.), in the aftermath of 9/11. So he is the the one who got Saudi officials off the hook.
Former Democratic Sen. Bob Graham, who in 2002 chaired the congressional Joint Inquiry into
9/11, maintains the FBI is covering up a Saudi support cell in Sarasota for the hijackers.
He says the al-Hijjis' "urgent" pre-9/11 exit suggests "someone may have tipped them off" about
the coming attacks.
Graham has been working with a 14-member group in Congress to urge President Obama to declassify
28 pages of the final report of his inquiry which were originally redacted, wholesale, by President
George W. Bush.
"The 28 pages primarily relate to who financed 9/11, and they point a very strong finger
at Saudi Arabia as being the principal financier," he said, adding, "I am speaking of the kingdom,"
or government, of Saudi Arabia, not just wealthy individual Saudi donors.
Sources who have read the censored Saudi section say it cites CIA and FBI case files that
directly implicate officials of the Saudi Embassy in Washington and its consulate in Los Angeles
in the attacks - which, if true, would make 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of
war by a foreign government.
– From the New York Post article: How the FBI is Whitewashing the Saudi Connection to 9/11
Was Comey's "second thought" announcement after Hillary email investigation a naked political
gambit?
And what about his very strange announcement about Wiener computer containing Hillary classified
emails?
"... Ousted FBI Director James Comey said Thursday that he suspected former Attorney General Loretta Lynch was in cahoots with the Hillary Clinton campaign last summer. ..."
A key takeaway of today's Comey hearing is the bombshell revelation that former DOJ head Loretta Lynch tried to encourage James Comey
to minimize the investigation into Hillary Clinton.
Ousted FBI Director James Comey said Thursday that he suspected former Attorney General Loretta Lynch was in cahoots with the
Hillary Clinton campaign last summer.
Lynch, he said, told him not to refer to the probe into Clinton's private email server as an "investigation."
"She said just call it a matter. That concerned me because that language tracked how the campaign was talking about the FBI's
work," he said.
"That was the thing that capped it for me, that I had to do something separately to protect the credibility of the investigation,
which meant both the FBI and the Justice Department," Comey said.
Comey announced last July that criminal charges were not warranted, angering Republicans.
"... It had shown staggering incompetence and arrogance of Hillary and her close circle. You can argue about the level of criminality, but it is impossible to argue about staggering level of incompetence and arrogance. "Bathroom server" was essentially "shadow IT" installed by Hillary for her nefarious purpose to hide transactions benefitting Clinton foundation and generally to remain out of control, while in government. ..."
"... All-in-all vividly demonstrated that Obama administration as whole was a dysfunctional mess with corruption and clique infighting inside major departments (Meeting of Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch; Comey granting immunity to everybody, suppressing the investigation and then having the second thoughts; Obama greed after he left the office). ..."
I disagree. It
had shown staggering incompetence and arrogance of Hillary
and her close circle. You can argue about the level of
criminality, but it is impossible to argue about
staggering level of incompetence and arrogance. "Bathroom
server" was essentially "shadow IT" installed by Hillary
for her nefarious purpose to hide transactions benefitting
Clinton foundation and generally to remain out of control,
while in government.
Attempts to suppress investigation now also can be
proved. Much better then Trump collision with Russians.
All-in-all vividly demonstrated that Obama
administration as whole was a dysfunctional mess with
corruption and clique infighting inside major departments
(Meeting of Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch; Comey granting
immunity to everybody, suppressing the investigation and
then having the second thoughts; Obama greed after he left
the office).
If this was a big nothing, then dementia is not a
problem :-)
"I disagree. It had shown staggering incompetence and
arrogance of Hillary and her close circle. yo can argue
about the level of criminality, but it is impossible to
argue about staggering level of incompetence and
arrogance."
OK, Clinton was not 1000% perfect.
So, that justifies giving the job to Trump because 5%
competency from a man is better than a 98% competent
woman?
Only men are allowed to be both arrogant and
incompetent!
The USA opened this can of works with Flame and Stixnet. Now it needs to face consequences of its
reckless actions.
Both Hillary staff and DNC staff behaves like complete idiots, taking into account the level of
mayhem the USA caused in other countries, including Russia. Blowback eventually came and bite their
ass. In addition Hillary "private" staff was definitely incompetent.
Notable quotes:
"... The validity of outrage anyway vis-a-vis the Russians, is, to some extent, misplaced ( ..everyone's doin' it aren't they? For starters, recall the Time cover of' '96: ..."
Incessantly reporting 24/7 on whether the Russians did it or not doesn't take into account the
critical failure by a leading political party of the "free world" – a nation supposedly at the forefront
of technology – to appropriately secure their digital communications along with those of a potential
POTUS.
This is a question of how US government, or a potential one, works, and how it should work in
the future.
The validity of outrage anyway vis-a-vis the Russians, is, to some extent, misplaced ( ..everyone's
doin' it aren't they? For starters, recall the Time cover of' '96:
"... Comey admitted to orchestrating leaks from the investigation to the media using a network of friends. Reponse was swift on social media: ..."
"... Senator Risch questioned Comey about the Times, asking "So the American people can understand this, that report by the New York Times was not true, is that a fair statement?" "It was not true," Comey said. "Again, all of you know this, maybe the American people don't. The challenge - I'm not picking on reporters about writing stories about classified information [the challenge is] that people talking about it often don't really now what's going on and those of us who actually know what's going on are not talking about it." ..."
"... Comey discussed the involvement of President Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, in the investigation of Hillary Clinton. He stated that Lynch made an odd request for how the FBI investigation should be described. "At one point the attorney general had directed me not to call it investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which concerned and confused me," Comey said. ..."
One thing is for sure, Comey's testimony was anything but boring. 1) Trump was not under investigation by the FBI
When questioned by Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), Comey answered that President Donald Trump was not under investigation by the FBI.
It was also revealed that congressional leaders had previously been briefed on this fact.
This morning Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton joined
Breitbart News Daily and predicted this fact. Fitton called allegations against Trump "gossip" and "a nothing burger."
2) James Comey leaked documents to the media
Comey admitted to orchestrating leaks from the investigation to the media using a network of friends. Reponse was swift on
social media:
Senators should ask Comey the name of the Columbia professor and then subpoena the memos from him.
President Trump's personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, issued a
blistering statement after the hearing on the subject of Comey's leaks.
3) The obstruction of justice case against Trump just went up in smoke
Senator James Risch (R-ID) questioned Comey early in the hearing about the possibility of obstruction of justice regarding the
investigation of General Michael Flynn. Risch repeatedly questioned Comey about the exact wording used by President Trump to him
in private, which Comey recorded in his
much-discussed memo .
The exchange leaves Democrat's hopes of impeachment for obstruction of justice considerably dimmed:
Comey : I mean, it's the President of the United States with me alone, saying, "I hope this." I took it as this is what he
wants me to do. I didn't obey that, but that's the way I took it.
Risch : You may have taken it as a direction, but that's not what he said.
Risch : He said, "I hope."
Comey : Those are exact words, correct.
Risch : You don't know of anyone that's been charged for hoping something?
Comey : I don't, as I sit here.
Risch : Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
4) Comey says the New York Times published fake news
James Comey had a
few things to say about the reporting of the New York Times which reported on collusion between the Trump campaign and
Russia.
Senator Risch questioned Comey about the Times, asking "So the American people can understand this, that report by the
New York Times was not true, is that a fair statement?" "It was not true," Comey said. "Again, all of you know this, maybe the American people don't. The challenge - I'm not picking
on reporters about writing stories about classified information [the challenge is] that people talking about it often don't really
now what's going on and those of us who actually know what's going on are not talking about it."
5) Loretta Lynch meddled in the Clinton investigation
Comey
discussed the involvement of President Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, in the investigation of Hillary Clinton. He stated
that Lynch made an odd request for how the FBI investigation should be described. "At one point the attorney general had directed me not to call it investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which concerned
and confused me," Comey said.
Comey added that Lynch's
infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton during the campaign was the reason he decided to make a statement when the decision
was made not to prosecute Hillary Clinton.
"In a ultimately conclusive way, that was the thing that capped it for me, that I had to do something separately to protect the
credibility of the investigation, which meant both the FBI and the Justice Department," Comey said.
6) James Comey sounds like every disgruntled former employee ever
Comey had quite a bit to say about his firing, which leaves him looking like a
disgruntled former
employee . Comey accused President Trump and his administration of lying about him, and "defaming him and more importantly the
FBI."
Comey also explained that his discomfort with the President and the belief that Trump would lie about him led to the creation
of his memo on the meeting. "I was honestly concerned that he might lie about the nature of our meeting, so I thought it really important
to document," Comey said. "I knew there might come a day when I might need a record of what happened not only to defend myself but
to protect the FBI."
... ... ...
Colin Madine is a contributor and editor at Breitbart News and can be reached at [email protected]
"... Except for the fact that Comey admitted he is a leaker, has a network through which he has leaked information designed to harm President Trump. ..."
"... Oh, and that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and other Obama administration officials may have engaged in serious misconduct worthy of further investigation–which Comey testified about today. ..."
UPDATE 12:50 P.M. As the public part of the hearing adjourned, and Comey has completely vindicated
Trump ahead of a later closed session hearing where he and senators are likely to discuss classified
information he could not bring up during the televised hearing, the whole thing turned out exactly
like Breitbart News Network told you it would: A giant nothing-burger.
Except for the fact that Comey admitted he is a leaker, has a network through which he has
leaked information designed to harm President Trump.
Oh, and that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and other Obama administration officials
may have engaged in serious misconduct worthy of further investigation–which Comey testified about
today.
UPDATE 12:37 P.M. Their hopes and dreams dashed by Comey completely vindicating Trump in this open
hearing, and instead implicating ex-Obama administration officials like Loretta Lynch–and implicating
himself as an anti-Trump leaker with a network through which he has leaked damaging information against
the president–the left and media are pinning everything on a last ditch line of questioning from
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA).
This line of questioning from
@SenKamalaHarris regarding the Attorney General is extraordinarily important – not to be overlooked
Don't tell Max Boot about the black helicopters coming for him. Seriously. "KREMLINGATE"? What
is wrong with these people? Anyway, another wonderfully fantastic flashback of this Never Trumper
from when Comey was fired in May:
Prediction: If Democrats take control of Congress in 2018, the firing of Comey will form one
of the articles of impeachment.
- Max Boot (@MaxBoot)
Senators should ask Comey the name of the Columbia professor and then subpoena the memos from
him.
Comey also just testified that he did not believe that Lynch could "credibly deny" the Hillary
Clinton email scandal investigation, and that she had a serious conflict of interest. He also testified
in exchange with Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the Senate Majority Whip, that it is possible a special
prosecutor was needed for the email scandal. He said he considered calling for appointing a special
counsel in the scandal, but decided against it.
UPDATE 12:08 P.M. Oh my. Now confirmed leaker James Comey's leak network has been outed, or at
least part of it has:
Only in Washington: Someone nursing a pint of beer shouts out to a crowded bar: "Daniel Richman
of Columbia" https://t.co/hNXVbfBe8r
So the collusion involves former FBI director, mainstream media, and the left-wing academy
to bring down the elected president
#ComeyHearing https://t.co/sVWKpajWw9
UPDATE 12:05 P.M. There are now serious questions being raised as to whether Loretta Lynch, the
former Attorney General from the Obama administration, will be subpoenaed to testify after this hearing
where Comey has implicated her.
Legit question: is Loretta Lynch going to be subpoenaed as a result of this testimony?
Meanwhile, Comey's admission he is a leaker serious hurts him. Jonathan Turley of George Washington
University Law School makes the case Comey may be in serious trouble:
Comey admits that he leaked the internal memo through a Columbia law professor in order to
force Special Counsel. Yet, that raises questions
UPDATE 12:01 P.M. From our RNC friends, here's video of Sen. Rubio crushing another leftist media
narrative during his questioning of Comey.
Basically, Comey was so concerned about President Trump's conversations with him that he alerted
exactly nobody who could do anything about it. In other words, this whole thing is a giant nothing-burger.
Except for Comey implicating himself as a leaker.
UPDATE 11:58 A.M. Comey is in big trouble after this hearing. He admitted he's a leaker, and has
an actual network through which he leaks information to the press. In addition, he withheld from
leaking information that would have vindicated President Trump weeks ago. White House social media
director Dan Scavino captures it clearly and concisely on Twitter:
President Trump still has yet to Tweet, so no free drinks yet here at Union Pub. Looks like the
owners here made a smart decision since this place is standing room only right now.
UPDATE 11:54 A.M. Oh, man, this keeps getting better and better. Comey just shredded the Democrats
AND now the fake news media.
Oh Boy. Comey says there have been many many stories based on classified information about
Russia that are just "dead wrong"
I wonder if any of the media outlets that have printed repeated stories on these matters will
check their reporting again or correct it if they're wrong. Not holding my breath.
UPDATE 11:50 A.M. Comey has emerged throughout this hearing before the American people looking
very much like a drama queen. One of the more memorable lines is when he says when Trump called him
to ask him if he was free for dinner, he had to break a date with his wife.
Comey says Trump called him at his desk. "Free for dinner tonight?"
"I said yessir I had to call my wife and break a date with her."
Meanwhile, even CNN's Jim Acosta–a vehemently anti-Trump media figure in the heart of the opposition
party's mothership CNN–is joining in on the anti-Comey fun.
Giving info to media "like feeding seagulls at the beach?" Fact check: True.
UPDATE 11:48 A.M. The leaky Capitol Hill GOP swamp aides are attacking Trump, despite the fact
Comey has vindicated the president and implicated himself in potentially illegal leaks.
Senate R aide: Holding nose and defending Trump is taking a lot out of these GOP senators -
and they will demand some kind of repayment
The fact that Swamp Creatures on the "Republican" side on Capitol Hill are throwing shade on their
own president, and party, as the GOP and Trump likely emerge from today's masquerade mostly out of
the woods is simply incredible but unsurprising. Swamp Things are going to Swamp.
UPDATE 11:45 A.M. Comey's open admission he orchestrated a potentially illegal leak puts him in
serious potential trouble, the New York Times people note. That's the story folks. He vindicated
Trump, and implicated himself. Wow, what a day.
Can't remember the last time someone in DC openly acknowledged orchestrating a leak - and without
any senator having even asked.
UPDATE 11:39 A.M. CNN's Dan Merica says that President Trump's personal lawyer Marc Kasowitz will
make a statement at the end of Comey's public testimony.
Marc Kasowitz, Trump's lawyer outside the White House, will make a statement at the end of
James Comey's Senate testimony
UPDATE 11:35 A.M. As Comey continues vindicating Trump and throwing Democrats like Lynch, Obama,
and Clinton under the bus–presumably accidentally–the Washington, D.C., daydrinking party scene is
in full swing:
Her "homey" James Comey, meanwhile, has actually admitted he is a leaker.
Flag: Comey says he had a friend of his leak the content of his memo to a reporter to hopefully
prompt the appointment of a special counsel.
pic.twitter.com/qICnQhI2te
UPDATE 11:32 A.M. While obstruction is now off the table for Trump, as Breitbart's Joel Pollak
detailed, Breitbart's John Hayward notes that obstruction is back on the table for several leading
officials from now former President Barack Obama's administration. Hayward says Congress needs to
investigate Loretta Lynch, the former Attorney General, as well as Obama and former Secretary of
State Hillary Rodham Clinton–the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee–for obstruction of justice.
Big takeaway from the Comey hearing: urgent need to investigate Loretta Lynch, Barack Obama,
and Hillary Clinton for obstruction
UPDATE 11:29 A.M. Our very own Joel Pollak is out with another bombshell piece detailing how this
hearing has shattered the media's and the Democrats' efforts to taint President Trump with "obstruction
of justice."
"Democrats have hinged their hopes for impeachment - and reversing the 2016 elections - on the
idea that Trump committed obstruction of justice. That case has now been smashed beyond repair,"
Pollak writes, pointing to a Comey exchange with Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID).
Comey deflated under Loretta Lynch pressure and wrapped the investigation of favorable to
Hillary terms. He assigned close to Hillary Person to lead the investigation, which suggest
cover up from the very beginning of the investigation. Then he has the second thought and
issued his famous statement, in which he usurped the role of justice Department official.
Comey
discussed the involvement of President Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, in the investigation
of Hillary Clinton. He stated that Lynch made an odd request for how the FBI investigation should
be described.
"At one point the attorney general had directed me not to call it investigation, but instead to
call it a matter, which concerned and confused me," Comey said.
Comey added that Lynch's
infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton during the campaign was the reason he decided to make
a statement when the decision was made not to prosecute Hillary Clinton.
"In a ultimately conclusive way, that was the thing that capped it for me, that I had to do something
separately to protect the credibility of the investigation, which meant both the FBI and the Justice
Department," Comey said.
So, "While Trump had done nothing illegal in requesting Comey to drop the investigation, there
is still the question of 'political interference' and the optics.".
"... I posted 99% anti-Hillary material. It consisted mostly of newspaper articles about many issues, ranging from her support for a right wing coup in Honduras that resulted in an escalation of violence, to her massive pay to play at the State Dept, to her disastrous regime change attempts in Libya and Syria (not to mention her support for the coup in Ukraine and the installation of a Neo Nazi regime). There were also many articles about her numerous campaign promise betrayals, such as her support for bad trade deals with Colombia, South Korea, and Singapore, despite her promises to oppose these (her change of position re: Colombia was after getting a $10 million donation). These articles were all from mainstream sources, including The Nation, The Hill, even the NYT. ..."
"... The thing is, Hillary was so corrupt and her judgment and actions so bad, that there was a seemingly never-ending wealth of bad things to post about her. It wasn't fake news, it was the actual historical record of her dastardly deeds. It wasn't just I who did this. This is what folks on FB and other social media sites did throughout. She probably would refer to what we all posted as "fake news" because she psychopathically denies the truth on a continual basis. ..."
"... Keep in mind that I had not mentioned where I'd gotten my information; I simply said I had done broad research of St. Hillary's history and found it bore little to no resemblance to what the media said about her. ..."
"... When I patiently explained this (and added my journalist's credentials), the attack-cultist then switched to their second favorite: I support Trump, and am guilty of his election. I don't know how long she kept on posting her foam-mouthed mantras, because I departed using my standard response: I no longer engage in battles of facts with unarmed opponents. ..."
Lots of people, including myself, created FB accounts solely to post material related to the
2016 Democratic Primary and the election. I have just under 5,000 friends on FB, all of whom are
"friends in Bernie."
I posted 99% anti-Hillary material. It consisted mostly of newspaper articles about many issues,
ranging from her support for a right wing coup in Honduras that resulted in an escalation of violence,
to her massive pay to play at the State Dept, to her disastrous regime change attempts in Libya
and Syria (not to mention her support for the coup in Ukraine and the installation of a Neo Nazi
regime). There were also many articles about her numerous campaign promise betrayals, such as
her support for bad trade deals with Colombia, South Korea, and Singapore, despite her promises
to oppose these (her change of position re: Colombia was after getting a $10 million donation).
These articles were all from mainstream sources, including The Nation, The Hill, even the NYT.
The thing is, Hillary was so corrupt and her judgment and actions so bad, that there was
a seemingly never-ending wealth of bad things to post about her. It wasn't fake news, it was the
actual historical record of her dastardly deeds. It wasn't just I who did this. This is what folks
on FB and other social media sites did throughout. She probably would refer to what we all posted
as "fake news" because she psychopathically denies the truth on a continual basis.
It consisted mostly of newspaper articles about many issues, ranging from her support for
a right wing coup in Honduras that resulted in an escalation of violence, to her massive pay
to play at the State Dept, to her disastrous regime change attempts in Libya and Syria (not
to mention her support for the coup in Ukraine and the installation of a Neo Nazi regime).
Funny you should mention. I responded to yet another episode of Russian hysteria yesterday
and was immediately attacked by a Clinton cultist. Understand, this woman had no idea who I am
and clearly didn't bother to find out. I said something against St. Hillary, and was therefore
the enemy. Of course, the basis of her attack was that my sources of information were all "fake
news."
Keep in mind that I had not mentioned where I'd gotten my information; I simply said I
had done broad research of St. Hillary's history and found it bore little to no resemblance to
what the media said about her.
When I patiently explained this (and added my journalist's credentials), the attack-cultist
then switched to their second favorite: I support Trump, and am guilty of his election. I don't
know how long she kept on posting her foam-mouthed mantras, because I departed using my standard
response: I no longer engage in battles of facts with unarmed opponents.
"... A few days before his firing, Mr. Comey reportedly had asked for still more resources to hunt the Russian bear. Pundit piranhas swarmed to charge Mr. Trump with trying to thwart the investigation into how the Russians supposedly "interfered" to help him win the election. ..."
"... Truth is, President Trump had ample reason to be fed up with Mr. Comey, in part for his lack of enthusiasm to investigate actual, provable crimes related to "Russia-gate" -- like leaking information from highly sensitive intercepted communications to precipitate the demise of Trump aide Michael Flynn ..."
"... we suspect Mr. Comey already knows who was responsible.) ..."
"... In contrast, Mr. Comey evinced strong determination to chase after ties between Russia and the Trump campaign until the cows came home. In the meantime, the investigation (already underway for 10 months) would itself cast doubt on the legitimacy of Mr. Trump's presidency and put the kibosh on plans to forge a more workable relationship with Russia -- a win-win for the establishment and the FBI/CIA/NSA "Deep State"; a lose-lose for the president. ..."
"... So far, it has been all smoke and mirrors with no chargeable offenses and not a scintilla of convincing evidence of Russian "meddling" in the election. The oft-cited, but evidence-free, CIA/FBI/NSA report of Jan. 6, crafted by "hand-picked" analysts, according to then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , is of a piece with the "high-confidence," but fraudulent, National Intelligence Estimate 15 years ago about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. ..."
"... On March 31, 2017, WikiLeaks released original CIA documents - ignored by mainstream media - showing that the agency had created a program allowing it to break into computers and servers and make it look like others did it by leaving telltale signs like Cyrillic markings, ..."
"... It is altogether possible that the hacking attributed to Russia was actually one of several "active measures" undertaken by a cabal consisting of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Mr. Clapper - the same agencies responsible for the lame, evidence-free memorandum of Jan. 6. ..."
"... Mr. Comey displayed considerable discomfort on March 20, explaining to the House Intelligence Committee why the FBI did not insist on getting physical access to the Democratic National Committee computers in order to do its own proper forensics, but chose to rely on the those done by DNC contractor Crowdstrike. Could this be explained by Mr. Comey's fear that FBI technicians not fully briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted? Did this play a role in Mr. Trump's firing of Mr. Comey? ..."
"... President Trump has entered into a high-stakes gamble in confronting the Deep State and its media allies over the evidence-free accusations of his colluding with Russia. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, publicly warned him of the risk earlier this year. "You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," ..."
Donald Trump
said he had fired FBI
Director James
Comey over "this Russia thing, with Trump and Russia." The president labeled it a "made-up story" and, by all appearances, he
is mostly correct.
A few days before his firing, Mr. Comey reportedly had asked for still more resources to hunt the Russian bear. Pundit piranhas
swarmed to charge Mr. Trump with trying to thwart the investigation into how the Russians supposedly "interfered" to help him win
the election.
But can that commentary bear close scrutiny, or is it the "
phony narrative "
Senate
Republican Whip John Cornyn of Texas claims it to be? Mr. Cornyn has quipped that, if impeding the investigation was Mr. Trump's
aim, "This strikes me as a lousy way to do it. All it does is heighten the attention given to the issue."
Truth is, President Trump had ample reason to be fed up with Mr. Comey, in part for his lack of enthusiasm to investigate
actual, provable crimes related to "Russia-gate" -- like leaking information from highly sensitive intercepted communications to
precipitate the demise of Trump aide
Michael
Flynn . Mr. Flynn was caught "red-handed," so to speak, talking with Russia's ambassador last December. (In our experience,
finding the culprit for that leak should not be very difficult; we suspect Mr. Comey already knows who was responsible.)
In contrast, Mr. Comey evinced strong determination to chase after ties between Russia and the Trump campaign until the cows
came home. In the meantime, the investigation (already
underway for 10 months)
would itself cast doubt on the legitimacy of Mr. Trump's presidency and put the kibosh on plans to forge a more workable relationship
with Russia -- a win-win for the establishment and the FBI/CIA/NSA "Deep State"; a lose-lose for the president.
So far, it has been all smoke and mirrors with no chargeable offenses and not a scintilla of convincing evidence of Russian
"meddling" in the election. The oft-cited, but evidence-free, CIA/FBI/NSA report of Jan. 6, crafted by "hand-picked" analysts, according
to then-Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper , is of a piece with the "high-confidence," but fraudulent, National Intelligence Estimate 15 years ago about weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq.
But what about "Russia hacking," the centerpiece of accusations of Kremlin "interference" to help Mr.Trump?
On March 31, 2017,
WikiLeaks released original CIA documents - ignored by mainstream media - showing that the agency had created a program allowing
it to break into computers and servers and make it look like others did it by leaving telltale signs like Cyrillic markings,
for example. The capabilities shown in what WikiLeaks calls the "Vault 7"
trove of CIA documents required the creation of hundreds of millions of lines of source code. At $25 per line of code, that amounts
to about $2.5 billion for each 100 million code lines. But the Deep State has that kind of money and would probably consider the
expenditure a good return on investment for "proving" the Russians hacked.
It is altogether possible that the hacking attributed to Russia was actually one of several "active measures" undertaken by
a cabal consisting of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Mr. Clapper - the same agencies responsible for the lame, evidence-free memorandum of
Jan. 6.
Mr. Comey displayed considerable discomfort on March 20, explaining to the House Intelligence Committee why the FBI did not
insist on getting physical access to the Democratic National Committee computers in order to do its own proper forensics, but chose
to rely on the those done by DNC contractor Crowdstrike. Could this be explained by Mr. Comey's fear that FBI technicians not fully
briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted? Did this play a role in Mr. Trump's firing of
Mr. Comey?
President Trump has entered into a high-stakes gamble in confronting the Deep State and its media allies over the evidence-free
accusations of his colluding with Russia. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, publicly warned him of the
risk earlier this year. "You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," Mr.
Schumer told MSNBC's
Rachel
Maddow on Jan. 3.
If Mr. Trump continues to "take on" the Deep State, he will be fighting uphill, whether he's in the right or not. It is far from
certain he will prevail.
Ray McGovern ([email protected]) was a CIA analyst for 27 years; he briefed the president's daily brief one-on-one to
President Reagan's most senior national security officials from 1981-85. William Binney ([email protected]) worked for
NSA for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and reporting; he created
many of the collection systems still used by NSA.
The public owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to both Mr. McGovern and Mr. Binney, who are substantial individuals with sterling
reputations, for putting themselves forward and informing the public of the crimes that are taking place in DC behind closed doors.
The fact that paid shills and trolls would make the effort to post content free criticisms of this article only serves to underline
the article's importance to a thoughtful reader. The people who sponsor these posters obviously have complete contempt for the
public. However, each day, thanks to articles like this and the idiotic attempts to criticize them, more and more people are becoming
aware of the fraud that is DC.
"... Ray suggests that Brennan and also Comey may been at the center of a "Deep State" combined CIA-NSA-FBI cabal working to discredit the Trump candidacy and delegitimize his presidency. Brennan in particular was uniquely well placed to fabricate the Russian hacker narrative that has been fully embraced by Congress and the media even though no actual evidence supporting that claim has yet been produced. As WikiLeaks has now revealed that the CIA had the technical ability to hack into sites surreptitiously while leaving behind footprints that would attribute the hack to someone else, including the Russians, it does not take much imagination to consider that the alleged trail to Moscow might have been fabricated. If that is so, this false intelligence has in turn proven to be of immense value to those seeking to present "proof" that the Russian government handed the presidency to Donald Trump. ..."
"... Robert Parry asked in an article on May 10 th whether we are seeing is "Watergate redux or 'Deep State' coup?" and then followed up with a second Piece "The 'Soft Coup' of Russia-gate" on the 13 th . In other words, is this all a cover-up of wrongdoing by the White House akin to President Richard Nixon's firing of Watergate independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox and the resignations of both the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General or is it something quite different, an undermining of an elected president who has not actually committed any "high crimes and misdemeanors" to force his removal from office. ..."
"... Parry sees the three key players in the scheme as John Brennan of CIA, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and James Comey of the FBI. Comey's role in the "coup" was key as it consisted of using his office to undercut both Hillary Clinton and Trump, neither of whom was seen as a truly suitable candidate by the Deep State. He speculates that a broken election might well have resulted in a vote in the House of Representatives to elect the new president, a process that might have produced a Colin Powell presidency as Powell actually received three votes in the Electoral College and therefore was an acceptable candidate under the rules governing the electoral process. ..."
"... Yes, the scheme is bizarre, but Parry carefully documents how Russiagate has developed and how the national security and intelligence organs have been key players as it moved along, often working by leaking classified information. ..."
"... anyone even vaguely connected with Trump who also had contact with Russia or Russians has been regarded as a potential traitor. Carter Page, for example, who was investigated under a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant, was under suspicion because he made a speech in Moscow which was mildly critical of the west's interaction with Russia after the fall of communism. ..."
"... Parry's point is that there is a growing Washington consensus that consists of traditional liberals and progressives as well as Democratic globalist interventionists and neoconservatives who believe that Donald Trump must be removed from office no matter what it takes. ..."
"... The interventionists and neocons in particular already control most of the foreign policy mechanisms but they continue to see Trump as a possible impediment to their plans for aggressive action against a host of enemies, most particularly Russia. ..."
"... Ray has been strongly critical of the current foreign policy, most particularly of the expansion of various wars, claims of Damascus's use of chemical weapons, and the cruise missile attack on Syria. Robert in his latest article describes Trump as narcissistic and politically incompetent. But their legitimate concerns are that we are moving in a direction that is far more dangerous than Trump. A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do. ..."
"... Brennan is a particularly unsavory character. There has been some baying-at-the-moon speculation that he is a Moslem convert! ..."
"... The coup, if successful, would probably mean the end of what would traditionally be considered to be a republican form of government in the US and its replacement by a deep state dictatorship. ..."
"... The USA is not different from other western countries, such as GB, France, Austria, Italy, Greece, Netherlands. In each of these countries the battle is going on between the establishment, and those who want to rid themselves of this establishment. ..."
"... The battle is between trying to dominate the world, neoliberalism, destruction of nation states, power of money, on the one hand, and nationalism, more or less certain jobs, rejection of wars, power of governments, on the other hand. ..."
"... What is amazing is that Mr Giraldi still believes the USA is a democracy. Maybe if one compares it with China. Anyway, "a soft coup" has already happened in you history -- Kennedy's assassination by the deep state- and life just went on in the "greatest democracy" in the earth. ..."
"... Perhaps this is the indication of where Trump and DOJ are going: Monday during the 10 p.m. ET news broadcast on Fox's Washington, D.C. affiliate WTTG, correspondent Marina Marraco said an investigation by former D.C. homicide detective Rod Wheeler found that the now-deceased Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich had been emailing with WikiLeaks. ..."
"... Despite the TV image, it is rare for a CEO to outright sack one of his top executives. The story of dinners where Comey made his pitch to stay rings true to what I have seen in real life. Trump probably asked Comey if he wouldn't be happier returning to private business where he made a boatload more money, and Comey, drunk on the power of high public office just wouldn't pull the trigger for him. ..."
"... Having just noticed the latest by-line in Antiwar.com, I am forced to raise the question we should all be asking ourselves "Was it Russia or was it .. Seth Rich ? " ..."
"... If there was indeed a "soft coup" in our country, did it not occur at the DNC convention when our back room oligarchs decided to "putsch" Bernie Sanders out of the race, and gift the nomination to Hillary ? ..."
"... Was it not Bernie Sanders who was igniting the young progressive liberal base by the tens of millions ? Was it not Bernie who was gaining enormous momentum as the race for the nomination went on ? Was it not Bernie's "message" that began to ring true for so many voters across the country ? ..."
"... The homicide detective hired by the family , also pointed out, after doing some rudimentary due diligence, that word had come down through the DC mayor's office to stymie its own detectives in the murder investigation of Mr. Rich. Strange thing, especially when we are dealing with a homicide .No, Mr Giraldi ? If the Seth Rich murder was a "botched robbery" as is claimed, why won't the DC police release Seth's laptop computer to his family ? ..."
"... I would be very interested in your take on the latest impeachable "scandal", that Trump revealed unrevealable top secrets to Lavrov and Kislyak during their recent White House meeting. Among other things, how would the Washington Post know the specifics of the Trump-Lavrov conversation? Is the White House bugged? And if an intelligence source was somehow really compromised, is advertising that fact in the Washington Post (presumably on the front page) really the wisest course? ..."
"... "A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do." Until further notice, that is absolutely correct. It needs to be recalled – ad nauseam – that Russia-gate, or whatever rubbish its called, is a LIE. There is NO, repeat NO evidence of ANY wrong-doing by Trump re the Russians. The MSM & various elements of the "establishment" should suicide NOW from pure SHAME. ..."
"... Trump was right in firing Comey. An open ended investigation that hasn't yielded a scintilla of evidence of collusion with Russia after one year is not acceptable. Such an investigation would not have been tolerated if the target was a Marxist mulatto by the name of Barack Hussein Obama. Blacks would have rioted in response while the media cheered them on. ..."
"... If there's a Constitutional crisis then it's that the deep state apparatus in the form of the various alphabet soup intelligence agencies have the power to plot a coup against a duly elected president. They need to be stripped of much of their power and reformed but it's probably already too late for that. ..."
"... I thought since Trump went from advocating a humble, non-interventionist foreign policy to loud and proud neo-conservative (in less than 100 days) that that would buy him protection from deep state machinations and endear him to the corrupt Washington, D.C. establishment. ..."
"... The only thing I can think of is that even though Trump's picking up where Dubya and Obama left off on foreign policy, the deep state knows that Trump can be totally unpredictable and change on a dime. So he could go off the establishment reservation at a moment's notice which makes them apoplectic. Hence, their attempts to get him out of the way and install someone more pliant and predictable like Tom Pence. ..."
"... Deepstate has been sustaining and expanding its conspiracies for 100 years. (There is always a 'deep state' of some kind, but the current well-organized structure was created by Wilson.) A conspiracy AGAINST Deepstate is hard to sustain because Deepstate owns and monitors all public communications. ..."
"... While the collusion story is an obvious canard there is another level to this "Russian thing" which may prove to be extremely damaging to Trump. And that is Trump's participation in a money-laundering operation with the Russo-jewish mafia going back decades. ..."
"... The money-laundering angle is already all over the Web (ex. google: Bayrock Trump) and, one must assume, in the hands of various intelligence agencies. .This may be the basis for Trump's increasingly frantic attempts to shut down the "Russian thing" investigation.(Comey firing??) ..."
"... I don't think, however, the notion of the "establishment" is a problem in itself. Our country has always had powerful elites, so have many other countries. The problem which presents itself today is our elites seem determined to perpetuate endless wars that cost obscene amounts of money, and do not seem to produce positive results in any of the places the wars are being fought. ..."
"... The short answer is yes! March 31, 2017 The Surveillance State Behind Russia-Gate. Although many details are still hazy because of secrecy – and further befogged by politics – it appears House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was informed last week about invasive electronic surveillance of senior U.S. government officials and, in turn, passed that information onto President Trump. ..."
"... The people pushing the big lie about Trump and Russia are legion. And they are not stupid. They are evil. They are the same people who are preparing a preemptive nuclear attack against Russia and China. They are the globalists who would institute a universal Feudalism from which there would be no escape. I have no further use for Trump. But his enemies remain enemies of the people. ..."
And what if there really is a conspiracy against Donald Trump being orchestrated within the various
national security agencies that are part of the United States government? The president has been
complaining for months about damaging leaks emanating from the intelligence community and the failure
of Congress to pay any attention to the illegal dissemination of classified information. It is quite
possible that Trump has become aware that there is actually something going on and that something
just might be a conspiracy to delegitimize and somehow remove him from office.
President Trump has also been insisting that the "Russian thing" is a made-up story, a view that
I happen to agree with. I recently produced
my own analysis of the possibility that there is in progress a soft, or stealth or silent coup,
call it what you will, underway directed against the president and that, if it exists, it is being
directed by former senior officials from the Obama White House. Indeed, it is quite plausible to
suggest that it was orchestrated within the Obama White House itself before the government changed
hands at the inauguration on January 20 th . In line with that thinking, some observers
are now suggesting that Comey might well have been party to the conspiracy and his dismissal would
have been perfectly justified based on his demonstrated interference in both the electoral process
and in his broadening of the acceptable role of his own Bureau, which Trump has described as "showboating."
Two well-informed observers of the situation have recently joined in the discussion, Robert Parry
of Consortiumnews and former CIA senior analyst Ray McGovern of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals
for Sanity. McGovern has noted, as have I, that there is one individual who has been curiously absent
from the list of former officials who have been called in to testify before the Senate Intelligence
Committee. That is ex-CIA Director John Brennan, who many have long considered an extreme Obama/Hillary
Clinton loyalist long rumored to be at the center of the information damaging to Team Trump sent
to Washington by friendly intelligence services, including the British.
Ray
suggests that
Brennan and also Comey may been at the center of a "Deep State" combined CIA-NSA-FBI
cabal working to discredit the Trump candidacy and delegitimize his presidency. Brennan in particular
was uniquely well placed to fabricate the Russian hacker narrative that has been fully embraced by
Congress and the media even though no actual evidence supporting that claim has yet been produced.
As WikiLeaks has now revealed that the CIA had the technical ability to hack into sites surreptitiously
while leaving behind footprints that would attribute the hack to someone else, including the Russians,
it does not take much imagination to consider that the alleged trail to Moscow might have been fabricated.
If that is so, this false intelligence has in turn proven to be of immense value to those seeking
to present "proof" that the Russian government handed the presidency to Donald Trump.
Robert Parry asked in an article on May 10 th whether we are seeing is
"Watergate redux or 'Deep State' coup?"
and then followed up with a second Piece
"The
'Soft Coup' of Russia-gate" on the 13 th . In other words, is this all a cover-up
of wrongdoing by the White House akin to President Richard Nixon's firing of Watergate independent
special prosecutor Archibald Cox and the resignations of both the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney
General or is it something quite different, an undermining of an elected president who has not actually
committed any "high crimes and misdemeanors" to force his removal from office.
Like Parry, I
am reluctant to embrace conspiracy theories, in my case largely because I believe a conspiracy is
awfully hard to sustain. The federal government leaks like a sieve and if more than two conspirators
ever meet in the CIA basement it would seem to me their discussion would become public knowledge
within forty-eight hours, but perhaps what we are seeing here is less a formal arrangement than a
group of individuals who are loosely connected while driven by a common objective.
Parry sees the three key players in the scheme as John Brennan of CIA, Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper and James Comey of the FBI. Comey's role in the "coup" was key as it consisted
of using his office to undercut both Hillary Clinton and Trump, neither of whom was seen as a truly
suitable candidate by the Deep State. He speculates that a broken election might well have resulted
in a vote in the House of Representatives to elect the new president, a process that might have produced
a Colin Powell presidency as Powell actually received three votes in the Electoral College and therefore
was an acceptable candidate under the rules governing the electoral process.
Yes, the scheme is bizarre, but Parry carefully documents how Russiagate has developed and how
the national security and intelligence organs have been key players as it moved along, often working
by leaking classified information. And President Barack Obama was likely the initiator, notably so
when he de facto authorized the wide distribution of raw intelligence on Trump and the Russians through
executive order. Parry notes, as would I, that to date no actual evidence has been presented to support
allegations that Russia sought to influence the U.S. election and/or that Trump associates were somehow coopted by Moscow's intelligence services as part of the process. Nevertheless,
anyone even vaguely
connected with Trump who also had contact with Russia or Russians has been regarded as a potential
traitor. Carter Page, for example, who was investigated under a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act warrant, was under suspicion because he made a speech in Moscow which was mildly critical of
the west's interaction with Russia after the fall of communism.
Parry's point is that there is a growing Washington consensus that consists of traditional
liberals and progressives as well as Democratic globalist interventionists and neoconservatives who
believe that Donald Trump must be removed from office no matter what it takes.
The interventionists and neocons in particular already control most of the foreign policy
mechanisms but they continue to see Trump as a possible impediment to their plans for aggressive
action against a host of enemies, most particularly Russia. As they are desirous of bringing
down Trump "legally" through either impeachment or Article 25 of the Constitution which permits removal
for incapacity, it might be termed a constitutional coup, though the other labels cited above also
fit.
The rationale Trump haters have fabricated is simple: the president and his team colluded with
the Russians to rig the 2016 election in his favor, which, if true, would provide grounds for impeachment.
The driving force, in terms of the argument being made, is that removing Trump must be done "for
the good of the country" and to "correct a mistake made by the American voters."
The mainstream media is completely on board of the process, including the outlets that flatter themselves
by describing their national stature, most notably the New York Times and Washington Post.
So what is to be done? For starters, until Donald Trump has unambiguously broken a law the critics
should take a valium and relax. He is an elected president and his predecessors George W. Bush and
Barack Obama certainly did plenty of things that in retrospect do not bear much scrutiny. Folks like
Ray McGovern and Robert Parry should be listened to even when they are being provocative in their
views. They are not, to be sure, friends of the White House in any conventional way and are not apologists
for those in power, quite the contrary. Ray has been strongly critical of the current foreign
policy, most particularly of the expansion of various wars, claims of Damascus's use of chemical
weapons, and the cruise missile attack on Syria. Robert in his latest article describes Trump as
narcissistic and politically incompetent. But their legitimate concerns are that we are moving in
a direction that is far more dangerous than Trump. A soft coup engineered by the national security
and intelligence agencies would be far more dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump
can do. Are They
Really Out to Get Trump? Sometimes paranoia is justified
The coup, if successful, would probably mean the end of what would traditionally be considered
to be a republican form of government in the US and its replacement by a deep state dictatorship.
In light of what is being used, a phony claim of Russian interference with the US political system,
the danger that nuclear war might be the outcome of this coup is real.
I don't know who Robert Parry is but to me this Colin Powell stuff is pure nonsense. At the
same time my answer to the question "Are They Really Out to Get Trump?" is affirmative. Republicans
and Democrats want Trump out and Pence in. The operation with Flynn who allegedly deceived Pence
was part of this plan. That Trump fired Flynn was his greatest mistake in this game. It was not
fatal yet. This was Their plan since the election or even earlier since Republican convention:
have Trump step down and have Pence take over. After April 4th it seemed that They got Trump where
They wanted him to be. Trump even became presidential. The escalation of rhetoric against North
Korea over following weekend and week reinforced this perception until it turned out that it was
all fake. There was no fleet steaming to Korea. Media realized they were played by Trump. During
this time Trump and Tillerson in particular got some breathing space. The pre-April 4 policy of
agreeing with Russia on Syria continued. Apparently Russia understood that the missile attack
on Syria was just part of the game. It was not personal. More recently the US agreed to safe zones
plan by Russia, Syria, Iran and Turkey. One should expect a false flag of gas attack or accidental
bombing by US air force of Syrian forces to happen soon – broadcasted all night before the start
of the US media news cycle by BBC, so US media, all talking heads memorize all talking points.
While it is possible that Trump behaves erratically w/o well thought out plans we must give
him a benefit of doubt and assume that there is a deep reason for firing Comey. Trump is fighting
for his life. While he would prefer to be presidential and enjoy easy going times and provide
peace and safety for his family by know he knows that nothing will satisfy Them. They want him
out! Erratic Trump and confused and chaotic WH is a meme which They and Their media want to plant
and reinforce. That's why we hear about it all the time. But how to explain the firing of Comey?
I would look for the answer at DOJ. Initially their hands were tied up but slowly they showed
that there is new leadership at DOJ that was working for Trump for a change. Their independence
of the Deep State was demonstrated by forcing Israel police to arrest Mossad operative/patsy for
the wave of world wide anti-semitic hoaxes that were meant to undermine and compromise Trump.
This is the proof that DOJ and part of FBI finally is strong enough and working for Trump. What
next do they want to do? If they want to squash this "collusion with Russia" false narrative that
is paralyzing the administration and in fact all belt way they must hit at those who originated
this narrative, meaning Hillary Clinton and Obama. To do it they need to have a full control of
FBI. Comey is gone. McCabe must go next. Will DOJ and new FBI go after Susan Rice, Sally Yates
and Loretta Lynch? If they do this will lead to Obama. Will they go after Hillary Clinton and
her emails? Will they secure Anthony Weiner computer? Does it still exist? Who will be nominated
to replace Comey? What Trump will have to promise GOP to have him approved?
The bottom line is that Trump is fighting for his life.
Of course they are. The USA is not different from other western countries, such as GB, France, Austria, Italy, Greece,
Netherlands.
In each of these countries the battle is going on between the establishment, and those who want
to rid themselves of this establishment.
GB is the first country where maybe this succeeded, but, as in the USA, the GB establishment
and the EU establishment do anything to prevent that things really change.
The battle is between trying to dominate the world, neoliberalism, destruction of nation states,
power of money, on the one hand, and nationalism, more or less certain jobs, rejection of wars,
power of governments, on the other hand.
In France one sees that once again the establishment won, 60% of the French still support the
establishment, 40% rejects it.
In other countries more or less the same.
The opposing views make governing increasingly difficult, two months after the Dutch elections
the efforts to contrue a government are a failure.
Belgium was more than a year without a government.
In Spain one government after another.
The establishment now fears that Austria will turn around.
Until now Brussels, by threats and cajoling, prevented a rebellion against Brussels in Poland
and Hungary.
The Greek rebellion failed completely.
"A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more
dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do" concludes the writer.
What is amazing is that Mr Giraldi still believes the USA is a democracy. Maybe if one compares
it with China.
Anyway, "a soft coup" has already happened in you history -- Kennedy's assassination by the deep
state- and life just went on in the "greatest democracy" in the earth.
A "soft coup" against Donald Trump will be in fact an improvement. The "narcissist" president
won't be killed. It will be a soft clean coup. Progress.
Perhaps this is the indication of where Trump and DOJ are going: Monday during the 10 p.m. ET news broadcast on Fox's Washington, D.C. affiliate WTTG, correspondent
Marina Marraco said an investigation by former D.C. homicide detective Rod Wheeler found that
the now-deceased Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich had been emailing with WikiLeaks.
Despite the TV image, it is rare for a CEO to outright sack one of his top executives. The
story of dinners where Comey made his pitch to stay rings true to what I have seen in real life.
Trump probably asked Comey if he wouldn't be happier returning to private business where he made
a boatload more money, and Comey, drunk on the power of high public office just wouldn't pull
the trigger for him.
Comey was a goner in November he just wouldn't go quietly and on his own accord, no doubt
for the reasons suggested in this piece a so-called higher calling and his own inflated sense
of service to his country.
Certainly writers like Robert Parry and Ray Mcgovern, as well as yourself, have earned the
highest of marks from internet readers around the globe, anxious for some integrity of analysis
, as they seek to understand our nation's policy decisions. As long as gentlemen like you, as well as others, keep writing , you will find your readership
growing at an exponential rate.
Having just noticed the latest by-line in Antiwar.com, I am forced to raise the question we
should all be asking ourselves "Was it Russia or was it .. Seth Rich ? "
If there was indeed a "soft coup" in our country, did it not occur at the DNC convention when
our back room oligarchs decided to "putsch" Bernie Sanders out of the race, and gift the nomination
to Hillary ?
Was it not Bernie Sanders who was igniting the young progressive liberal base by the tens of
millions ? Was it not Bernie who was gaining enormous momentum as the race for the nomination went on
?
Was it not Bernie's "message" that began to ring true for so many voters across the country ?
Was it not Bernie Sanders who may well have swept the DNC nomination, were it not for the "dirty
pool" being played out in the back room ?.
According to the retired homicide detective, hired by the family of Seth Rich to investigate
their son's bizarre murder, it was Seth Rich who WAS in contact with Wikileaks.
(For all those who don't know who Seth Rich was , he was the 27 year old "voter data director"
at the DNC, shot to death on july 10, 2016, in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington D.C.)
In an interview three days after Seth Rich was found dead, Julian Assange intimated, too, that
Seth Rich HAD contacted Wikileaks .NOT Russia.
The homicide detective hired by the family , also pointed out, after doing some rudimentary
due diligence, that word had come down through the DC mayor's office to stymie its own detectives
in the murder investigation of Mr. Rich. Strange thing, especially when we are dealing with a homicide .No, Mr Giraldi ? If the Seth Rich murder was a "botched robbery" as is claimed, why won't the DC police release
Seth's laptop computer to his family ?
We are all aware there were "shenanigans" going on in the DNC that put the kibosh on the Bernie
nomination.(we all know this)
This makes sense too, given the fact that the DNC party bosses and their oligarchs, wanted
Bernie running in the general election against the Donald like they wanted a "hole in the head".
What we "cannot" see ..is how decisive Bernie's margin of victory might have been, Nor can we see what "crimes" were committed to ensure Hillary's run at the W. H. It is not much of a stretch to assume Seth Rich had hard evidence, perhaps of multiple counts
of treasonous fraud and other sorted felonies that would have brought down "the back room" of
the DNC.
Not good for the party..not good for its oligarchs .and not good for their Hillary anointment.
"Russia-gate" may prove to be the most concerted effort, by the powers that be, to DEFLECT
from an investigation into their OWN "real"criminality .
How savvy and how clever they are to manipulate the public's perceptions, through Big Media,
by grafting the allegations of the very crimes they may well have committed .onto Russia, the
Donald, and Vladimir Putin.
Clever, clever, clever.
Can any of us imagine, how cold a day in hell it will be before Rachel Maddow(or any MSM "journalist")
asks some basic questions about the Seth Rich laptop .or what was on it ?
I would be very interested in your take on the latest impeachable "scandal", that Trump revealed
unrevealable top secrets to Lavrov and Kislyak during their recent White House meeting. Among other things, how would the Washington Post know the specifics of the Trump-Lavrov conversation?
Is the White House bugged? And if an intelligence source was somehow really compromised, is advertising that fact in the
Washington Post (presumably on the front page) really the wisest course?
Trump has turned out to be very weak. Maybe he just doesn't believe in anything, so it doesn't
matter to him. Or maybe he has some ideas, but has no clue about implementation. He's going to
see the Tribe next week. That will tell us a lot, I'm thinking. But it's a lot that we probably
already know or at least can guess.
"A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more
dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do."
Until further notice, that is absolutely correct.
It needs to be recalled – ad nauseam – that Russia-gate, or whatever rubbish its called, is a
LIE. There is NO, repeat NO evidence of ANY wrong-doing by Trump re the Russians.
The MSM & various elements of the "establishment" should suicide NOW from pure SHAME.
A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more
dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do.
For more dangerous to American democracy has been the ZOG engineered by the "Friends of Zion,"
but, unfortunately, there is little chance there will ever be a Zion-gate investigation.
Trump was right in firing Comey. An open ended investigation that hasn't yielded a scintilla
of evidence of collusion with Russia after one year is not acceptable. Such an investigation would
not have been tolerated if the target was a Marxist mulatto by the name of Barack Hussein Obama.
Blacks would have rioted in response while the media cheered them on.
If there's a Constitutional crisis then it's that the deep state apparatus in the form of the
various alphabet soup intelligence agencies have the power to plot a coup against a duly elected
president. They need to be stripped of much of their power and reformed but it's probably already
too late for that.
I thought since Trump went from advocating a humble, non-interventionist foreign policy to
loud and proud neo-conservative (in less than 100 days) that that would buy him protection from
deep state machinations and endear him to the corrupt Washington, D.C. establishment. For a time
he was even making "never Trumper" little (((William Kristol))) coo with delight which is no small
feat. Moreover, he's a lickspittle of Israel which seems a prerequisite for a presidential candidate.
The only thing I can think of is that even though Trump's picking up where Dubya and Obama
left off on foreign policy, the deep state knows that Trump can be totally unpredictable and change
on a dime. So he could go off the establishment reservation at a moment's notice which makes them
apoplectic. Hence, their attempts to get him out of the way and install someone more pliant and
predictable like Tom Pence.
@animalogic "A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would
be far more dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do."
Until further notice, that is absolutely correct.
It needs to be recalled - ad nauseam - that Russia-gate, or whatever rubbish its called, is a
LIE. There is NO, repeat NO evidence of ANY wrong-doing by Trump re the Russians.
The MSM & various elements of the "establishment" should suicide NOW from pure SHAME.
Conspiracies are NOT hard to sustain. That's an absurd statement. Deepstate has been sustaining
and expanding its conspiracies for 100 years. (There is always a 'deep state' of some kind, but
the current well-organized structure was created by Wilson.) A conspiracy AGAINST Deepstate is hard to sustain because Deepstate owns and monitors all public
communications.
While the collusion story is an obvious canard there is another level to this "Russian thing"
which may prove to be extremely damaging to Trump. And that is Trump's participation in a money-laundering
operation with the Russo-jewish mafia going back decades.
Some of the investigations have expanded
their scope to include careful scrutiny of Trump's business dealings in relation to Russia. Recently FinCEN, which specializes in fighting money laundering, agreed to turn over records to the Senate
Intelligence Committee in this regard. Even Sen. Linsey Graham recently stated he wanted to know
more about Trump's business dealings with Russia. The possibility that this may result in a criminal
investigation cannot be ruled out. The money-laundering angle is already all over the Web (ex. google: Bayrock Trump) and, one must assume, in the hands of various intelligence agencies. .This
may be the basis for Trump's increasingly frantic attempts to shut down the "Russian thing" investigation.(Comey
firing??)
Dutch Public Broadcasting has recently broadcast a two part series exploring some of the connections
involving Trump's business dealings with Russia.
p.s.: Regarding the term Russo-jewish mafia, should you watch the videos and read the article
you will find the players involved are almost exclusively of a certain 'tribal' persuasion. (A
number have direct links to the infamous Mogilevich crime syndicate (top 10 FBI's most wanted
list) and one of the principals of Bayrock was named as a major Israeli organized crime figure
by the Turkish media following his arrest there.)
As you know, Brennan is an extreme liberal Democrat, a creature of both Clinton and Obama. He
is an utterly unprincipled old fool. He failed as a CIA operations officer and went back to Langley
with his tail between his legs to become analyst. Nothing wrong with that but he nursed bitter
resentment at the Clandestine Service during his whole career. He was finally allowed to go out
as chief in, of all places, Riyadh. He promptly destroyed the station with his incompetence, though
he earned the praise of the ambassador, as such toadies usually do. Brennan is perfectly capable
of the things you describe. Washington is awash in these kinds of traitors. If Trump does not
have a plan to arrest them all some dark night then he is a fool himself.
And President Barack Obama was likely the initiator, notably so when he de facto authorized
the wide distribution of raw intelligence on Trump and the Russians through executive order.
I repeat, why hasn't Trump issued an executive order cancelling Obama's executive order? He
needs to stop this information sharing if he expects to remain President.
Phil, is there any one who has Trump's ear? The mainstream media are hell bent in destroying
anyone close to Trump. First, Flynn, then Steve Bannon and now Kellyanne Conway. Trump must stop
these leaks from the White House. He should fire all Obama holdovers.
@Hobo
While the collusion story is an obvious canard there is another level to this "Russian
thing" which may prove to be extremely damaging to Trump. And that is Trump's participation in
a money-laundering operation with the Russo-jewish mafia going back decades.
... ... ... ...
p.s.: Regarding the term Russo-jewish mafia, should you watch the videos and read the article
you will find the players involved are almost exclusively of a certain 'tribal' persuasion. (A
number have direct links to the infamous Mogilevich crime syndicate (top 10 FBI's most wanted
list) and one of the principals of Bayrock was named as a major Israeli organized crime figure
by the Turkish media following his arrest there.)
I recently produced my own analysis of the possibility that there is in progress a soft,
or stealth or silent coup, call it what you will, underway directed against the president and
that, if it exists, it is being directed by former senior officials from the Obama White House.
Indeed, it is quite plausible to suggest that it was orchestrated within the Obama White House
itself before the government changed hands at the inauguration on January 20th. In line with
that thinking, some observers are now suggesting that Comey might well have been party to
the conspiracy and his dismissal would have been perfectly justified based on his demonstrated
interference in both the electoral process and in his broadening of the acceptable role of
his own Bureau , which Trump has described as "showboating."
It's quite difficult to accept this line of thought when Comey practically scuppered Hillary's
bid, something strongly endorsed by Obama. Going with this narrative requires Obama to have engineered
Hillary's departure followed by a concerted plan to unseat Trump as well, both objectives
utilizing
Comey! To what end? Paint chaos on the American political canvas?
@Colleen Pater This " theory " isnt a theory its not debatable and its clear both parties
and every power node in the world are signalling they will do whatever they can to help. Its really
a good thing they are not fooling anyone but some maroon prog snowflakes. Trump was the howard
beale last option before civil war candidate, he won fair and square , actually despite massive
cheating by the other side and now they are overthrowing him in full view of the american people.Its
good as long as idiots on the right still believed in democracy, that getting their candidate
in would change war was averted. after thirty years of steady leftism no matter who was in power
they voted trump now trumps being overthrown. They will see we dont live in a democracy we live
in the matrix democracy is diversionary tactic to prevent us from killing them all. And kill them
all is what we must do.
I don't think, however, the notion of the "establishment" is a problem in itself.
Our country has always had powerful elites, so have many other countries. The problem which presents
itself today is our elites seem determined to perpetuate endless wars that cost obscene amounts
of money, and do not seem to produce positive results in any of the places the wars are being
fought.
The "establishment" does not seem to care.
It is now wholly unthinkable for our "establishment" to consider "making peace"and ending our
wars. There is an addiction to "war spending" and "war profiteering" which has consumed the Deep
State Apparatus, especially since 9-11, and operates almost completely independently of any administration
in office.
Its an insatiable appetite...that grows larger every year.
Any President, elected by the people today,to end our wars will simply not be tolerated by the
establishment class and the deep state it lords over.
The problem is not that we have an "establishment", the problem is our establishment is addicted
to war.
Only "war" will do for them, full time, all the time..... end of story.
Today, any President is given two choices once in office....make WAR..... or be impeached.
The short answer is yes! March 31, 2017 The Surveillance State Behind Russia-Gate. Although many details are still hazy because of secrecy – and further befogged by politics
– it appears House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was informed last week about invasive
electronic surveillance of senior U.S. government officials and, in turn, passed that information
onto President Trump.
It is now wholly unthinkable for our "establishment" to consider "making peace"and ending
our wars. There is an addiction to "war spending" and "war profiteering" which has consumed
the Deep State Apparatus, especially since 9-11, and operates almost completely independently
of any administration in office.
Precisely. Frankly, I suspect 90% of the daily brouhaha of conspiracies and collusion theories
is a product solely of tawdry greed. The rich will do anything for money . anything.
Reopening the investigation in a dramatic public manner (I guess we do tell who is under
investigation) and then coming back to announce, "We were correct the first time; there is
no case" might convince a few thousand staggling doubters. It was very close.
Quite so. Comey's election-eve announcement was a calculated risk, with the intention of making
the "investigation" of Clinton look legitimate and professional, not just lip service to troublesome
legalities. It was intended to produce a public reaction like "Oh, they double-checked like good
investigators, and sure enough, Hillary's email operation was completely legit."
At what point does political infighting cross the line into treason?
There's a line somewhere between the two, obviously. Perhaps its when you break the law? Perhaps
its when you leak classified documents? Or details of a key diplomatic meeting?
@utu There will be no open coup. Trump will resign for health reason or in the worst case
scenario will be declared unfit for health reasons. And Pence will give a speech how great Trump
was and how great his ideas were and that now he as president will continue his vision. And many
people will believe it.
@iffen It's quite difficult to accept this line of thought when Comey practically scuppered
Hillary's bid
There is reason to believe that Clinton's email troubles were having a major impact. Many were unconvinced by Comey's first pronouncement that there was no case there. (I thought
this was the prosecutor's job anyway. People would have been skeptical of a compromised Lynch
saying that there was no case, but might be persuaded by Comey.)
Reopening the investigation in a dramatic public manner (I guess we do tell who is under investigation)
and then coming back to announce, "We were correct the first time; there is no case" might convince
a few thousand staggling doubters. It was very close.
@Sam Shama I need to understand why Phil Giraldi thinks she was considered a flawed candidate
from the Deep State's perspective .
In the minds of non-mainstream writers who constantly viewed her as the embodiment of the Establishment,
one wouldn't have wagered "their" perfect candidate to be marked for removal.
It looks to me as though the "deep state" is getting progressive dementia. While inhabited
by many high I.Q. players, their moves are increasingly insane. They had assumed their "Surveillance
State" would become all intrusive, giving them ever greater control over us peasants. The reverse
has happened, where most of the 7 billion of us have cell phones that record and display all their
nefarious deeds. We have a million times more high I.Q. people than them, that increasingly are
waking up and exposing those psychopaths for the pieces of garbage that they are.
@Sam Shama I need to understand why Phil Giraldi thinks she was considered a flawed candidate
from the Deep State's perspective .
In the minds of non-mainstream writers who constantly viewed her as the embodiment of the Establishment,
one wouldn't have wagered "their" perfect candidate to be marked for removal.
Comey's election-eve announcement was a calculated risk, with the intention of making the "investigation"
of Clinton look legitimate and professional, not just lip service to troublesome legalities.
No. They knew then that election could not be stolen (for whatever reasons) for Clinton. The 28th
October announcement by Comey was the signal to press to change the fake narrative of huge advantage
in polls by Hillary and prepare the eventual excuse for Hillary why she lost.
Comey was abruptly and unceremoniously fired after he stated that Clinton had forwarded thousands
of e-mails containing classified information on an unsecured server to wiener and friends. Hardly
covering Clintons back. The FBI investigates -- it does not prosecute -- that is the function of the
attorney generals office. The AG solely has the power to convene a grand jury, not the FBI. The
deputy attorney general Rosenstein writes a scathing report and recommendation to fire Comey.
Trump, probably on Kushner's urging fires Comey. Comey redacts his prior statement.
My guess is that the FBI were very close to the neocons hidden secret -- Clinton and its foundation are foreign
assets and not of Russia, hence, we have the Russia-gate diversion. Unfortunately, Comey;s replacement
will be toothless, merely a shelf ornament. And what happened? We hear no more of Kushners? omitting
his relationship to the Rothchilds enterprises. Flynn was fired for far less. Is/ are Kushner?
and/ or Rosenstein the leak(s)?
The people pushing the big lie about Trump and Russia are legion. And they are not stupid.
They are evil. They are the same people who are preparing a preemptive nuclear attack against
Russia and China. They are the globalists who would institute a universal Feudalism from which
there would be no escape. I have no further use for Trump. But his enemies remain enemies of the
people.
"... Thus, amid the hysterical propaganda campaign over Russian hacking, Washington has been developing an array of cyber-weapons that have the capability of crippling entire countries. Through the carelessness of the NSA, some of these weapons have now been placed in the hands of criminals. US authorities did nothing to warn the public, much less prepare it to protect itself against the inevitable unleashing of the cyber weapons it itself had crafted. ..."
"... There was no question then of an investigation taking months to uncover the culprit, much less any mystery going unsolved. Putin and Russia were declared guilty based upon unsubstantiated allegations and innuendo. Ever since, the Times ..."
"... Since Trump's inauguration, the Democratic Party has only intensified the anti-Russian propaganda. It serves both as a means of pressuring the Trump administration to abandon any turn toward a less aggressive policy toward Moscow, and of smothering the popular opposition to the right-wing and anti-working class policies of the administration under a reactionary and neo-McCarthyite campaign painting Trump as an agent of the Kremlin. ..."
The cyberattack that hit some 200,000 computers around the world last Friday, apparently using
malicious software developed by the US National Security Agency, is only expected to escalate and
spread with the start of the new workweek.
The cyber weapon employed in the attack, known as "WannaCrypt," has proven to be one of the most
destructive and far-reaching ever. Among the targets whose computer systems were hijacked in the
attack was Britain's National Health Service, which was unable to access patient records and forced
to cancel appointments, treatments and surgeries.
Major corporations hit include the Spanish telecom Telefonica, the French automaker Renault, the
US-based delivery service Fedex and Germany's federal railway system. Among the worst affected countries
were reportedly Russia, Ukraine and Japan.
The weaponized software employed in the attacks locks up files in an infected computer by encrypting
them, while demanding $300 in Bitcoin (digital currency) to decrypt them and restore access.
Clearly, this kind of attack has the potential for massive social disruption and, through its
attack on institutions like Britain's NHS, exacting a toll in human life.
This event, among the worst global cyberattacks in history, also sheds considerable light on issues
that have dominated the political life of the United States for the past 10 months, since WikiLeaks
began its release of documents obtained from the hacked accounts of the Democratic National Committee
and John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
The content of these leaked documents exposed, on the one hand, the DNC's machinations to sabotage
the presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders, and, on the other, the subservience of his rival, Hillary
Clinton, to Wall Street through her own previously secret and lavishly paid speeches to financial
institutions like Goldman Sachs.
This information, which served to discredit Clinton, the favored candidate of the US military
and intelligence apparatus, was drowned out by a massive campaign by the US government and the corporate
media to blame Russia for the hacking and for direct interference in the US election, i.e., by allegedly
making information available to the American people that was supposed to be kept secret from them.
Ever since then, US intelligence agencies, Democratic Party leaders and the corporate media, led
by the New York Times , have endlessly repeated the charge of Russian hacking, involving
the personal direction of Vladimir Putin. To this day, none of these agencies or media outlets have
provided any probative evidence of Russian responsibility for "hacking the US election."
Among the claims made to support the allegations against Moscow was that the hacking of the Democrats
was so sophisticated that it could have been carried out only by a state actor. In a campaign to
demonize Russia, Moscow's alleged hacking was cast as a threat to the entire planet.
Western security agencies have acknowledged that the present global cyberattack-among the worst
ever of its kind-is the work not of any state agency, but rather of a criminal organization. Moreover,
the roots of the attack lie not in Moscow, but in Washington. The "WannaCrypt" malware employed in
the attack is based on weaponized software developed by the NSA, code-named Eternal Blue, part of
a bundle of documents and computer code stolen from the NSA's server and then leaked by a hacking
group known as "Shadow Brokers."
Thus, amid the hysterical propaganda campaign over Russian hacking, Washington has been developing
an array of cyber-weapons that have the capability of crippling entire countries. Through the carelessness
of the NSA, some of these weapons have now been placed in the hands of criminals. US authorities
did nothing to warn the public, much less prepare it to protect itself against the inevitable unleashing
of the cyber weapons it itself had crafted.
In its report on the global cyberattacks on Saturday, the New York Times stated: "It
could take months to find out who was behind the attacks-a mystery that may go unsolved."
The co-author of these lines was the New York Times chief Washington correspondent David
E. Sanger, who, in addition to writing for the "newspaper of record," finds time to lecture at Harvard's
Kennedy School of Government, a state-connected finishing school for top political and military officials.
He also holds membership in both the Council on Foreign Relations and the Aspen Strategy Group, think
tanks that bring together capitalist politicians, military and intelligence officials and corporate
heads to discuss US imperialist strategy.
All of this makes Sanger one of the favorite media conduits for "leaks" and propaganda that the
CIA and the Pentagon want put into the public domain.
It is worth contrasting his treatment of the "WannaCrypt" ransomware attack with the way he and
the Times dealt with the allegations of Russian hacking in the run-up to and aftermath of
the 2016 US presidential election.
There was no question then of an investigation taking months to uncover the culprit, much less
any mystery going unsolved. Putin and Russia were declared guilty based upon unsubstantiated allegations
and innuendo. Ever since, the Times, serving as the propaganda outlet of the US intelligence
services, has given the lead to the rest of the media by endlessly repeating the allegation of Russian
state direction of the hacking of the Democratic Party, without bothering to provide any evidence
to back up the charge.
With the entire world now under attack from a weapon forged by Washington's cyberwarfare experts,
the hysterical allegations of Russian hacking are placed in perspective.
From the beginning, they have been utilized as war propaganda, a means of attempting to promote
popular support for US imperialism's steady escalation of military threats and aggression against
Russia, the world's second-largest nuclear power.
Since Trump's inauguration, the Democratic Party has only intensified the anti-Russian propaganda.
It serves both as a means of pressuring the Trump administration to abandon any turn toward a less
aggressive policy toward Moscow, and of smothering the popular opposition to the right-wing and anti-working
class policies of the administration under a reactionary and neo-McCarthyite campaign painting Trump
as an agent of the Kremlin.
"... what astonished me was how quickly the media interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even illegal. ..."
"... The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more dramatic, further compromising the source. ..."
"... McMaster described the report as "false" and informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations." ..."
"... The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode. ..."
"... In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting. ..."
"... The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story, initially stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel. ..."
"... And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council. ..."
"... You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony, about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk. ..."
"... I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office, I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others. ..."
"... Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies, and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary risks. ..."
"... And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start. ..."
"... In general I agree with you, but the media was NEVER concerned about the treatment of sensitive material from HRC! ..."
"... I think he needs to cut back on intelligence sharing with Israel. They do just what the hell they want to do with anything. ..."
Intelligence agencies and senior government officials tend to use a lot of jargon. Laced with acronyms, this language sometimes does
not translate very well into journalese when it hits the media.
For example, I experienced a sense of disorientation two weeks ago over the word "sensitive" as used by several senators, Sally
Yates, and James Clapper during committee testimony into Russiagate. "Sensitive" has, of course, a number of meanings. But what
astonished me was how quickly the media
interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving
Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even
illegal.
When Yates and Clapper were using "sensitive" thirteen times in the
86 page transcript of the Senate hearings, they were referring to the medium rather than the message. They were both acknowledging
that the sources of the information were intelligence related, sometimes referred to as "sensitive" by intelligence professionals
and government insiders as a shorthand way to describe that they are "need to know" material derived from either classified "methods"
or foreign-liaison partners. That does not mean that the information contained is either good or bad or even true or false, but merely
a way of expressing that the information must be protected because of where it came from or how it was developed, hence the "sensitivity."
The word also popped up this week in a Washington Post
exclusive report alleging that the president had, in his recent meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, gone too
far while also suggesting that the source of a highly classified government program might be inferred from the context of what was
actually revealed. The Post describes how
The information Trump relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so
sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.
The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said that Trump's decision
to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State.
The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more
dramatic, further compromising the source. Furthermore, it should be understood that the paper is extremely hostile to Trump,
the story is as always based on anonymous sources, and the revelation comes on top of another unverifiable Post article claiming
that the Russians might have sought to sneak
a recording device into the White House during the visit.
No one is denying that the president discussed ISIS in some detail with Lavrov, but National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, both of whom were present at the meeting,
have denied that any sources or methods were revealed while reviewing with the Russians available intelligence. McMaster
described the report as "false" and
informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation.
At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known
publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods,
or military operations."
So the question becomes to what extent can an intelligence mechanism be identified from the information that it produces. That
is, to a certain extent, a judgment call. The president is able
on his own authority to declassify anything, so the legality of his sharing information with Russia cannot be challenged. What
is at question is the decision-making by an inexperienced president who may have been showing off to an important foreign visitor
by revealing details of intelligence that should have remained secret. The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential
damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode.
The media is claiming that the specific discussion with Lavrov that is causing particular concern is related to a so-called
Special Access Program
, or SAP, sometimes referred to as "code word information." An SAP is an operation that generates intelligence that requires special
protection because of where or how it is produced. In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to
specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours
tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting.
There have also been reports that the White House followed up on its Lavrov meeting with a routine review of what had taken place.
Several National Security Council members observed that some of the information shared with the Russians was far too sensitive to
disseminate within the U.S. intelligence community. This led to the placing of
urgent calls to NSA and CIA to brief them on what had been said.
Based on the recipients of the calls alone, one might surmise that the source of the information would appear to be either a foreign-intelligence
service or a technical collection operation, or even both combined. The Post claims that the originator of the intelligence
did not clear its sharing with the Russians and raises the possibility that no more information of that type will be provided at
all in light of the White House's apparent carelessness in its use. The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story,
initially
stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel.
The Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov "granular" information on the city in Syria where the information
was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify the actual source, with devastating consequences. That projection
may be overreach, but the fact is that the latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison
relationship in the Middle East while reinforcing the widely held impression that Washington does not know how to keep a secret.
It will also create the impression that Donald Trump, out of ignorance or hubris, exhibits a certain recklessness in his dealing
with classified information, a failing that he once attributed to his presidential opponent Hillary Clinton.
And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a
bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.
This article has been updated to reflect news developments.
" The latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East
"
On the other hand, it also represents closer collaboration with Russia–even if unintended–which is an improvement on the status
quo ante and, not to mention, key to ending the conflict in Syria.
You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness
to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony,
about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk.
Out of my depth, but was Trump working within the framework, maybe a bit outside if the story is true, of the Joint Implementation
Group the Obama administration created last year with Russia?
Also, I recall reading that the prior administration promised Russia ISIS intel. Not sure if that ever happened, but I doubt
they'd have made it public or leak anything to the press.
I think it should go without saying that intelligence is a sensitive business and protecting those who operate in its murky
waters is important to having an effective agency.
Of course the Pres of the US has a duty to do so.
I have not yet read the post article. But I am doubtful that the executive had any intention of putting anyone in harms way.
I am equally doubtful that this incident will. If the executive made an error in judgement, I am sure it will be dealt wit in
an appropriate manner.
I do wish he'd stop tweeting, though I get why its useful to him.
I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other
states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office,
I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others.
Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies,
and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous
executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary
risks.
Just another brier brushfire of a single tumble weed to add to the others in the hope that setting fires in trashcans will
make the current exec go away or at least engage in a mea culpa and sign more checks in the mess that is the middle east policy
objective that remains a dead end.
__________
And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for
the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start.
Politics is now directly endangering innocent civilians. Because of the leaks and its publication, ISIS for sure now knows that
there is an information leak out of their organization. They will now re-compartmentalize and may be successful in breaking that
information leak. Innocent airline passenger civilians, American, Russian, or whoever may die as a result. Russia and the US are
both fighting ISIS. We are de facto allies in that fight whether some people like it or not. Time to get over it.
Having read the article, uhhh, excuse me, but unlike personal secrets. The purpose of intel is to use to or keep on hand for some-other
date. But of that information is related to the security of our interests and certainly a cooperative relationship with Russia
is in our interest. Because in the convoluted fight with ISIS/ISIL, Russia is an ally.
What this belies is the mess of the intelligence community. If in fact, the Russians intend to take a source who provided information
that was helpful to them, it would be a peculiar twist of strategic action. The response does tell us that we are in some manner
in league with ISIS/ISIL or their supporters so deep that there is a need to protect them, from what is anybody's guess. Because
if the information is accurate, I doubt the Russians are going to about killing the source, but rather improving their airline
security.
But if we are in fact attempting to remove Pres Assad, and are in league with ISIS/ISIL in doing so - I get why the advocates
of such nonsense might be in a huff. So ISIS/ISISL our one time foe and now our sometimes friend . . .
Good greif . . .
Pres Trump is the least of muy concerns when it coes to security.
Philip, back on July 23, 2014, you explained in "How ISIS Evades the CIA" "the inability of the United States government to anticipate
the ISIS offensive that has succeeded in taking control of a large part of Iraq." You explained why the CIA had to date had no
success in infiltrating ISIS.
You continued: "Given U.S. intelligence's probable limited physical access to any actual terrorist groups operating in Syria
or Iraq any direct attempt to penetrate the organization through placing a source inside would be difficult in the extreme. Such
efforts would most likely be dependent on the assistance of friendly intelligence services in Turkey or Jordan. Both Turkey and
Jordan have reported that terrorists have entered their countries by concealing themselves in the large numbers of refugees that
the conflict in Syria has produced, and both are concerned as they understand full well that groups like ISIS will be targeting
them next. Some of the infiltrating adherents to radical groups have certainly been identified and detained by the respective
intelligence services of those two countries, and undoubtedly efforts have been made to 'turn' some of those in custody to send
them back into Syria (and more recently Iraq) to report on what is taking place. Depending on what arrangements might have been
made to coordinate the operations, the 'take' might well be shared with the United States and other friendly governments."
You then describe the difficulties faced by a Turkish or Jordanian agent trying to infiltrate ISIS: "But seeding is very much
hit or miss, as someone who has been out of the loop of his organization might have difficulty working his way back in. He will
almost certainly be regarded with some suspicion by his peers and would be searched and watched after his return, meaning that
he could not take back with him any sophisticated communications devices no matter how cleverly they are concealed. This would
make communicating any information obtained back to one's case officers in Jordan or Turkey difficult or even impossible."
Notwithstanding how "difficult or even impossible" such an operation would be - and using the New York Times as your only source
for a lot of otherwise completely unsubstantiated information – and admitting that "this is sheer speculation on my part" – you
say that "it is logical to assume that the countries that have provided numerous recruits for ISIS [Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia]
would have used that fact as cover to carry out a seeding operation to introduce some of their own agents into the ISIS organization."
Back to the New York Times as your only source, you say that "the Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov 'granular'
information on the city in Syria where the information was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify
the actual source, with devastating consequences."
But having ventured into the far reaches of that line of speculation, you do admit that "that projection may be overreach."
Indeed!
You go on to characterize the events of the White House meeting with the Russians as "the latest gaffe from the White House"
– even though there is absolutely no evidence (outside of the unsubstantiated reports of the Washington Post and the New York
Times) that anything to do with the meeting was a "gaffe" – and you further speculate that "it could well damage an important
intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East."
That is, again, pure speculation on your part.
One valuable lesson that you've taught TAC readers over the years, Philip: That we need to carefully examine the sources of
information – and the sources of dis-information.
Yet again from Giraldi: the problem isn't that the POTUS is ignorant and incompetent; we should all be more concerned that the
Deep State is leaking the proof.
Trump has now essentially confirmed the story from the Post and contradicted the denials from McMaster – he shared specific intelligence
to demonstrate his willingness to work with the Russians. Moreover, it seems that Israel was the ally that provided this intelligence.
The author and others will defend this, but I can only see this as a reckless and impulsive decision that only causes Russia and
our allies to trust the US less.
FBI agents say the bureau is alarmed over Director James Comey deciding not to suggest that the Justice Department prosecute Hillary
Clinton over her mishandling of classified information.
According to an interview transcript given to The Daily Caller, provided by an intermediary who spoke to two federal agents with
the bureau last Friday, agents are frustrated by Comey's leadership.
"This is a textbook case where a grand jury should have convened but was not. That is appalling," an FBI special agent who has
worked public corruption and criminal cases said of the decision. "We talk about it in the office and don't know how Comey can keep
going."
The agent was also surprised that the bureau did not bother to search Clinton's house during the investigation.
"We didn't search their house. We always search the house. The search should not just have been for private electronics, which
contained classified material, but even for printouts of such material," he said.
"There should have been a complete search of their residence," the agent pointed out. "That the FBI did not seize devices is unbelievable.
The FBI even seizes devices that have been set on fire."
Another special agent for the bureau that worked counter-terrorism and criminal cases said he is offended by Comey's saying: "we"
and "I've been an investigator."
After graduating from law school, Comey became a law clerk to a U.S. District Judge in Manhattan and later became an associate
in a law firm in the city. After becoming a U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, Comey's career moved through the
U.S. Attorney's Office until he became Deputy Attorney General during the George W. Bush administration.
After Bush left office, Comey entered the private sector and became general counsel and Senior Vice President for Lockheed Martin,
among other private sector posts. President Barack Obama appointed him to FBI director in 2013 replacing out going-director Robert
Mueller.
"Comey was never an investigator or special agent. The special agents are trained investigators and they are insulted that Comey
included them in 'collective we' statements in his testimony to imply that the SAs agreed that there was nothing there to prosecute,"
the second agent said. "All the trained investigators agree that there is a lot to prosecuted but he stood in the way."
He added, "The idea that [the Clinton/e-mail case] didn't go to a grand jury is ridiculous."
According to Washington D.C. attorney Joe DiGenova, more FBI agents will be talking about the problems at bureau and specifically
the handling of the Clinton case by Comey when Congress comes back into session and decides to force them to testify by subpoena.
DiGenova told WMAL radio's Drive at Five last week, "People are starting to talk. They're calling their former friends outside
the bureau asking for help. We were asked to day to provide legal representation to people inside the bureau and agreed to do so
and to former agents who want to come forward and talk. Comey thought this was going to go away."
He explained, "It's not. People inside the bureau are furious. They are embarrassed. They feel like they are being led by a hack
but more than that that they think he's a crook. They think he's fundamentally dishonest. They have no confidence in him. The bureau
inside right now is a mess."
He added, "The most important thing of all is that the agents have decided that they are going to talk."
"... o start with, again, this is from the Washington Post and an unnamed source. So you do have to doubt the accuracy of the information knowing the vendetta the Washington Post and other mainstream media have against the Trump administration and against President Trump personally and how much they want to disrupt any kind of cooperation with Russia against the terrorist threat. ..."
"... There is a whole structure of what people call the 'Deep State' establishment, the oligarchy – whatever you want to call it. Of course, the mainstream media is part of this. It includes all the Democrats, who were very easy on the Soviet Union when it was Communist. But now that it is not Communist under Russia, they have a deep, very deep hatred of Russia, and they don't want any kind of rapprochement with Russia. ..."
"... Let's not play the game of dividing the so-called mainstream media from its owners. The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military industrial complex. If you want to call it anything, you can call it the 'military media.' The military makes money by making war; they buy the media to promote war. They use the media to promote propaganda in favor of war. And that is where we get into the mess we're in today. Because we have a president who is a businessman and would prefer to make money, and would prefer to put people to work in any industry other than war. The military industrial media in the United States is depending on being able to speak to a captive audience of uninformed viewers The military controls the media because they own them. ..."
There are elements of the 'Deep State' here who are very opposed to the things Donald Trump said
during the campaign. They don't want to cooperate with Russia, Jim Jatras, former US diplomat, told
RT.
Political analyst John Bosnitch joins the discussion. US President Trump said his White House
meeting last week with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov ranged from airline safety to terrorism.
A Washington Post story, however, has accused the American leader of revealing classified information
to Russian officials.
RT: What's your take on it? Is the media on to something big here?
Jim Jatras: To start with, again, this is from the Washington Post and an unnamed source. So you
do have to doubt the accuracy of the information knowing the vendetta the Washington Post and other
mainstream media have against the Trump administration and against President Trump personally and
how much they want to disrupt any kind of cooperation with Russia against the terrorist threat. I
would say that was the first thing.
Second, as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Deputy of National Security Adviser Dina Powell,
who were both in the meeting, have stated since the Washington Post article appeared – there was
nothing discussed with Mr. [Sergey] Lavrov and Mr. [Sergey] Kislyak that compromised what they call "sources and methods"
that would lead to any kind of intelligence vulnerability on the part
of the US. But rather this was all part of a discussion of common action against ISIS. Those are
the first things to be noted
Let's remember that there are elements of what we call the 'Deep State' here who are
very opposed to the things Donald Trump said during the campaign. They don't want to cooperate with
the Russians; they don't want improved relations with Moscow. And let's be honest, they have a very
strong investment in the various jihadist groups that we have supported for the past six years trying
to overthrow the legitimate government in Damascus. I am sure there are people – maybe in the National
Security Council, maybe in the Staff, maybe in the State Department – who are finding some way to
try and discredit the Trump administration. The question is where is the investigation into these
leaks? Who is going to hold these people accountable?
RT: The mainstream media is going on little more than 'anonymous sources.' Could it have a
hidden agenda here?
JJ: Of course. In fact, I would even go further. I wouldn't be at all surprised if President Trump
timed his firing with the FBI Director James Comey – what some people even pointed out – he himself
in one of his tweets says "drain the swamp." One of the first elements was getting rid of
the principals of the Deep State who have been trying to hijack his policy; that he did this precisely
because he was meeting with Mr. Lavrov and Mr. Kislyak the next day. He's shoving it in their face,
saying: "I am moving forward with my program." And I think that's the reason we're getting
this hysteria building around the Russians, the Russians, the Russians when what we need is to move
forward on an America First national security policy.
'US policy today: Aircraft, where co-pilots try to override pilots' (Op-Edge)
https://t.co/x153yPtqVS
RT: Do you think mainstream media is a part of something big and controlled all over from
the top?
JJ: Absolutely. There is a whole structure of what people call the 'Deep State' establishment,
the oligarchy – whatever you want to call it. Of course, the mainstream media is part of this. It
includes all the Democrats, who were very easy on the Soviet Union when it was Communist. But now
that it is not Communist under Russia, they have a deep, very deep hatred of Russia, and they don't
want any kind of rapprochement with Russia.
And unfortunately, there are Republicans who sympathize
with this agenda, as well. I think we can say at this point that Mr. Trump is only partially in control
of the apparatus of government. He does not yet have complete control and that there is a frantic
effort by these elements to make sure he is not able to get control of the American government
and carry out the policies he talked about.
The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military industrial complex.
If you want to call it anything, you can call it the 'military media,' John Bosnitch , political
analyst, told RT.
RT: The media has run with this. Are they on to something big here?
John Bosnitch: I wouldn't say so. I've worked in this field for three decades. I don't see a scrap
of evidence here. But I do see like a shark tank of media feeding – no evidence.
RT: Trump attacked Hillary Clinton as being unreliable with state secrets. Can the same now
be said of him?
JB: Trump is the chief executive officer of the United States of America. As the chief executive
officer of the country, he has full legal and constitutional authority to use state secrets in the
conduct of diplomacy. He's also the chief diplomat of the country. So there is a big difference between
the chief executive officer deciding what information he can share in conducting of state policy,
and Hillary Clinton deciding as a cabinet minister which laws she chooses to obey, and which ones
she doesn't.
RT: The mainstream media is going on little more than 'anonymous sources'... could it have
a hidden agenda here?
JB: I don't see any other possibility, whatsoever. Let's not play the game of dividing the so-called
mainstream media from its owners. The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel
by the military industrial complex. If you want to call it anything, you can call it the 'military
media.' The military makes money by making war; they buy the media to promote war. They use the media
to promote propaganda in favor of war. And that is where we get into the mess we're in today. Because
we have a president who is a businessman and would prefer to make money, and would prefer to put
people to work in any industry other than war. The military industrial media in the United States
is depending on being able to speak to a captive audience of uninformed viewers The military controls
the media because they own them.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and
do not necessarily represent those of RT.
"... what astonished me was how quickly the media interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even illegal. ..."
"... The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more dramatic, further compromising the source. ..."
"... McMaster described the report as "false" and informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations." ..."
"... The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode. ..."
"... In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting. ..."
"... The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story, initially stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel. ..."
"... And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council. ..."
"... You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony, about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk. ..."
"... I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office, I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others. ..."
"... Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies, and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary risks. ..."
"... And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start. ..."
"... In general I agree with you, but the media was NEVER concerned about the treatment of sensitive material from HRC! ..."
"... I think he needs to cut back on intelligence sharing with Israel. They do just what the hell they want to do with anything. ..."
Intelligence agencies and senior government officials tend to use a lot of jargon. Laced with acronyms, this language sometimes does
not translate very well into journalese when it hits the media.
For example, I experienced a sense of disorientation two weeks ago over the word "sensitive" as used by several senators, Sally
Yates, and James Clapper during committee testimony into Russiagate. "Sensitive" has, of course, a number of meanings. But what
astonished me was how quickly the media
interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving
Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even
illegal.
When Yates and Clapper were using "sensitive" thirteen times in the
86 page transcript of the Senate hearings, they were referring to the medium rather than the message. They were both acknowledging
that the sources of the information were intelligence related, sometimes referred to as "sensitive" by intelligence professionals
and government insiders as a shorthand way to describe that they are "need to know" material derived from either classified "methods"
or foreign-liaison partners. That does not mean that the information contained is either good or bad or even true or false, but merely
a way of expressing that the information must be protected because of where it came from or how it was developed, hence the "sensitivity."
The word also popped up this week in a Washington Post
exclusive report alleging that the president had, in his recent meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, gone too
far while also suggesting that the source of a highly classified government program might be inferred from the context of what was
actually revealed. The Post describes how
The information Trump relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so
sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.
The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said that Trump's decision
to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State.
The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more
dramatic, further compromising the source. Furthermore, it should be understood that the paper is extremely hostile to Trump,
the story is as always based on anonymous sources, and the revelation comes on top of another unverifiable Post article claiming
that the Russians might have sought to sneak
a recording device into the White House during the visit.
No one is denying that the president discussed ISIS in some detail with Lavrov, but National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, both of whom were present at the meeting,
have denied that any sources or methods were revealed while reviewing with the Russians available intelligence. McMaster
described the report as "false" and
informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation.
At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known
publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods,
or military operations."
So the question becomes to what extent can an intelligence mechanism be identified from the information that it produces. That
is, to a certain extent, a judgment call. The president is able
on his own authority to declassify anything, so the legality of his sharing information with Russia cannot be challenged. What
is at question is the decision-making by an inexperienced president who may have been showing off to an important foreign visitor
by revealing details of intelligence that should have remained secret. The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential
damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode.
The media is claiming that the specific discussion with Lavrov that is causing particular concern is related to a so-called
Special Access Program
, or SAP, sometimes referred to as "code word information." An SAP is an operation that generates intelligence that requires special
protection because of where or how it is produced. In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to
specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours
tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting.
There have also been reports that the White House followed up on its Lavrov meeting with a routine review of what had taken place.
Several National Security Council members observed that some of the information shared with the Russians was far too sensitive to
disseminate within the U.S. intelligence community. This led to the placing of
urgent calls to NSA and CIA to brief them on what had been said.
Based on the recipients of the calls alone, one might surmise that the source of the information would appear to be either a foreign-intelligence
service or a technical collection operation, or even both combined. The Post claims that the originator of the intelligence
did not clear its sharing with the Russians and raises the possibility that no more information of that type will be provided at
all in light of the White House's apparent carelessness in its use. The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story,
initially
stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel.
The Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov "granular" information on the city in Syria where the information
was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify the actual source, with devastating consequences. That projection
may be overreach, but the fact is that the latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison
relationship in the Middle East while reinforcing the widely held impression that Washington does not know how to keep a secret.
It will also create the impression that Donald Trump, out of ignorance or hubris, exhibits a certain recklessness in his dealing
with classified information, a failing that he once attributed to his presidential opponent Hillary Clinton.
And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a
bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.
This article has been updated to reflect news developments.
" The latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East
"
On the other hand, it also represents closer collaboration with Russia–even if unintended–which is an improvement on the status
quo ante and, not to mention, key to ending the conflict in Syria.
You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness
to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony,
about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk.
Out of my depth, but was Trump working within the framework, maybe a bit outside if the story is true, of the Joint Implementation
Group the Obama administration created last year with Russia?
Also, I recall reading that the prior administration promised Russia ISIS intel. Not sure if that ever happened, but I doubt
they'd have made it public or leak anything to the press.
I think it should go without saying that intelligence is a sensitive business and protecting those who operate in its murky
waters is important to having an effective agency.
Of course the Pres of the US has a duty to do so.
I have not yet read the post article. But I am doubtful that the executive had any intention of putting anyone in harms way.
I am equally doubtful that this incident will. If the executive made an error in judgement, I am sure it will be dealt wit in
an appropriate manner.
I do wish he'd stop tweeting, though I get why its useful to him.
I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other
states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office,
I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others.
Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies,
and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous
executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary
risks.
Just another brier brushfire of a single tumble weed to add to the others in the hope that setting fires in trashcans will
make the current exec go away or at least engage in a mea culpa and sign more checks in the mess that is the middle east policy
objective that remains a dead end.
__________
And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for
the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start.
Politics is now directly endangering innocent civilians. Because of the leaks and its publication, ISIS for sure now knows that
there is an information leak out of their organization. They will now re-compartmentalize and may be successful in breaking that
information leak. Innocent airline passenger civilians, American, Russian, or whoever may die as a result. Russia and the US are
both fighting ISIS. We are de facto allies in that fight whether some people like it or not. Time to get over it.
Having read the article, uhhh, excuse me, but unlike personal secrets. The purpose of intel is to use to or keep on hand for some-other
date. But of that information is related to the security of our interests and certainly a cooperative relationship with Russia
is in our interest. Because in the convoluted fight with ISIS/ISIL, Russia is an ally.
What this belies is the mess of the intelligence community. If in fact, the Russians intend to take a source who provided information
that was helpful to them, it would be a peculiar twist of strategic action. The response does tell us that we are in some manner
in league with ISIS/ISIL or their supporters so deep that there is a need to protect them, from what is anybody's guess. Because
if the information is accurate, I doubt the Russians are going to about killing the source, but rather improving their airline
security.
But if we are in fact attempting to remove Pres Assad, and are in league with ISIS/ISIL in doing so - I get why the advocates
of such nonsense might be in a huff. So ISIS/ISISL our one time foe and now our sometimes friend . . .
Good greif . . .
Pres Trump is the least of muy concerns when it coes to security.
Philip, back on July 23, 2014, you explained in "How ISIS Evades the CIA" "the inability of the United States government to anticipate
the ISIS offensive that has succeeded in taking control of a large part of Iraq." You explained why the CIA had to date had no
success in infiltrating ISIS.
You continued: "Given U.S. intelligence's probable limited physical access to any actual terrorist groups operating in Syria
or Iraq any direct attempt to penetrate the organization through placing a source inside would be difficult in the extreme. Such
efforts would most likely be dependent on the assistance of friendly intelligence services in Turkey or Jordan. Both Turkey and
Jordan have reported that terrorists have entered their countries by concealing themselves in the large numbers of refugees that
the conflict in Syria has produced, and both are concerned as they understand full well that groups like ISIS will be targeting
them next. Some of the infiltrating adherents to radical groups have certainly been identified and detained by the respective
intelligence services of those two countries, and undoubtedly efforts have been made to 'turn' some of those in custody to send
them back into Syria (and more recently Iraq) to report on what is taking place. Depending on what arrangements might have been
made to coordinate the operations, the 'take' might well be shared with the United States and other friendly governments."
You then describe the difficulties faced by a Turkish or Jordanian agent trying to infiltrate ISIS: "But seeding is very much
hit or miss, as someone who has been out of the loop of his organization might have difficulty working his way back in. He will
almost certainly be regarded with some suspicion by his peers and would be searched and watched after his return, meaning that
he could not take back with him any sophisticated communications devices no matter how cleverly they are concealed. This would
make communicating any information obtained back to one's case officers in Jordan or Turkey difficult or even impossible."
Notwithstanding how "difficult or even impossible" such an operation would be - and using the New York Times as your only source
for a lot of otherwise completely unsubstantiated information – and admitting that "this is sheer speculation on my part" – you
say that "it is logical to assume that the countries that have provided numerous recruits for ISIS [Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia]
would have used that fact as cover to carry out a seeding operation to introduce some of their own agents into the ISIS organization."
Back to the New York Times as your only source, you say that "the Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov 'granular'
information on the city in Syria where the information was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify
the actual source, with devastating consequences."
But having ventured into the far reaches of that line of speculation, you do admit that "that projection may be overreach."
Indeed!
You go on to characterize the events of the White House meeting with the Russians as "the latest gaffe from the White House"
– even though there is absolutely no evidence (outside of the unsubstantiated reports of the Washington Post and the New York
Times) that anything to do with the meeting was a "gaffe" – and you further speculate that "it could well damage an important
intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East."
That is, again, pure speculation on your part.
One valuable lesson that you've taught TAC readers over the years, Philip: That we need to carefully examine the sources of
information – and the sources of dis-information.
Yet again from Giraldi: the problem isn't that the POTUS is ignorant and incompetent; we should all be more concerned that the
Deep State is leaking the proof.
Trump has now essentially confirmed the story from the Post and contradicted the denials from McMaster – he shared specific intelligence
to demonstrate his willingness to work with the Russians. Moreover, it seems that Israel was the ally that provided this intelligence.
The author and others will defend this, but I can only see this as a reckless and impulsive decision that only causes Russia and
our allies to trust the US less.
"... I just visited the several newspapers and my own take away is that Democrats must be weeping with joy at their good fortune. The firing of Comey is being construed as the desperate act of a criminal about to be indicted. Which is remarkable given the fact that senior Democrats in the intelligence and judiciary committees confirmed they've yet to see any evidence connecting Russia and the GOP candidate as recently as last week. ..."
"... One problem with the claim that the president firing Comey is in any way a subversion of the rule of law, is that firing by the president of any official in the executive branch (with the exception of independent agency officials) is as legal as church on Sunday. That's a foolish feature of our system, but it is a feature of our system. The Senate failed by one vote to impeach Andrew Johnson for firing Stanton as Secy of War, and partly as a way to rationalize that failure, but mostly because the presidency was always going to evolve towards an elected monarchy, we later passed a law clarifying that the president has the power to fire cabinet members and their subordinates. ..."
"... But hypocrisy is a moral charge, and so this is not a politically important issue. It's good that Republican and Democratic hypocrisy might get Trump impeached, even if the state of the souls on both sides are extremely impure. ..."
"... There is not much use in being outraged by something one can in no way affect, such as the outcome of the struggle between rogue capitalist Trump, now thrashing about randomly, and the Deep State or Established Order or whatever you want to call it. However, as the struggle intensifies, and stuff begins to come loose and flap in the wind, we may be able to learn something about the current power structure of the U.S. ..."
"... "A few seconds googling reveals numerous explicit statements from prominent Democrats that Comey is incompetent and untrustworthy and should no longer be in the job. I'm afraid that's quite textbook hypocrisy." ..."
"... "It is not that the president does not, in the abstract, have the power to fire the FBI director–it's that it is inappropriate to do so when the FBI is investigating the president." This from rea is the perfect summary: And the fact that no-one in the White House who knew that, had enough power to do anything about it, is why this particular move worries me at least as much as anything else Trump has done thus far. ..."
"... Comey's public statement two weeks before the election that the Clinton email investigation had found new evidence which might yet (at long last) turn out to be incriminating was an outrageous act – particularly since a potentially more serious investigation of Trump was in progress and not similarly mentioned. ..."
"... Trump seems to have quite a few problems understanding appropriate timing. He held on to Flynn for 18 days after he was informed of Flynn's ties to the Russians and his lies about that. ..."
"... If Comey is unfit to hold the office, as many top Democrats have said outright or at least strongly implied, it is plainly ridiculous to trust him with an investigation which you consider so important. ..."
"... The honest response from Dems would then be, "it's great you fired Comey, now appoint a special prosecutor." ..."
"... "Are the State Dept's own computers underperforming, - or else compromised? Are gov't communications of all sorts OVER-classified?" – Lee Arnold @7 ..."
"... As someone familiar – far too familiar – with civil service bureaucracies (albeit not US ones) I would bet money that the answer to both questions is a resounding YES. ..."
"... bureaucrats consistently over classify because they like to believe they're insiders, privy to important and successful conspiracies. ..."
"... You can use these HTML tags and attributes: ..."
by
John Holbo
on
May 10, 2017
It is not hypocritical in the least for Democrats to be outraged about Comey over
the Clinton business and also to be outraged over Trump's firing of Comey,
apparently to hinder
FBI
investigations of Trump and his
associates. (One presumes Trump has a motive for the firing and the official
reason is obviously not the real one.)
If Republicans try to troll Democrats –
and I see that they already are – here's the short, sharp response: we all agree
that someone may deserve to be punished, but also that proper procedures for
punishing them need to be observed. This is not hypocrisy. It's the rule of law.
If I say Smith should be arrested for capital crimes, and then I am outraged when
Smith dies in custody in a suspicious manner, suggesting the police might be
covering their own crimes, I am not a hypocrite. The firing is like that. If you
care about the rule of law, you are outraged that Comey was fired today. If you
care about the integrity of US elections, you are outraged he wasn't fired before.
There is no tension in the view that the rule of law is good, yet the integrity of
elections is also good. If Republicans want to make the case that one or both of
these are bad, or that it's wrong to want both, let them make their case openly
and honestly.
Of course Trump's firing of Comey had nothing at
all
to do with this
other
headline just out:
"
Grand jury subpoenas issued in FBI's Russia investigation
- Federal
prosecutors have issued grand jury subpoenas to associates of former National
Security Advisor Michael Flynn seeking business records ."
This is surely going to encourage a whole new level of counter-Trump activity
in the security state. Holder's tweet was basically telling FBI staff to have
at it
From Trump's letter of termination, it looks like Comey was fired because he
refused to say in public, at the Senate hearing, whether Trump himself was
under investigation about the Russians, thus leaving it appear that Trump could
be under investigation, or that the investigation might lead to Trump.
Here is the beginning of Trump's second paragraph in the termination letter:
"While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that
I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the
Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the bureau."
This seems to have little to do with Comey's performance in the Clinton
email "scandals". It looks instead like the Russian story is getting too close,
& Trump found a convenient premise to fire Comey, that premise being the need
to correct Comey's public misunderstanding of the scope of Clinton's emails on
Weiner's computer in Comey's statements, at the Senate hearing last week - a
rather minor error, at that.
I imagine that Comey may have divided feelings right now: relieved to be off
the hot seat, but alarmed that history may abuse him. Because last year Comey
was sandbagged by the GOP, twice:
1. In the last hour of the July 7 hearing about the State Dept. emails, you
can see Comey's visible discomfort and his growing frustration that he was
being manipulated into saying something untrue about Hillary Clinton, in a
witch hunt, under the repetitious badgering by Gowdy and Chaffetz who were
trying different legalistic locutions. Their intended effect was to make much
of the public believe that the FBI let Clinton off the hook.
As Comey had already explained in that same hearing, the facts are that
dozens or hundreds of State employees, all the way back to Colin Powell's days,
were using private servers without the "classified" status printed on the
emails, and there was technically no law broken, therefore none prosecutable -
though it was careless and sloppy, as Comey stated. So far as I know, the big
questions have never been asked in the media: Why were they all doing this? Why
didn't the State Dept. provide a secure server? Are the State Dept's own
computers underperforming, - or else compromised? Are gov't communications of
all sorts OVER-classified?
2. Various published reports could be construed to narrate a "dirty-tricks"
story: that in October, an anti-Clinton faction in the FBI's NY office leaked
the Abedin-Weiner non-story bullcrap to Rudy Giuliani, and possibly to
Republicans in Congress. This threatened Comey to come out and say something
about it IN PUBLIC, before it was blown up in headlines in another way - with
the added bogus suggestion of the Bureaus' involvement in a new coverup to
protect Hillary. So Comey found himself in another no-win situation.
Indeed Rudy just came up, again. From the hearing last week, May 3:
SENATOR LEAHY: Let me ask you this. During your investigation into Hillary
Clinton's emails, a number of surrogates like Rudy Giuliani claimed to have a
pipeline to the FBI. He boasted that, and I quote, numerous agents talk to him
all the time. (Inaudible) regarding the investigation. He even said that he had
- insinuated he had advanced warning about the emails described in your October
letter. Former FBI agent Jim Kallstrom made similar claims.
Now, either they're lying, or there's a serious problem within thebureau.
Anybody in the FBI during this 2016 campaign have contact with Rudy Giuliani
about - about the Clinton investigation?
COMEY: I don't know yet. But if I find out that people were leaking information
about our investigations, whether it's to reporters or to private parties,
there will be severe consequences.
LEAHY: Did you know of anything from Jim Kallstrom?
COMEY: Same answer. I don't know yet.
LEAHY: Do you know any about - from other former agents?
COMEY: I don't know yet. But it's a matter that I'm very, very interested in.
LEAHY: But you are looking into it?
COMEY: Correct.
LEAHY: And once you've found that answer, will you provide it to us?
COMEY: I'll provide it to the committee in some form. I don't whether I would
say publicly, but I'd find some way to let you know.
Reading the full transcript of this hearing will show you just how serious
the Russian connections are, to both sides of the aisle in the Senate.
– and @5 stop this nonsense about 'Trump's Russian master' – as by now
everybody is aware that Von Clownstick only has ONE 'master' – the most nasty,
dangerous and demented of them all: 'Himself'.
But – still – Historians are
going to have the absolute and total 'field day' for how little dough one could
in Trumps erection – buy a real 'campaign manager' – or for what an amazing
tiny budget price you were able to get a real US national security advisor –
and I really understand that lots and lots of US politicians are angry – how
Manafort and Flynn went for such small change in order to help – of all Creeps
one of the nastiest dudes of them all.
I mean I it would have been France -(or even better Italy) trying to buy
themselves into the US government in order that Von Clownstick would do some
promotion for them -(and Paris or Rome) – that would have been some kind of
acceptable – and ME and my friends already thought: If a buy in – into the US
government is 'that' cheap – why leave it to countries like Russian – why not
getting it for ourselves? – and then when Ivanka comes by get some of her
clothes a lot cheaper too?
I am not American, so I am not positive about how the proper procedure is.
However, I tend to agree with Tomksin @10.
If I understand correctly, John Holbo is complaining that the Democrat were
asking to follow the "proper" legal procedure to fire the head of FBI, but
Trump did not follow it.
So, what is this proper procedure? I was under the impression that the
procedure was the president (maybe after consulting with the AG) writing a
letter with "YOU ARE FIRED!" written on it. If I am right, and the rule of law
was followed, the whole post is bullshit; if I am wrong, I would appreciate a
clarification on what is the procedure: more precisely, what would be the
legitimate way to follow the requests of the Democrats and fire Comey? (By the
way, I think his firing was a tragic loss for US democracy: he proved to be a
fiercely independent public official, willing to make powerful enemies from
both sides of the aisle).
If Republicans want to make the case that one or both of these are bad,
or that it's wrong to want both, let them make their case openly and
honestly.
They are never going to make their case openly and honestly. They will
continue to equivocate and to give lip service to principles they don't even
bother to cover up anymore. The only question is whether they rest complacent
in their hypocrisy, or whether they begin to argue that "rule of law" mean
something different from what it does (or more likely, to hypocritically insist
that we use their use of the word in inappropriate ways is correct, while
giving lip service to the idea of shared meanings, traditional definitions, and
so on). Which of these would be preferable (not that we have a say in the
matter) seems to be less clear than we might wish.
There is not much use in being outraged by something one can in no way affect,
such as the outcome of the struggle between rogue capitalist Trump, now
thrashing about randomly, and the Deep State or Established Order or whatever
you want to call it. However, as the struggle intensifies, and stuff begins to
come loose and flap in the wind, we may be able to learn something about the
current power structure of the U.S.
The fact that the E.O. did not stop Trump
long before he got anywhere near the presidency shows serious,
Weimar-reminiscent incompetence, whose consequences will continue to develop.
The E.O. also lacks foot soldiers among the proles, which Trump still seems to
have. It may be we have entered Interesting Times.
You are neglecting the fact
that conservatives have a total emotional block against honesty (at least
outside their own closed community). To tell someone a true thing grants the
hearer equal status: this a conservative
cannot
do, not under any
manner of duress.
Yan, if you want to find a hypocritical Democrat, I'm sure you can find one.
However, I think that your criterion, that a Democrat's reaction is only not
hypocritical if they also would have been not hypocritial in the event of a
similarly shoddy firing under Obama or Clinton, is not proper. I absolutely
believe that the people around me who are shocked are genuinely shocked.
Also, given recent precedent, it is quite absurd to think it is likely that
a Democratic administration would have proceeded in this way. Obama gave
Democrats ample reason to expect that whatever would be done, it would be done
in a way to protect institutional integrity. (Indeed, before the inauguration,
internal affairs announced they'd start to look into Comey - an investigation
the result of which was not yet available yesterday.) So for someone who does
NOT have this internal insight into what the options and their trade-offs are
to say "get rid of Comey!" is perfectly appropriate - that's why we have
specialists who know how to implement a goal properly.
"It is not that the president does not, in the abstract, have the power to fire
the FBI director–it's that it is inappropriate to do so when the FBI is
investigating the president."
This from rea is the perfect summary: And the fact that no-one in the White House who knew that, had enough power
to do anything about it, is why this particular move worries me at least as
much as anything else Trump has done thus far.
My reading of the OP was that (filling in some background as I see it):
1.
Comey's public statement two weeks before the election that the Clinton email
investigation had found new evidence which might yet (at long last) turn out to
be incriminating was an outrageous act – particularly since a potentially more
serious investigation of Trump was in progress and not similarly mentioned.
2. Trump's firing of Comey, in order to put someone else in his place who
would shut down the Trump investigation, was also an outrageous act – the act
of a tyrant.
3. Both these acts are censurable, with or without hypocrisy; and one should
not let 2) pass for fear of being called a hypocrite.
Assuming that is, in fact, the sense of the OP, the firing procedure was not
being questioned but rather the motive behind it; and I agree with the OP (as I
read it).
One thing I don't like about all of this is that the
liberal / progressive voices are uniting behind the wrong flag. Folks, this is
an enemy firing a broadside at another enemy. Instead of taking sides in this
harrowing spectacle, let's make sure they take turns at that until little is
left.
A more interesting question is: what can be done to take advantage of the
situation? What can be done to advance the common good?
Well step one might be to disclose the actual reasons for deciding to
fire the director of the FBI in the middle of his term instead of
transparently false ones.
That's an issue of substance, not an issue of procedure.
If you, surprisingly, believe the disclosed reasons for deciding to fire
the director of the FBI,
I'm not sure what you mean by 'believing the reasons'. The reasons given in
the Deputy Attorney-General's memo appear, on the face of it, to constitute an
adequate justification for the decision; but official justifications are only
sometimes actual motives; sometimes they are not motives, but pretexts.
step two would be to disclose the reason for firing him now, instead of
in January, or February, or March, or April.
The President's official notification, the memo from the Attorney-General,
and the memo from the Deputy Attorney-General all bear the same date, so this
question reduces to the question of why the Deputy Attorney-General compiled
his memo when he did. Obviously he couldn't have submitted a memo as Deputy
Attorney-General before he became Deputy Attorney-General, but aside from that,
there's nothing in his memo to explain why he wrote it when he did, or indeed
why he wrote it at all. It doesn't begin (as it could so easily have begun)
'You have asked me to report on ' or 'My attention has been drawn by ' or 'I
have become concerned because ' or 'In the bath today, I suddenly began to
wonder whether the Director of the FBI should be fired ' (okay, that last one
he would never have actually written).
So if anybody's looking for a procedural flaw, I think that has to be it.
There's no explanation, on the part of the Deputy Attorney-General, for why he
has taken this action (written this memo). That's a reasonable procedural
requirement, for a memo of this importance to include background information
that explains how the preparation of the memo came to be initiated. Once the
memo had been submitted, I can't figure how there's any procedural fault in the
Attorney-General endorsing it or the President acting on it (I can figure how
it could be argued that there are substantive faults, but not procedural ones).
@19
If Comey is unfit to hold the office, as many top Democrats have said outright
or at least strongly implied, it is plainly ridiculous to trust him with an
investigation which you consider so important.
Heliopause asks an apparently reasonable question to which there is a
reasonable response: "If Comey is unfit to hold the office, as many top
Democrats have said outright or at least strongly implied, it is plainly
ridiculous to trust him with an investigation which you consider so important."
The trouble with trying to keep things short is it is not conducive to nuance.
In Comey's case, there is a need for nuance because questions of motive and
procedure get pretty fine. The following things seem to me likely true.
Comey, in a mistaken attempt to protect the reputation of the FBI by
forestalling pro-Trump leaks concerning Hillary's case, did something that was
in-itself inappropriate and thereby threw the election to Trump. That's pretty
outrageous even though Comey almost certainly intended no such effect. The fact
remains: outrage at this circumstance is fully justified and it really isn't
good to have an FBI director who – however inadvertently – took inappropriate
actions that threw a US Presidential election (in a 'but for X, Y wouldn't have
happened' sense.) Nevertheless, it's hard to say when it would have been
appropriate to fire Comey. Obama could have, but it would have looked real bad
and partisan. Trump might have, before the point where Comey testified that
there was an investigation of Trump's campaign but even then it would have
looked real bad and partisan because it isn't believable that Trump is
Hillary's white knight, concerned that someone called her 'crooked' in an
unfair way. It would be obvious he was replacing Comey to install some crony
(probably.) Worst of all, of course, is what actually happened.
Now this is sort of annoying; it's outrageous that Comey is still director,
but there wouldn't have been an acceptable way to remove him at any point. But
that's life. Sometimes there's no good procedural way to do something. But even
if we disagree about that, we can all agree that, if you are going to fire
Comey, you shouldn't do it in what looks to me the most inappropriate possible
way, i.e. with intent to obstruct an ongoing investigation.
The principal reason Comey spoke out in the first place was because candidate
Clinton's husband decided to pay an unscripted visit to his friend and
long-time confident, the AG of the United States, at precisely the same time
the Justice department was debating whether to open a criminal investigation
into the handling of government documents by the Democratic nominee, also named
Clinton. Comey's decision not greeted with universal applause. The partisan
press has spent the last 8 years polishing the myth of the scandal-free Obama
administration so that the gullible and the cynical can promulgate the myth
among the masses. This rather good Wapo piece on AETNA's plan to walk away from
Obama's signature program does more to explain why Trump is president and
Clinton is not than any parsing of statements. The long and short of is that
this election should never have been close. It was principally because of the
broken promises and failed policies of the Obama administration.
The principal reason Comey spoke out in the first place was because candidate
Clinton's husband decided to pay an unscripted visit to his friend and
long-time confident, the AG of the United States, at precisely the same time
the Justice department was debating whether to open a criminal investigation
into the handling of government documents by the Democratic nominee, also named
Clinton. Comey's decision not greeted with universal applause. The partisan
press has spent the last 8 years polishing the myth of the scandal-free Obama
administration so that the gullible and the cynical can promulgate the myth
among the masses. This rather good Wapo piece on AETNA's plan to walk away from
Obama's signature program does more to explain why Trump is president and
Clinton is not than any parsing of statements. The long and short of is that
this election should never have been close. It was principally because of the
broken promises and failed policies of the Obama administration.
Over at Lawfare, a post on procedural issues in the firing:
The
Administration, in short, has shown little regard for thoughtful process in law
enforcement that is key to the maintenance of the integrity of the legal
system, and of public confidence. Mr. Trump and his DOJ leadership have jumped
ahead of the Inspector General's inquiry, moving suddenly to put their views on
record on the same issues the IG is addressing. They have failed to explain why
they did so, when the alleged misconduct to which they appeal is no different
from that which generated the IG inquiry and was widely known when the
President took office. The AG was involved in this decision when recused from
any matter involving the Russia investigation-again with no explanation. The
Deputy AG could not have weighed the matter carefully in 14 days, some part of
which he spent writing the short memorandum: which means he reached his
conclusion in less than those two weeks. So with whom did he consult-and on
what factual record, developed in what way and by whom, did he depend? Again:
no explanation.
It looks even more like Comey was cashiered because he wanted to expand the
investigation into Trump's Russian connections.
Trump screamed at Comey on the TV during the Senate hearing last week, then
called Sessions & Rosenstein to the White House, said "Get rid of Comey".
Rosenstein went back to his office & dutifully wrote a letter to give some
reasons why.
But then Trump used Rosenstein as the pretext, claiming that the Rosenstein
letter INITIATED Comey's firing!
Washington Post top headline this morning: "Deputy attorney general
threatened to quit after being cast as impetus of dismissal".
I had been wondering about Rosenstein's participation in Comey's sudden
cashiering, because it didn't make sense. Rosenstein seems like the reasonable
sort, but the reasons in his letter are last year's stories. Rosenstein must
know (as everybody in D.C. does, including FBI rank-and-file) that Comey is a
decent guy, not a politician, and that he was dirty-tricked into smearing
Hillary in two different ways in July & October. So the command to write the
letter must have seemed like a call to scribble some perfunctory bureaucratise,
however unfair to a fellow.
But now it looks like Rosenstein is being sandbagged, too. And he doesn't
like it.
Not good for Trump. Both Rosenstein & Comey can both be called up to the
Hill for testimony.
Firing Comey was Trump's second big unforced error. A hyoooge error, even
bigger than his shallow claim in a tweety pique that Obama wiretapped him.
Despite the Democrats' apparent indignation & hypocrisy at Comey's sacking,
you can forget it, they are tickled to death.
Now this is sort of annoying; it's outrageous that Comey is still
director, but there wouldn't have been an acceptable way to remove him at
any point. But that's life. Sometimes there's no good procedural way to do
something.
Sometimes, if there's no good procedural way to do something, that's a
system flaw. There
should
be a good procedural way to remove the FBI
director, and if there isn't, that a flaw in the system; although, now that
I've got on to the subject, not nearly as big a flaw as the lack of a good
procedural way to remove the US President. Yes, I know there's a procedure for
removing the President, but it's not a good one, and there should be a good
one.
But even if we disagree about that, we can all agree that, if you are
going to fire Comey, you shouldn't do it in what looks to me the most
inappropriate possible way, i.e. with intent to obstruct an ongoing
investigation.
That still seems to me to be an issue of substance, not of procedure.
= = = John Holbo @ 9:42 am: The following things seem to me likely
true.
Comey, in a mistaken attempt to protect the reputation of the FBI by
forestalling pro-Trump leaks concerning Hillary's case, did something that
was in-itself inappropriate and thereby threw the election to Trump. That's
pretty outrageous even though Comey almost certainly intended no such
effect. = = =
The difficulty is that there is an equally likely explanation that fits the
facts and is no more complicated than this one and perhaps less complicated:
there is a faction within the FBI that actively dislikes Hillary Clinton and
took specific intended actions to damage her Presidential campaign, with the
deliberate intention of seeing a candidate elected who was more congenial to
their worldview. In this scenario whether Comney was a member of that faction
or simply took no action to identify and fire/prosecute them, he was complicit
in their actions.
[I saw a transcript yesterday in which Senator Schumer specifically asked
Comney about Giuliani's magical ability to predict FBI announcements up to 36
hours in advance. Comney did his best to deflect but admitted he might have to
look into that. I think we can assume that won't happen now. ]
If a large number of Democrats accept the fell scenario, then it becomes
harder to disagree with Helipause: there is no justification for a law
enforcement official not only violating the Hatch Act but actually throwing an
election using law enforcement resources to remain in office regardless of what
else he might be investigating.
= = =Lee A. Arnold @ 11:35 am: So far as I know, the big questions
have never been asked in the media: Why were they all doing this? Why didn't
the State Dept. provide a secure server? Are the State Dept's own computers
underperforming, - or else compromised? Are gov't communications of all
sorts OVER-classified? = = =
I was working in the technology sector at the time and perhaps it was
covered in more detail by the technology press, but yes: Hillary's Clinton's
first employee town hall meeting as Secretary of State turned into a 2-hour
gripe session about how bad State Dept. computer and communication technology
was, why State employees were forced to use only Internet Explorer 4 and
forbidden to install Mozilla/Firefox despite the latter's vastly superior
security record, etc. The answer from State's CIO was: because that's what our
outsourcing contractor gives us and we are not allowed to complain or deviate
from that.
"If you think so, what would make of the demands by the Democrats to do exactly
that?"
Well, it's a dilemma. But again, just because whatever you do there's
something bad about it doesn't mean you should haul off and do something
obviously worse.
It's true that in the post I take the 'Comey should have been fired' line,
which honestly is a bit strong, given my view that really there wasn't a good
way to do.
"Also, motives are not important.
For instance, whether the Democrats elected official motives for asking Comey's
head were sincerely felt outrage or simply a way to embarrass the president, is
irrelevant."
I think you are confusing motives and procedures. As you
yourself admit, those need to be kept distinct.
Also, just because no procedure would be satisfactory for dealing with
Comey, it does not follow that all procedures are equally unsatisfactory.
That's a fallacy. You can still have a worse option among bad options.
I would argue there is an acceptable procedure for firing Comey. Trump could
announce that due to Comey's intervention, the results of the election are
clearly tainted and his own presidency is illegitimate. Pence could then
resign, and be replaced by Hillary Clinton as VP. Trump could then fire Comey
for cause, before handing his own resignation to the Secretary of State, and
making Clinton president in accordance with the will of a plurality of the
American people.
Will this ever happen? Of course not. But the arguments
above seem to boil down to 'one cannot hold the opinion "Comey is unfit to be
director of the FBI and, ceteris paribus, should be fired" and "Comey is unfit,
but whoever Trump replaces him with will be far worse, so we must tolerate him"
at the same time.' if there is no satisfactory procedure to remove him
available. So consider this the possible, but wildly improbable, satisfactory
procedure.
Thanks, John, for remaining relatively level-headed over this. There are some
sensible comments and fair push-back to the OP. There's also an unhealthy
amount of wishful thinking.
Trump just imploded! For the last two years we have we been forced to endure
countless convoluted LARGE CAP!!! assertions that THIS. IS. IT!!!! GAME
OVER!!!!! Done, toast, finished, stick-a-fork-in-him MARK THIS DAY!!!!
I watched a fantastic sequence with a middle-aged female voter who, when
informed that May had just called the UK election, reacted with NO! No more.
Not another election, not more politics. She refused to even offer much of a
comment beyond stating that she was sick to death of politics.
If Dems think that six months to six years of conspiracy theories is going
to win back the voters, I'd suggest they think again. Yes, a large number of
Americans would like to see an investigation of some sort. But that
investigation probably concerns them less than taxes, jobs, education, health
care, national security and a host of other issues. Trump supporters stopped
listening to the media long ago, and I'm not convinced independents believe
Comey matters much, much as the NYT wishes otherwise.
One thing Manta may be getting at is that it is possible – no doubt actual –
for some on the left to be rank hypocrites about Comey. But my point isn't that
it's impossible for anyone to hold inconsistent positions about this (obviously
that's possible.) Rather, it's possible – and actual – to hold consistent
positions. One ought to hold a consistent position about this.
One thing I
could be wrong about is this: have prominent Democratic elected officials (not
just some dude on Twitter) called for Comey's head since he testified about the
ongoing Trump-Russia investigation two months ago (or whenever exactly it was)?
If so, then it's rank hypocrisy. Granted. But my impression is that Dems have
1) done most of their griping back in Nov-Dec. And why shouldn't they have
griped? 2) not called on Trump (or Obama) to fire him but simply expressed that
the situation is outrageous – which it is. I just did a quick search and here's
the worst the Washington Examiner came up with from Schumer.
One thing Manta may be getting at is that it is possible – no doubt actual –
for some on the left to be rank hypocrites about Comey. But my point isn't that
it's impossible for anyone to hold inconsistent positions about this (obviously
that's possible.) Rather, it's possible – and actual – to hold consistent
positions. One ought to hold a consistent position about this.
One thing I
could be wrong about is this: have prominent Democratic elected officials (not
just some dude on Twitter) called for Comey's head since he testified about the
ongoing Trump-Russia investigation two months ago (or whenever exactly it was)?
If so, then it's rank hypocrisy. Granted. But my impression is that Dems have
1) done most of their griping back in Nov-Dec. And why shouldn't they have
griped? 2) not called on Trump (or Obama) to fire him but simply expressed that
the situation is outrageous – which it is. I just did a quick search and here's
the worst the Washington Examiner came up with from Schumer.
It's not evidence of hypocrisy. Nothing that Schumer has said is
inconsistent with him saying that it's outrageous for Trump to transparently
interfere with an ongoing investigation by summarily firing its head.
Just took a final look at the international and national press coverage of
Comey. Bottom line – the probe continues and there may be a special prosecutor.
So, if the firing was an attempt to derail the investigation – that's clearly
failed. So, why did Trump do it?
Absent any other explanation I return to my original suppositions re: Trump.
No 1: He's no politician, but a damn effective reality TV producer and
actor. He builds and markets brand Trump. Comey was fired because he wasn't
generating the kind of ratings Trump wanted, the narrative was stale and the
actor 'playing the part of the FBI director' was hated by every demographic of
the president's 'audience.' Trump isn't running a government, he's casting a
reality TV show. Comey' replacement must be competent, but more important she,
or he, must win the trust of the public and the nation that Comey had clearly
lost. Pretty much all the air goes out of the obstruction argument with the
investigation going forwards as is surely seems to be doing. Any remaining goes
out with the appointment of a special prosecutor. There may be some piece of
spectacular evidence that eluded the CIA, NSA, FBI, and other security agencies
(many of which are evidently staffed by individuals hostile to Trump) that will
knock the president off stride. Within a week, or two, the news cycle will move
on. Feinstein confessed there's no there, there – at least not yet. And until
there is, Trump moves on.
Comey is gone. He'll be trotted out as a martyr, but in the end will
regarded unsympathetically by pretty much everyone, rightly or wrongly. The
folks who hate Trump still will, and those who don't aren't paying much
attention to hyperbolic after-the-election moaning. Trump may yet hit a wall,
but that will most likely come from some future blunder, and so far he hasn't
made any significant enough to knock too far off stride.
Praying for the president to fail? That's what Republicans did for 8 years.
How'd that turn out? Dems still have no persuasive economic argument to win
back white voters. Few liberals are ready to make common cause with the 'mouth
breathers,' and until they are Republican fortunes remain bright.
What's the point in talking about procedure in a political system where the
entire civil service leadership changes hands every election and the current
leader is an idiot who cares about nothing except his own grift? In any case
trump has now helpfully stated in a tv interview that he had already decided to
sack comey and didn't need reasons, just as everyone (rightfully) assumed. This
won't sway the republicans of course because they're traitors and economic
wreckers, and they don't care what orange shitgibbon does to violate norms so
long as they can keep destroying the country.
Given that the next Director is probably going to be Chris Christie or Rudy
Guilliani (or Cushner perhaps), it's perfectly reasonable to despise Comey for
influencing the election and fully expect that whoever replaces him is going to
be considerably worse. This isn't a complicated position to hold and implies no
hypocrisy on the part of the holder.
"Maybe I should ignore obvious hypocrisy when I see it. Maybe I should immerse
myself in procedure and personality and put all the stuff that matters on the
back burner."
My suggestion would be that focusing on 'some Democrat is being
hypocritical somewhere' does not typically equal 'paying attention to what
really matters'. Why is sniffing out hypocrisy – which necessarily involves
immersing yourself in procedure and personality – help you extricate yourself
from mere procedure and personality?
I'll care about Democrat hypocrisy when Republican "family values" crusading
homophobes stop getting caught toilet trading. Until then, I don't think
hypocrisy is the key issue in US politics.
Is there any evidence of the procedure being subverted for an improper
purpose–yes Rosenstein appears to have been ordered by Sessions (his boss
and the very person supposedly recused from the investigation) and Trump
(whose aides are being investigated) to draw up a memo with other reasons to
fire Comey.
I agree absolutely. If Trump and/or Sessions asked Rosenstein to write the
memo, that fact should be in the memo. On the other hand, if there was some
other reason for Rosenstein to write the memo, that should be in the memo: for
example, 'Immediately on being appointed Deputy Attorney-General, I set out to
review the performance of all those reporting directly to my new office. As
part of this process, I commenced a review of the performance of the Director
of the FBI, who reports directly to the Deputy Attorney-General, and was
concerned to find that ' and so on. There is nothing in the memo to explain
why the memo is being written; that's a procedural flaw.
And then there's this report:
Rosenstein threatened to resign after the narrative emerging from the
White House on Tuesday evening cast him as a prime mover of the decision to
fire Comey and that the president acted only on his recommendation, said the
person close to the White House, who spoke on the condition of anonymity
because of the sensitivity of the matter.
Rosenstein's grievance (if that story is true) is self-inflicted. If he had
begun his memo to the Attorney-General, as he could have, 'As you are aware, we
have been instructed by the President to state the argument in favor of
dismissing the Director of the FBI. This memo has been prepared accordingly for
your consideration.', it would have prevented the emergence of the narrative to
which (reportedly) he objected.
@ 60 There's a great deal of truth in your observations, cheers.
@ 67 Thanks,
Bruce, for the sensible jolt of reality.
@ 64 First, US presidential elections are held every four years, not eight.
Second, Trump the reality TeeVee star destroyed the entire Republican political
establishment because praying for a president to fail was the best that gang of
charlatans could dream up. The Republican primary voters recognized that the
Republican elite offered nothing, and gambled on the rodeo clown. The battle in
the White House is between the nationalist insurgents (Bannon et al) and
Democrats (Ivanka and allies). The Republican party won big as they usually do
at all other levels because Democrats manage to make themselves even more
distant and unfeeling than Pence and pals. And therein lies the real problem.
Trump is no Republican – he's the consequence of all that's wrong in both
parties, and as Bruce W. points out, with much of the rest of the
establishment.
US presidential elections are held every four years, not eight
Why, thank you so much for explaining that to me. But as it happens I did
already know that, so the explanation was in fact unnecessary.
Trump the reality TeeVee star destroyed the entire Republican political
establishment
After something has been destroyed, it's not there any more. The entire
Republican political establishment is still very much there, so clearly it has
not been destroyed.
The Republican party won big as they usually do at all other levels
I don't know what your idea of 'usually' is, but it's obviously not the same
as mine.
Yes, if there's any salutary lesson to be drawn from Trump's ascension, it's
the terrible way that Republican elites like Paul Ryan were cast out into the
cold, unable to influence policy in any way.
I can't say I ever thought I would see the events of the 3rd season of
Battlestar Galactica being held up as an acceptable procedure in real life,
with the Blob standing in for Bill Adama.
67: "Trump is annoyed to be told repeatedly that he is not under investigation.
Trump knows better than most the import of such negative messages."
We don't
know that any such exchanges between Trump and Comey ever took place. The
reports we do have suggest that Trump was pissed because Comey admitted in a
public forum that Trump was under investigation.
I think you would have a hard time finding such a statement.
Google it and you will find a stream of propaganda from Think Progress, a
Clinton organ, and endless regurgitation of claims and denials cleverly
misconstrued by the Media to keep the controversy going.
Actual facts disappear into a dust cloud of deliberate and irresponsible
misinterpretation often driven by the needs of a narrative chosen for its
tactical convenience without any concern for consequences for public policy or
democratic discourse.
I would not even concede as Raul does at the link that something might turn
up to confirm the narrative. Like WMD? Or semen on a blue dress?
This is a contest among skilled and irresponsible manipulators - Trump not
least among them so no sympathy for that ahole - and the rest of us should do
more to question the value of playing our assigned parts as eager consumers of
their dog food.
Layman, Bruce's basic point is that Trump can't be obstructing justice because
the "Russian Conspiracy" is manifestly non-existent. I would say it is tin-foil
hat territory to claim that Trump conspired with Russia to hack the election,
but unfortunately the entire polity, media, and political system have been
dragged into that territory.
Obstruction of justice does not require a finding that a crime was
committed – it's a crime in itself, and more than a few people who could have
walked away head unbowed have been convicted because they lied under oath or
sought to influence legal proceedings. If you value rule of law and
transparency, that's an entirely reasonable and just outcome.
I do not think for one moment that there is any substance at all to the
allegations of a Russian Conspiracy that meddled decisively and subversively
in the U.S. election, so though I think Trump is annoyed at being dogged by
investigations into the Russian Conspiracy, I find it impossible to credit
this annoyance as morally significant "obstruction". As far as I can tell,
there are not even any actual allegations, let alone evidence to support
them.
I haven't been paying attention *that* closely, so perhaps I'm in error
here, but isn't at least some level of "subversive Russian meddling" (i.e., the
DNC hacking) already more or less established fact? ('Decisively' is a weasel
word – whether those attempts were truly decisive or not, they were certainly
unwelcome.)
The matter of at least some inappropriate contact between Trump staffers and
Russian diplomats - and attempts to then lie about and cover up those contacts
- has also been established. Not to mention a pile of indistinct but
distinctively unseemly-looking business ties with various Russian interests.
Thus the "Russian Conspiracy" you blithely dismiss is at least in some ways
already a matter of fact. The remaining questions and investigation are instead
about its size and scope: what were the content of those secret conversations,
and how many others occurred? Was there any kind of prior communication -
perhaps even quid-pro-quo agreement - between Russian officials and the highest
levels of the Trump campaign regarding the hacking attempts which did occur?
That is, I believe, the implied allegation. And if any evidence for any of
it were to be uncovered, it would in fact be scandalous, and perhaps even
establish a crime.
(There's also a question in my mind about whether the hacking was limited to
email servers. I see no reason to assume that *attempts* weren't at least made
on the voting infrastructure itself. That would be enormously scandalous. And
while I haven't heard anyone more than whisper about the scenario, given the
porous nature of most voting machine systems, it's not nearly as tinfoil-hat as
I think we'd all prefer.)
I do not see any straight news report of Comey reporting on his own
authority in a public forum that Trump was under investigation
Maybe you're just really bad at google?
Try this
)
I do not see any straight news report of Comey reporting on his own
authority in a public forum that Trump was under investigation
Maybe you're just really bad at google?
Try this
(@~34:00).
And here's
a video from yesterday
of the new acting FBI director talking about the
effects of the firing on the "ongoing investigation of ties between Russia and
the Trump campaign." I haven't watched the whole hearing – he may well never
have occasion to flatly state "we are investigating X", but he certainly has
plenty of opportunity to correct the apparent assumption of
everyone else in
the room
that such an investigation in fact exists, and happily talks
about, for example, how the investigation you say doesn't exist has enough
resources in his opinion.
(Or is this a very clever word game we're playing, in which e.g.,
"investigation into links to the Trump campaign," is not the same thing as
"investigation of Trump" .?)
@85: " I expect what Suzanne refers to was Comey's March 20 statement before
Nunes' House Intelligence Committee about an ongoing FBI counterintelligence
investigation."
@85: " I expect what Suzanne refers to was Comey's March 20 statement before
Nunes' House Intelligence Committee about an ongoing FBI counterintelligence
investigation."
"The F.B.I. is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and
possible links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government - and
whether there was any coordination, Mr. Comey said."
If you want to make a distinction between investigating the Trump campaign
and investigating Trump, fine by me. However, The Donald seems to have made no
such distinction when it came to his displeasure at Comey's March testimony:
"A couple of weeks after Comey made those announcements in March, Trump
talked about his job security at length in a pretty conspicuous way,
re-litigating the FBI chief's handling of the Clinton investigation."
@bruce wilder, that doesn't really support your original comment. You say the
Russia conspiracy is fake news fanned by the establishment media, without
addressing that
1) we know that Trump team members were discussing with Russians the content
and timing of anti-Hillary propaganda (Stone), and
2) we know that Trump team members held illegal conversations with Russians
and then lied about them (Flynn), and
3) we know that other Trump team members had contacts of an unknown nature
with Russian officials, and then lied about those contacts (Sessions), and
4) we know that Trump fired the FBI Director at least in part because of the
ongoing investigation (because Trump told us that.)
If, confronted with those facts, you claim there's nothing to be
investigated, and that pro-Hillary media is responsible for ginning up this
fake controversy, and that as a practical matter there is some substantial
difference between an investigation into the Trump campaign team and one into
Trump at this point in the process, and your support for this claim is what
Seth Meyers says(!), then I think you're just shouting at passing traffic.
Yes, well, hypocrisy is indeed the opposite of sincerity. The thing is,
sincerity is the cheapest of virtues, being available for the wee price of
self-deception. It is beyond me how anyone can be sure someone truly is a
hypocrite, or just kidding themselves. That is, absent the power to see into
men's souls. Come to think of it, this power does seem to be standard equipment
for pillars of rectitude. But if you're not a rectitudinous pillar, this
accusation can border on charging someone with being human. Even worse,
propriety is very much like beauty. (I suppose I could harden myself to charge
a mother with hypocrisy for persisting in telling all and sundry her child is
beautiful, but is it a worthwhile pursuit?)
The politics however I think are much clearer than the murky waters in the
human consciousness: Convicting the Democrat Party of hypocrisy supports Trump.
Insisting that Trump is effectively obstructing justice, does not. It will be
the Republican Party that impeaches Trump, so the kerfuffle is noise and fury.
In accordance with your usual MO, you've obviously made up a fantasy version
of me that bears no relation to me, just so you can sneer at it to prove your
own superiority.
you spent over a year asserting that Hillary would win and she did.
I never made any such prediction, not even once.
The Republican establishment love Trump, but the base found Donald's
dogmatic fixation on GOP principles to be excessively doctrinaire and
impractical.
I have never made any of those assertions.
Jeb Bush secured the nomination, but lost to Hillary, who is now making
the world safe for everyone, including bankers.
Again, not my predictions
and I could go on through your comment line by line, but you get the idea.
John Holbo 05.11.17 at 9:42 am
' Comey, in a mistaken attempt to protect the reputation of the FBI by
forestalling pro-Trump leaks concerning Hillary's case, did something that was
in-itself inappropriate and thereby threw the election to Trump ..'
It is
not possible to reason from evidence to the conclusion that Comey's actions, or
Putin's for that matter, caused a particular outcome of the election, because
if it were, the same reasoning could have been applied shortly before the
election, and the result would have been a predominance of predictions that
Trump was going to win.
How can anyone maintain the ideas that there is a "Deep State or Established
Order" which is being "opposed" by the "rogue capitalist Trump"? This a
dramatic fantasy, worthy of a sword-and-sorcery TV miniseries.
Bruce, Flynn clearly broke basic rules on disclosure. He was working for Russia
and turkey while advising trump on security. If you can think of an innocent
reason for that I'd love to hear it. If you can explain why comeys sacking has
nothing to do with the Russia inquiry when trump himself said that was the
reason I would love to hear it.
Republicans are traitors and wreckers. That's
the easiest explanation for their behavior.
"It is not possible to reason from evidence to the conclusion that Comey's
actions, or Putin's for that matter, caused a particular outcome of the
election, because if it were, the same reasoning could have been applied
shortly before the election, and the result would have been a predominance of
predictions that Trump was going to win."
Or, as actually happened at
fivethirtyeight.com, the statistical predictions could have changed from a high
probability that HRC would win to more of a toss-up. Trump was always going to
be the worst candidate in most people's minds (e.g., see the popular vote), but
with Comey's letter, and the big media play on it, Trump suddenly had a chance.
"It is not possible to reason from evidence to the conclusion that Comey's
actions, or Putin's for that matter, caused a particular outcome of the
election, because if it were, the same reasoning could have been applied
shortly before the election, and the result would have been a predominance of
predictions that Trump was going to win."
Or, as actually happened at
fivethirtyeight.com, the statistical predictions could have changed from a high
probability that HRC would win to more of a toss-up. Trump was always going to
be the worst candidate in most people's minds (e.g., see the popular vote), but
with Comey's letter, and the big media play on it, Trump suddenly had a chance.
That said, the way your mind has gone forward into projections about
hacking the actual vote count or a quid-pro-quo agreement between Russian
officials and the highest levels of the Trump campaign is exactly the way
this kind of propaganda is designed to work. No one ever reports such
eventualities as accomplished facts, but you still somehow end up thinking
them.
But I
don't
think them. Or think they're true anyway. You're
essentially making the claim that people are so foolish that statements like
"there's reason to be suspicious this might have happened, we should check it
out" are equivalent in their minds to "this definitely happened".
I'm the first guy to admit that the public can be pretty foolish, but I
think that's underestimating even them. The subjunctive continues to be used
over the indicative
for a reason
.
Just like people thought Saddam brought down the World Trade Center. It
is declaring "don't think of a pink elephant" to induce people to think of
pink elephants or asking a man when he stopped beating his wife or reporting
a false but lurid rumor in the hopes of forcing an enemy to deny it. Richard
Gere is never going to have a normal relationship with a gerbil, that much I
know.
Which aren't really equivalent at all. All of those examples are instances
of non sequitur accusations invented out of whole cloth. There's a difference
between on the one hand, asking a man whether he has stopped beating his wife,
and on the other hand, observing that a woman seems to be able to offer only
weak explanations for the bruises she has all the time, so maybe it's worth
looking into whether her husband - or someone else she knows - may be
responsible.
What we have with the Trump/Russia nexus is a series of accidental and
clumsy revelations of misbehavior. Ripples in the water. There are enough of
them that I - and apparently not a few others - think there's sufficient
suspicion there to merit turning on the fish finder and seeing if we can find
out what's down there. Could be a little school of minnows. Could be a great
white whale. Could just be the wind.
I'm unclear on *your* position. Unless it's just to assume it's the wind
because considering any other possibilities would involve use of the dreaded
subjunctive.
In the end, you are supposed to imagine almost involuntarily that the
Russians hacked the voting machines and Trump insiders were conspiring with
Putin's minions in a quid-pro-quo. And, there's absolutely no reason to
think either of those things is true. Other than the incessantly repeated
propaganda stream that substitutes for a political discourse.
You act as if some sinister force is directing this process. Was it that
force which conducted the DNC hacking? Was it that force which engineered
inappropriate contacts between Trump staffers and Russian interests? No. And
yet absent those events, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
*NO* reason to think those things were true would be the conditions which
prevailed in the Clinton, Bush or Obama administrations, in which there were no
ripples in the water. No potentially Russian linked hacks and high-level
campaign contacts with Russian agents were ever revealed.
So there is not NO reason to think those things are true. Not enough to
conclude they are true? Sure. We're somewhere in between. Which is what
investigations are for. To do the best we can to get out of that zone.
Psychological processes like semantic generalization and narrative
incompleteness are being exploited to lead us along a path. Very vague
formulas are used, so a possibly legitimate, routine and pedestrian
counterintelligence investigation advances by almost imperceptible
increments from examining the affairs of a relative nobody named Carter Page
with distant and tenuous links to Trump into a surmised accusation that
Trump is Putin's Manchurian Candidate.
"Relative nobody" is doing a lot of work for you there. You're writing as if
Page were a refrigerator salesmen from Toledo, rather than well connected
businessman and highly - if not top - placed adviser in Trump's presidential
campaign.
Any
in-progress counterintelligence investigation which
involves individuals close to a sitting President is by definition not a
"routine and pedestrian" one. Which is perhaps the crux of the disagreement
here.
To make a case for Russian interference, you have to put it into a
context of mechanisms for winning elections. It can't just be serial liar
James Clapper's ungrounded and unexplained "massive" - it has to be
proportional to the task.
No, it only has to be proportional to the expense. It's very plausible
(YMMV) that Russian authorities running a live-fire exercise of some of their
'cyber' forces in an operation which could both dig up dirt on an individual
they dislike (Clinton) while perhaps winning brownie points with her more
easily manipulable competitor (Trump) would be [oh dear] basically win-win-win
for them relative to the risk and resources expended. Potentially influencing
the actual election on top of that is pure gravy.
"Most important, the polls taken before the letter were as bad for Mrs. Clinton
as those conducted after it. Again, there aren't many of these polls, but taken
at face value there's a case that Mrs. Clinton had nearly or even completely
bottomed out by the time the Comey letter was released. Even if she had not,
the trend line heading into the Comey letter was bad enough that there's no
need to assume that the Comey letter was necessary for any additional erosion
in her lead."
Cohen writes that he dismissed one poll that put Trump ahead in Florida
before the Comey letter was released and others that reduced Clinton's lead to
just 2 points. Cohen offers a solid critique of his own assumptions which will
probably read like science fiction to many here.
Over 50 percent of the public believes the timing of the Comey firing to be
problematic/suspect. The NYT suggested with 98 percent certainty that Hillary
would win the night of the election. These two facts certainly support Bruce's
arguments about the failure of the media.
My own confidence in the Trump victory was based (sorry, John) entirely on
reading and accepting data that Cohen and others dismissed, with the key factor
being enthusiasm and the lack there-of to predict actual turn out in key
states. I also listened to and took seriously the warnings of African-American
Democratic activists who others (ahem) tuned out and/or dismissed, Van Jones in
particular.
Using a simply custom time search 7/1/2015 – 6/1/2016 with the key words
"Clinton even with Trump in key states 40 to one" we get data confirming
Hillary's problems in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.
JimV 05.13.17 at 1:39 pm @ 100 -
I have another reason for not thinking that Comey's letter probably cost
Clinton the election, besides that the outcome of the election was incomputable
before it, and therefore opaque as to causes of its outcome after - a
perception which seems so obvious to me that I am confounded that anyone
disagrees. My other reason is that
I have read
that most voters do not vote according to lengthy chains of
evidence-gathering and logical analysis, but according to intuition and
emotion, and I believe this because it corresponds to my own observations. I do
not believe the voters, in general, would be inclined to make the kind of
extended analysis necessary to apportion blame for Clinton's improper email
server and the circus (Anthony Weiner!) which surrounded it, in time to change
their feelings and therefore their votes. Why would they?
I'd like to point out the subtle tenor of Bruce Wilder's denials of the Russia
thing, in which he focuses on "hacking voting machines." We all know this is
largely not the way it most likely happened – that it was a bunch of other
stuff. Also the inquiry is not about whether the Russians hacked voting
machines, it's about whether they own Trump. Even if they didn't help him at
all, the possibility that they own him is a matter of serious concern. Yet
Bruce is focusing on specific material allegations that likely aren't true,
using the same strategy that the Republicans have been using in issuing
denials. e.g. how they seized on Comey's statement that there was no evidence
the Russians hacked voting machines as a way to say the whole thing is a witch
hunt.
Once again, just as he did with the stories about the Clinton
Foundation and Obamacare, Bruce Wilder is reproducing right wing
disinformation.
Why do you always repeat right wing lies, Bruce? Is it because you're being
played?
@anarcissie, I confess that "[it] seems so obvious to me that I am confounded
that anyone disagrees" is a powerful argument, and you nearly had me with it.
Nevertheless, I find Nate Silver's analysis of the impact far more convincing.
@anarcissie, I confess that "[it] seems so obvious to me that I am confounded
that anyone disagrees" is a powerful argument, and you nearly had me with it.
Nevertheless, I find Nate Silver's analysis of the impact far more convincing.
"I do not believe the voters, in general, would be inclined to make the kind of
extended analysis necessary to apportion blame for Clinton's improper email
server and the circus (Anthony Weiner!) which surrounded it, in time to change
their feelings and therefore their votes. Why would they?"
Answer: there was
a significant portion of voters who had not made up their minds – some leaning
slightly one way or the other, others without any clue (and in fact something
like a million voters handed in ballots with no selection or a write-in – often
facetious – at the top). These voters did not have feelings or votes to change.
Then they saw the front page of the NY Times after the Comey letter, or the
cable news furor – the last supposedly significant thing before the election.
I don't know for certain, but it is equally if not more obvious to me that
attributing a significant effect to the Comey letter is not a reach (and that
the announcement itself turned out to be another red herring). Of course, it is
always possible that I am indulging in motivated reasoning, the ill that all
humanity is heir to.
JimV 05.14.17 at 12:56 pm @ 109:
' Then they saw the front page of the NY Times after the Comey letter .'
Who, the people who voted for Trump in the Rust Belt? The Times? Come on.
Actually, I can see the Comey fandango producing a sympathy vote for
Clinton. I am told most people hate email and prefer to communicate via texting
and social media. What they get from email is mostly spam and messages from
their bosses. That Clinton was having some kind of mysterious trouble with an
email server in her basement would resonate favorably with them. Someone should
look into this.
Anarcissie: "Actually, I can see the Comey fandango producing a sympathy vote
for Clinton "
Of course you can! I mean, that's not at all at odds with what
you said before, which is that people paid no attention to it, and that people
can't reason from evidence to make voting decisions. Who needs data, after all,
when we can just go along with whatever you find impossible to believe today,
and are confounded that anyone disagrees?
I'd like to point out the subtle tenor of Bruce Wilder's denials of the
Russia thing, in which he focuses on "hacking voting machines." We all know
this is largely not the way it most likely happened – that it was a bunch of
other stuff. Also the inquiry is not about whether the Russians hacked
voting machines, it's about whether they own Trump.
As someone who did mention voting machines, I'd like to apologize if that
wasn't particularly helpful or relevant to the discussion. To be clear, I don't
think there is any evidence that this occurred, that any is likely to come to
light, or that this is a focus of any of the ongoing investigations. There's
plenty of other stuff to investigate.
I brought it up mostly because it's irritating to me that large scale voting
machine hacking tends to be dismissed by 'serious' people as somehow
unpossible. I don't know what that judgement is based on, but it certainly
can't be based on any sober consideration of the security record of voting
machine systems (amateur and laughable almost to a one) the existence of
secure, fully auditable paper or other record trails with which to cross check
the results (nonexistent) or the obvious nonexistence of any hacking groups
(whether state or non-state, foreign or domestic) with the requisite ambition
and ability to pull off such an attempt (nope, surely none of those out there,
nosir).
Ohio, for example, is still using flaky touch screen machines from ca. 2005.
A ballot box literally made out of swiss cheese would be more secure. Other key
states aren't really any better. Search "[state] voting machines 2016" and see
if you feel reassured*.
But is there evidence anything actually happened? No. And the voting results
were more or less consistent with the late polls, so if it did, it wasn't
blatant. We wouldn't necessarily
expect
to find hard evidence though,
given the lack of security involved. Many of the actual, demonstrated
vulnerabilities leave no traces. It's an essentially unfalsifiable hypothesis.
And it really, really shouldn't be. That's a problem. Probably an off-topic
problem (sorry), but still: a problem.
-
* I just did Wisconsin and found one about a kerfuffle in which some observers
were concerned that machine seals were broken. These turned out to just be
warranty seals, and we are reassured that it's probably nothing because
physical tampering isn't really a primary threat anyway - most security
researchers are instead primarily concerned that the machines and counting
infrastructure are hackable remotely. Ha ha! Nothing to worry about then. I
laugh because this state of affairs is both idiotic and terrifying.
>1)we know that Trump team members were discussing with Russians the
content and timing of anti-Hillary propaganda (Stone)
Stone has only boasted of having talked to *Wikileaks*, not 'Russians' (not
to mention that Wikileaks has denied even that). Equating Wikileaks and the
Russians is what the McCarthyist establishment does, of course.
>2) we know that Trump team members held illegal conversations with Russians
and then lied about them (Flynn)
Breaking formally an antique and mostly pointless law that had been dormant
for centuries and that nobody involved was probably aware of. The content of
that conversation (as reported by the leakers themselves) wouldn't have seemed
obviously wrong or sinister to anyone unaware of the specific law, and Flynn's
subsequent lies were just an attempt to avoid admitting that he had broken it.
>3) we know that other Trump team members had contacts of an unknown nature
with Russian officials, and then lied about those contacts (Sessions)
AFAIU, he said that he hadn't spoken to them in the capacity of a member of
the campaign; and as a US senator, it was perfectly normal for him to speak to
foreign ambassadors all the time.
In sum, one can note that sinister-sounding general formulations are often
more useful for a certain purpose than the actually available specifics.
Of course, I can't *exclude* the possibility that any of the accusations are
true (and, at least, it's only too plausible that some in Trump's entourage are
motivated by their business interests in Russia), but what does seem quite
clear is that a lot of very weak evidence is being trumpeted and misrepresented
deliberately and systematically in order to manufacture a controversy.
jack lecou @
You act as if some sinister force is directing this process. .
. . So there is not NO reason to think those things are true. Not enough to
conclude they are true? Sure. We're somewhere in between. Which is what
investigations are for. To do the best we can to get out of that zone.
So, in your mind our Disinterested Solons and Media Tribunes of the People are
responding almost involuntarily to "a series of accidental and clumsy
revelations of misbehavior" by doing the right thing, investigating smoke
spotted in the distance, to see if there's fire. This, now, is nothing like the
Clinton Whitewater scandal or the run-up to the Iraq War. That was then, this
is now. Those were "non sequitur accusations invented out of whole cloth". Not
like now. This time is different.
Boy, do I wish I lived in your world! (Faustusnotes probably does too; there
he'd occasionally be right about something.)
I don't know if I would say "sinister forces" are driving this process - I
did use the word "malevolent" above but in the context of suggesting actors
lacked awareness of consequences - but it doesn't happen by itself,
sua
sponte
. Recasting it as the outcome of a vast conspiracy with central
direction misses my main point entirely. (I expect you are trying to miss my
main point, but I am going to reiterate just in case your misunderstanding is
my fault.)
I am not saying there's a conspiracy and that's what's wrong here. The
public discourse is being driven - there are actual drivers, people whose roles
are to press forward particular narratives and critiques - but my complaint
isn't so much about the drivers' course and conduct
per se
, as it is
about the condition of the road. I am saying there has been an institutional
degeneration that leaves the road the public discourse must travel, deeply
potholed, badly marked or lighted and inadequately policed. This degeneration
increases the danger that the drivers of the public discourse run democracy and
the republic into the ditch or into a tree. Not intentionally - though their
own blindness and irresponsibility play a part in increasing the risk of a
wreck - but, rather, as a consequence of a deteriorating institutional
"infrastructure".
In principle, the remnants of the Clinton Machine and the Democratic
Establishment pushing the narrative that Comey's misconduct (and I agree it was
misconduct which was misconduct precisely because it could affect the election
outcome) and Russian interference in the election ("Russian Wikileaks") is just
part of the perpetual political campaign, a normal driver of the political
discourse in a representative democracy with rotation in office: it is what the
loyal opposition does. If partisan critiques from those out of office for the
moment are occasionally "hypocritical" - as the OP tries to discern in this
case - is by-the-by. Politics ain't beanbag. Those out of power but seeking
office are motivated to criticize those in power; that's what makes democracy
go 'round. Two cheers for democracy!
What's gone very dangerously wrong here is the institutional degeneration.
If the public discourse were travelling along a well-paved, well-marked road
with vigilant traffic cops, there would be limits to what partisans would try,
because there would be limits to what would work to partisan advantage.
You have said that suspicion should lead to investigation. It is very
logical and I agree with the logic. We see what looks like smoke in the
distance; we should send someone out to look to see if there is fire. Logical.
But, I think you are being naive to the point of being obtuse to think that is
the function of "investigation" in the present deteriorated state of our
political system. Whitewater was investigated for years on end. Or, maybe,
you'd like an investigation of Iraqi WMD?
I can almost hear you even as I type saying in tones of uncomprehending
outrage: "So, is it your position that there should be no investigation!??"
[Rolling my eyes.]
In a well-functioning political system, actual investigations employing
effective methods of verifying facts and reaching balanced judgments in a
finite length of time would put effective limits on what partisans and other
actors could claim in accusing officials of misconduct. We do not have such a
well-functioning system, and consequently there are no curbs on what suspicions
can be raised and repeated as propaganda. In a well-functioning political
system, a great newspaper covetous of its own reputation for integrity might be
counted on to investigate and publish facts. In a well-functioning political
system, great public agencies also covetous of their own reputations for
integrity could similarly be counted on to arbitrate partisan bickering or
bring miscreants to justice. We are not living within such a well-functioning
political system.
"Investigation" in our political system means the farce Comey's FBI
conducted regarding Clinton's email server. An "investigation" that continues
indefinitely, stirring up suspicion but never really settling any facts or
reaching any judgments, at least none that put limits on partisan accusation.
And, it is not that "investigation" has degenerated in isolation - the whole
ecology (I know I am mixing metaphors) is dragging "investigation" down into
this dysfunctional generator of leaks. That the news media report the exciting
headline of suspicion on Sunday's Page 1 and then walk it all back on
Saturday's page A32 is part of the process, as is the public's retreat from the
common public square into tribalist cul de sacs and echo chambers of aligned
voices. (See there, I got back to the road metaphor for a second.)
And, the intelligence community gets to play a role. The well-funded 17(!)
agencies can have their consensus judgments reported by trustworthy figures
like Comey and Clapper without any verifiable reference to actual facts. So,
another flavor of "investigation" is available to us, to stoke groundless
suspicion, and not incidentally to block any actual investigation (I'm sorry,
that part had to be redacted.)
For those who like concrete examples, here is one from a relic of the
ancient blogosphere,
The Daily Howler
: the "revelation" breathlessly
reported by the Washington Post and New York Times that suggested that Comey
asking for more money for the Russia probe got him fired.
http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2017/05/days-of-excitement-and-scandal.html
Or, consider the example of James Clapper telling Meet the Press on March 5
that there is no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign,
but doing it in such a way as to stir groundless suspicions. The discussion by
PolitiFact is absolutely classic:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/may/12/donald-trump/trumps-mostly-false-claim-clapper-said-no-collusio/
It is almost enough to make me sympathetic to Trump - not really, he deserves
it, but it doesn't give me much hope for the country.
F. Foundling: "Stone has only boasted of having talked to *Wikileaks*, not
'Russians' "
Who cares what he boasts about? We know he communicated on
twitter with Guccifer2.0, which is believed to be a Russian front. We know he
predicted who would be targeted by leaks, and refused to say how he knew.
"Breaking formally an antique and mostly pointless law that had been dormant
for centuries and that nobody involved was probably aware of. The content of
that conversation (as reported by the leakers themselves) wouldn't have seemed
obviously wrong or sinister to anyone unaware of the specific law, and Flynn's
subsequent lies were just an attempt to avoid admitting that he had broken it."
Yet he lied about it from the start. If he didn't know about the law, why
did he hide the content of his discussion? If no one cared about the law, why
did people lie for him?
"AFAIU, he said that he hadn't spoken to them in the capacity of a member of
the campaign; and as a US senator, it was perfectly normal for him to speak to
foreign ambassadors all the time."
You're quite poorly informed. Here's a good recap of Sessions' Russian
contacts and statements about them:
F. Foundling: "Stone has only boasted of having talked to *Wikileaks*, not
'Russians' "
Who cares what he boasts about? We know he communicated on
twitter with Guccifer2.0, which is believed to be a Russian front. We know he
predicted who would be targeted by leaks, and refused to say how he knew.
"Breaking formally an antique and mostly pointless law that had been dormant
for centuries and that nobody involved was probably aware of. The content of
that conversation (as reported by the leakers themselves) wouldn't have seemed
obviously wrong or sinister to anyone unaware of the specific law, and Flynn's
subsequent lies were just an attempt to avoid admitting that he had broken it."
Yet he lied about it from the start. If he didn't know about the law, why
did he hide the content of his discussion? If no one cared about the law, why
did people lie for him?
"AFAIU, he said that he hadn't spoken to them in the capacity of a member of
the campaign; and as a US senator, it was perfectly normal for him to speak to
foreign ambassadors all the time."
You're quite poorly informed. Here's a good recap of Sessions' Russian
contacts and statements about them:
First Act: You lie to gain an advantage. They lie to gain an advantage.
Everybody lies to gain an advantage. Result: nobody believes anybody anymore,
but they are confused.
Second Act: Lies get louder, smarter, and more
expensive. Whole industries evolve to advance this or that quality of
mendacity, and to produce it in blinding and deafening quantities. A
significant percentage of GDP is sucked up in the process.
(Intermezzo)
Final Act: David Broder wannabes all over the developed world publish a
flurry of suitably weepy and high-toned op-ed pieces about the tragedy of our
intellectual commons. The curtain falls. The house lights come back up. People
nervously check their twitter feeds as they shuffle toward the aisles.
(Yes, I know that everyone has already seen this play. It even won a Tony
back in the 90s or something, didn't it? I only bring it up because I read
somewhere - on Facebook, maybe - that they're bringing it back as a musical.)
@155: Leaving aside your discussion of Flynn for the moment, Sessions' fellow
members of the Armed Services Committee were not taking such meetings. Sessions
did not disclose those meetings during his hearings and volunteered that he had
" no communications with the Russians," period. He also denied any Russian
contacts in response to a written question. He even denied he was a Trump
surrogate. It is quite fair to say that the man who is now the nation's leader
of law enforcement is guilty of a serious act of perjury.
@155: Leaving aside your discussion of Flynn for the moment, Sessions' fellow
members of the Armed Services Committee were not taking such meetings. Sessions
did not disclose those meetings during his hearings and volunteered that he had
" no communications with the Russians," period. He also denied any Russian
contacts in response to a written question. He even denied he was a Trump
surrogate. It is quite fair to say that the man who is now the nation's leader
of law enforcement is guilty of a serious act of perjury.
So, in your mind our Disinterested Solons and Media Tribunes of the
People
Painfully blatant strawman is painfully blatant.
This, now, is nothing like the Clinton Whitewater scandal or the run-up
to the Iraq War. That was then, this is now. Those were "non sequitur
accusations invented out of whole cloth". Not like now. This time is
different.
I mean, yes, there are differences. And to the extent there are
similarities, I don't think they really show what you seem to want of them.
Let's take the Iraq war. There we had on the one hand, a virtually united front
of US intelligence agencies saying e.g., 'there is no material cooperation
between Iraq and Al Qaida and no reason to think they'd want to be allies -
it's like cats and mice teaming up to steal cheese' and on the other, ad hoc
'intelligence' shops within the Bush administration run by such worthies as
Dick Cheney saying, basically, 'Saddam totally did 9-11, trust us. Mumble
mumble. Mohammed Atta. Something something. Prague. Mumble. Anthrax!'
Now, are the press and the intelligence services hyper-flawed and
manipulable institutions? Yes. Were we therefore unable to reach the correct
conclusions about the Iraq/Al-Qaida connection based on the statements relayed
to press by the various actors? No.
What's gone very dangerously wrong here is the institutional
degeneration. If the public discourse were travelling along a well-paved,
well-marked road with vigilant traffic cops, there would be limits to what
partisans would try, because there would be limits to what would work to
partisan advantage.
I'm more or less in agreement with this much at least. My quibble would be
to point out that this 'degeneration', if that's the right word at all, isn't
particularly recent. The low quality of the press and official institutions of
various kinds has in fact been evident for decades (and your passing references
to Whitewater, Watergate etc. suggest you might agree). Not to mention
'Remember the Maine' - I'm a little skeptical that there ever was a golden age
of uniformly high-functioning institutions.
But I'm reading all of this very carefully in search of the point you
mention you have, and coming up empty.
You have said that suspicion should lead to investigation. It is very
logical and I agree with the logic. We see what looks like smoke in the
distance; we should send someone out to look to see if there is fire.
Logical. But, I think you are being naive to the point of being obtuse to
think that is the function of "investigation" in the present deteriorated
state of our political system. Whitewater was investigated for years on end.
Or, maybe, you'd like an investigation of Iraqi WMD?
I can almost hear you even as I type saying in tones of uncomprehending
outrage: "So, is it your position that there should be no investigation!??"
[Rolling my eyes.]
Which suggests you agree and so DO think there should be an investigation.
Again, searching for the point
In a well-functioning political system, actual investigations employing
effective methods of verifying facts and reaching balanced judgments in a
finite length of time would put effective limits on what partisans and other
actors could claim in accusing officials of misconduct. We do not have such
a well-functioning system, and consequently there are no curbs on what
suspicions can be raised and repeated as propaganda. In a well-functioning
political system, a great newspaper covetous of its own reputation for
integrity might be counted on to investigate and publish facts. In a
well-functioning political system, great public agencies also covetous of
their own reputations for integrity could similarly be counted on to
arbitrate partisan bickering or bring miscreants to justice. We are not
living within such a well-functioning political system.
Again. I may quibble with specific points, but not very forcefully. We can
certainly wish and work for a better system.
That said, we also all have to do our best to find whatever thread of truth
may be revealed by the system as it actually exists.
You know, deal with reality.
"Investigation" in our political system means the farce Comey's FBI
conducted regarding Clinton's email server. An "investigation" that
continues indefinitely, stirring up suspicion but never really settling any
facts or reaching any judgments, at least none that put limits on partisan
accusation.
I do not agree that these necessarily continue indefinitely. Perhaps they
outlast your own patience, but it's my perception that they do eventually roll
to a halt.
Whether the partisans find the conclusions satisfactory is a different
matter, and I think here is where I'd raise another point of difference: you're
wishing fervently for hypothetically unimpeachable intelligence and/or press
institutions that you believe would serve as a check on endless partisan
dispute of the facts, but that's not necessarily the way it would work.
It's chicken and egg, to be sure, but I think it is as least as much the
case that partisan disputation of facts causes erosion in institutional trust
and quality (via funding and autonomy mechanism) as the other way around.
Take the climate 'debate'. Science is a far more trustworthy institution
than e.g., the NSA, and is even - in the abstract - far more trusted by the
public. And yet all it takes is a relative handful of outspoken
corrupt/partisan dissenters to raise 'questions' in the mind of a substantial
portion of the public and policymakers, and thus successfully block meaningful
action in the halls of power. (Not all of the public however - which is another
point I'd make. Polls suggest that a substantial majority of the public are not
actually fooled on the
facts
. Somehow despite all the effort spent
clouding the water, and the generally atrocious coverage in the press, most
people have managed to find a thread of truth.)
And, it is not that "investigation" has degenerated in isolation - the
whole ecology (I know I am mixing metaphors) is dragging "investigation"
down into this dysfunctional generator of leaks. That the news media report
the exciting headline of suspicion on Sunday's Page 1 and then walk it all
back on Saturday's page A32 is part of the process, as is the public's
retreat from the common public square into tribalist cul de sacs and echo
chambers of aligned voices. (See there, I got back to the road metaphor for
a second.)
And, the intelligence community gets to play a role. The well-funded
17(!) agencies can have their consensus judgments reported by trustworthy
figures like Comey and Clapper without any verifiable reference to actual
facts. So, another flavor of "investigation" is available to us, to stoke
groundless suspicion, and not incidentally to block any actual investigation
(I'm sorry, that part had to be redacted.)
I think part of this is you appear to place far too much significance on
leaks and other transient events. Perhaps even erroneously conflating leaks, or
random comments by investigators, with the investigations themselves.
When substantial questions like this are outstanding, are we all going to
collectively scrabble at whatever scraps of information, leaks and rumor are
available and form our own preliminary conclusions? Yes, of course. That's just
human nature.
Will the later release of firm-ish 'official' conclusions down the road have
zero effect on these preliminary judgements, rendering such investigations
pointless? No. They still matter, even in our fallen state.
I for one will accept whatever conclusions the FBI/Senate/etc. reach in due
course. If the result is negative, will I occasionally grumble to myself,
"well, maybe they didn't leave any incriminating memos lying around, but those
bastards are still totally in bed with the Russians"? Maybe. But I'll certainly
accept that THIS is not the thing Trump is impeached for and it's time to move
on.
For those who like concrete examples, here is one from a relic of the
ancient blogosphere,
But an example of what, in service to what point?
An example of the press being breathless and incautious and terrible? Yes,
probably. An example of the 'remnants of the Clinton Machine' or whoever
planting fake news? It seems less likely.
And again, it looks a lot like you're placing a lot of undue weight on small
events. What exactly is the measurable effect of this 1/2 news cycle worth of
possibly questionable material? In the middle of a news cycle with some pretty
dramatic and less disputed events? (I mean, was this false fact the key
evidence in the impeachment proceedings? What impeachment you say? Exactly.)
Or, consider the example of James Clapper telling Meet the Press on March
5 that there is no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump
campaign, but doing it in such a way as to stir groundless suspicions.
That's a weird reading.
Alternatively, the straight reading is that Clapper's a bureaucrat in a
sensitive position trying to be very careful with how he words things, knowing
they'll be read to death, one way or the other. Clapper says he hasn't seen
such evidence. Contrary to Trump's claim, this really is not the same as either
'nobody has seen evidence' or 'there is no evidence to be found,' let alone
'there is no collusion'. I'm not sure what makes the Politifact link 'classic'
– it seems to more or less get all of that straight.
OTOH, your reading is rather more strained - it only really works if we
assume that Clapper knows Trump is innocent or at least knows no evidence
exists, which in turn seems to require that Clapper be aware of the details and
ongoing results within not only his own area of responsibility but also every
other corner of the state investigatory & intelligence apparatus (implying in
turn either that Clapper is a mastermind who has everyone under surveillance,
or that the intelligence establishment is monolithic and shares information
freely). It also requires Clapper to have malicious motive –
less
of a
leap than the first, to be sure, but still assumes facts not in evidence.
Those seem like pretty big leaps to be making for someone throwing out
accusations of hysteria at the rest of us for the high crime of making a few
fairly mild-mannered preliminary inferences about the presence of all this
smoke we're seeing.
Layman 05.14.17 at 3:46 pm @ 113 -
Actually, the only alleged data I have seen about the effect of Comey's act on
the election was that there wasn't any. I believe there is a cite up above
somewhere. Of course I have no way of verifying or disproving this assertion,
so it may be we are talking about 'data' with scare quotes, not plain old data.
But that's what it said.
JimV 05.14.17 at 5:47 pm - Sorry, I couldn't resist making fun of the
Times
. 80,000 votes would be about 0.06% of the total electorate (unless
I've lost a decimal point somewhere) and thus we are in the realm of noise and
jitter, not reasonably computable behavior. Maybe 80,000 voters got out of the
wrong side of the bed that morning, or it rained. (See Menand's article on what
sort of events can affect an election.) Maybe it was just bad luck (or good
luck if one is of the Trumpoids and Hell does not embarrass them with its bill
before the end of his performance).
bruce wilder
@ 117:
"Or, consider the example of James Clapper
telling Meet the Press on March 5 that there is no evidence of collusion
between Russia and the Trump campaign ."
- Except that Clapper made no such
claim, and indeed could never have
known
that there was "no evidence" of
that sort; all he could have known, and all he did in fact claim, was that
he himself had not seen it
(as the investigation and its evidence were and
are classified, and he himself was and is not involved in it; "So it's not
surprising or abnormal that I would not have known about the investigation, or
even more importantly, the content of that investigation.") which meaning he
later took care to clarify, after his original statement got taken and twisted
into the misinterpretation you just repeated.
The drop in the polls at the end appears to have started before Comeys last
announcement. Also, the main characteristic of the polls being used to argue
the letter had a big effect is the fact that a large percentage of the
"undecideds" broke for Trump while in past elections we normally see a more
even break. This would be strongervif we hadn't seen the exact same thing
happen with the Brexit polls–which we can be fairly sure were not influenced by
the Comey letter.
CHUCK TODD: Yeah, I was just going to say, if the F.B.I., for
instance, had a FISA court order of some sort for a surveillance, would
that be information you would know or not know?
JAMES CLAPPER: Yes.
CHUCK TODD: You would be told this?
JAMES CLAPPER: I would know that.
CHUCK TODD: If there was a FISA court order–
JAMES CLAPPER: Yes.
CHUCK TODD: –on something like this.
JAMES CLAPPER: Something like this, absolutely.
CHUCK TODD: And at this point, you can't confirm or deny whether that
exists?
JAMES CLAPPER: I can deny it.
But then on 12 May 2017, Clapper says this:
So it is not surprising or abnormal that I would not have known about
the investigation or even more important, the content of that
investigation
The switch between Clapper saying he was in a position to know about an
ongoing investigation and can categorically deny it, to saying that he was
not in a position to know, is suggestive that he was either lying or being
deliberately misleading. (e.g. by failing to say something on the lines of
"Well, if there was a FISA warrant I'd have known about it, but if the FBI
was investigating Trump under some other authorization they wouldn't have
told me about it, and I have no idea whether they were or were not."
The Trumpists had no problem with the media shilling phony stories hinting at
treason for years about Benghazi, email servers, Clinton Foundation and
pizzagate. It is hypocritical of them to object now to how that game is played
now (if your idea of political analysis is moralizing about hypocrisy.)
Trumpists may think that joining in with the decades old tradition of Hilary
bashing gives them more gravitas, but I think it makes them trashier. Sauce for
the gander is sauce for the goose, and everybody knows it.
The evidence that
Comey influenced the election is much stronger than the evidence that Clinton
or Trump are treasonous. A popsicle stick is stronger than a straw too, though,
so you cannot honestly make of that what you will. The upshot is that Comey was
fired because he couldn't be relied on to stay on message. Defending that with
the childish claim that objecting to Comey's dismissal now is hypocritical is
merely a way to defend Trump.
I wonder what could possibly be significant about that date that might
provide context for the first quote. Hmm.
Nope. Nothing comes to mind.
)
5th March 2017, as reported by NBC:
5th March 2017.
I wonder what could possibly be significant about that date that might
provide context for the first quote. Hmm.
Nope. Nothing comes to mind.
So, since the first quote was obviously in the context of giving Chuck Todd
a comprehensive briefing about how federal investigatory powers are delegated,
rather than debunking a specific stupid tweet, you're right. It was incredibly
misleading of Clapper to neglect to mention the obvious fact that other
agencies might be conducting their own investigations down one or more of the
dozens of other avenues which don't involve FISA warrants. /sarcasm.
In context, of course, his limited statements above seem reasonable. And if
he HAD added ' but the FBI might still be investigating in other ways that I
wouldn't be privy to' I can't help but wonder if some here feel that would have
been unsolicited, out of context character assassination.
I'm no fan of James Clapper, but it does kind of seem like there's going to
be something to complain about no matter what he says, doesn't it?
Hell, there's plenty of context immediately above and below within the very
interview transcript that above quote was mined from. For example:
Clapper: I can't say– obviously, I'm not, I can't speak officially
anymore. But I will say that, for the part of the national security
apparatus that I oversaw as DNI, there was no such wiretap activity mounted
against– the president elect at the time, or as a candidate, or against his
campaign. I can't speak for other Title Three authorized entities in the
government or a state or local entity.
and:
[on the January hacking report] It did– well, it got to the bottom of the
evidence to the extent of the evidence we had at the time. Whether there is
more evidence that's become available since then, whether ongoing
investigations will be revelatory, I don't know.
I'm really not sure what else Clapper could have said to satisfy you
Layman 05.15.17 at 11:13 am @ 125 -
I looked at the article, and the thing that caught my eye was the graph, which
shows Clinton's lead declining sharply
before
the Comey letter. This
data, if it was data, seemed redundant, in other words, not really information.
However, I did get one interesting thing out of it, which I was hitherto
unaware of. You will notice that shortly after Sept. 11, there was a dip in
Clinton's numbers. What happened around then? One thing that was played up
prominently in the media
and was visual
was that Clinton seemed to faint
at the 9/11 memorial event; a picture of her being stuffed in a car by
attendants, her feet askew and one shoe missing, was widely circulated. Clinton
had shown
physical weakness.
Then the event was obfuscated in classical
fashion, which added to its mystique and notoriety. Physical weakness makes
people seem unfit for leadership; they're supposed to be ready to take the role
of the alpha male baboon and go front and center in a crisis. Irrational as
this thought may be, it is intuitively powerful. So I can assign the dip,
Nate-Silver-in-explanatory-mode-wise, to the event, being careful to follow up
the assertion with a disclaimer of certainty just as Mr. Silver would.
When
you're talking about an electorate, this is the kind of thing you're dealing
with. A trial lawyer will tell you that you can never tell what a jury is going
to do, and that's just 12 people, not 130 million. I don't know what happened
around October 16, and I don't want to look it up, but that's when Clinton's
big slide began, not on October 28. That is, if the graph accurately and
relevantly portrays reality, about which I have some doubts.
Katsue
@ 127: b) – f) repeating
"There is no evidence ."
- This
is blatantly more than you know or can know. Even James Clapper, former
Director of National Intelligence, took care to say of himself vs. that
classified investigation: "So it's not surprising or abnormal that I would not
have known about the investigation, or even more importantly, the content of
that investigation." Are you claiming
you
have a more privileged inside
view than
he
had?
JimV 05.15.17 at 8:57 pm @ 133 -
Hence my belief that we are looking at 'noise and jitter', not a probable chain
of causation from the Comey letter (or anything else).
Raven 05.15.17 at
10:53 pm @ 134 -
I imagine Katsue means that there is no evidence available to the public, that
no evidence has been published. Of course we cannot know if there is some
secret evidence hidden away in a cupboard somewhere with Vlad's guilty
fingerprints upon it.
I wish, for the sake of my Social Security and Medicare if nothing else,
that the Democratic Party leadership would stop blame-shifting and try to
figure out how to win something in 2018.
One thing that everybody ought to be made aware of, is that the polls almost
always tighten in the few months before a U.S. Presidential election. I'm not
sure if anyone has bothered to tease that effect out of this last election
however.
Raven @ 134:
Are you claiming you have a more privileged inside view than he
had?
Perhaps we should just elect Clapper, Dictator. I am sure he would
enjoy that.
Clapper knew what he was doing when he went on
Meet the Press
. It
wasn't informing the public.
Secrecy is a characteristic disease of a dysfunctional state. I do not mean
the keeping of actual secrets, which by definition involves . . . well,
secrets, or the keeping of confidences, which is a matter of trust. Actual
secrets are rare in affairs of state, which is after all the
public
business, the confidential rather more common and routine. I refer to the
gamesmanship of secrets and lies, where the pretence or conceit of "secret"
knowledge is used strategically and tactically as a weapon of power.
That is what we are witnessing: the gamesmanship of secrets and lies in a
politics gone senile.
Leave a Comment
Raven @ 134:
Are you claiming you have a more privileged inside view than he
had?
Perhaps we should just elect Clapper, Dictator. I am sure he would
enjoy that.
Clapper knew what he was doing when he went on
Meet the Press
. It
wasn't informing the public.
Secrecy is a characteristic disease of a dysfunctional state. I do not mean
the keeping of actual secrets, which by definition involves . . . well,
secrets, or the keeping of confidences, which is a matter of trust. Actual
secrets are rare in affairs of state, which is after all the
public
business, the confidential rather more common and routine. I refer to the
gamesmanship of secrets and lies, where the pretence or conceit of "secret"
knowledge is used strategically and tactically as a weapon of power.
That is what we are witnessing: the gamesmanship of secrets and lies in a
politics gone senile.
In the political swamp that is Washington, and in the press swamp, motor boats began speeding
every which way in the wake of Trump's decision to fire FBI Director Comey.
People in the boats are holding up signs to explain the reason for the firing.
The first sign was: COMEY LIED. Comey lied the other day. He lied in testimony before Congress,
when he said Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's long-time aide, had sent "hundreds and thousands" of
emails to her husband, Anthony Weiner, some of which contained classified information. The truth
was, the FBI says, contradicting Comey, a great many of those emails were merely "backed up" on Weiner's
laptop via "backup devices." Huh? Does that actually mean something? Weiner obtained those emails
out of the sky, delivered by a chariot, and not from Huma? Weiner's laptop was serving as a storage
device, a personal little cloud? Somebody not connected to the Hillary campaign was using the social-media's
porn star as a backup for classified data? Who would that be? Putin? Putin hacked the Hillary/DNC
emails, and sent them to both WikiLeaks and Anthony Weiner? "Hi Anthony. Vlad here. Keep these thousands
of emails for posterity."
The next motor boat running through the swamp featured a sign that said: COMEY SCREWED UP THE
HILLARY INVESTIGATION. This sign can be interpreted several ways, depending on who is in the boat.
One, Comey didn't press the investigation into Hillary's personal email server far enough last summer
and fall. He stalled it. He didn't ask for an indictment. That's why Trump fired him yesterday. Trump
didn't fire Comey right after he was elected president, when it would have been a simple bye bye.
No, Trump waited five months and then lowered the boom. Sure.
The other meaning of COMEY SCREWED UP THE HILLARY INVESTIGATION is: Comey improperly told the
world (last summer) that the FBI was investigating Hillary. His announcement influenced the election.
The FBI is supposed to keep absolutely quiet about ongoing investigations. Comey didn't. Then he
publicly closed the book on the investigation, opened it again, and closed it again. That's why Trump
just fired him. Again, Trump waited five months after the election and then got rid of Comey. And
of course, Trump was morally outraged that Comey exposed Hillary in the first place, when Comey should
have remained silent. Sure. That makes a lot of sense.
The next motor boat speeding across the swamp held up a big sign that said, TRUMP FIRED COMEY
TO STOP THE FBI FROM INVESTIGATING THE TRUMP-RUSSIA CONNECTION. You see, for five months, Trump happily
left Comey in place, knowing Comey was investigating him, Trump, and yesterday Trump had enough of
that, so he fired the FBI director. Right.
The next motor boat in the swamp held up a sign that said, THIS IS NIXON ALL OVER AGAIN, THIS
IS TRUMP'S WATERGATE. The sign refers to the last sign, but ups the ante. And there is another sign
that says, in the same vein, NOW WE CAN IMPEACH TRUMP. And another one that says, APPOINT AN INDEPENDENT
COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE THE TRUMP-RUSSIA CONNECTION.
I'm waiting for Bob Woodward of Watergate fame to step in and say, "It's all right, folks, I'm
on the case. I'll handle it. I was just eating lunch and sipping a fine wine in my underground parking
garage when a shadowy figure stepped out of the gloom and whispered, 'My throat is deep, and I'll
spoon-feed you secrets for the next year, but you'll have to dig up the facts. Everybody is involved
in the cover-up. Comey, Sessions, Pence, Bannon, Conway, Ivanka, Putin, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Stalin."
So why did Trump fire Comey yesterday?
I don't know, but the short answer might be: Comey's boss, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, told
Trump to get rid of Comey. Sessions made the call.
Sessions now has a specific plan to make the FBI over in the image he prefers. Sessions wants
to shape the Bureau according to his agendas. Sessions has looked into the Bureau and he now knows
which people he wants to fire. He wants to get rid of the Obama crowd. He wants loyalists. He doesn't
want a Dept. of Justice that is going in one direction, while the FBI is going in another. Sessions
wants a predictable FBI. His own.
Joel Pollak, writing at Breitbart, has a simpler answer to the question, why fire Comey now?
Pollak writes :
"But why fire Comey now? The answer is simple. The day before, President Barack Obama's former
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper repeated, under oath, what he told NBC News' Chuck
Todd on Meet the Press on March 5 - that he had seen no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign
and the Russian government. That gave the Trump administration the breathing room to dismiss Comey
- which it simply did not have before."
In other words, now Trump can't be accused of firing Comey to stop "the truth" emerging about
a Trump-Russia collusion, because there isn't any collusion.
Theoretically, that might be the case-but the spin machine doesn't care about the truth or who
is right and who is wrong. The machine keeps running. Those motor boats keep moving across the swamp.
Signs come out. People yell and scream.
Chuck Schumer may soon compare Trump to Benedict Arnold.
For the past 65 years, the CIA has been infiltrating media and promoting many messages. In certain
cases, an op involves promoting CONFLICTING messages, because the intent is sowing discord, chaos,
and division. In this instance (Comey/Trump), it's a walk in the park (or a ride in the swamp). All
sorts of people on both sides already have steam coming out of their ears, without any nudging or
provocation.
"... More specifically, whether true or not, the Democrats are likely to use this move to claim that Comey was fired for digging too hard into Trump-Russia connections ..."
"... The official story is that attorney general Jeff Session and his deputy attorney general Rosenstein wanted Comey's head. And since the FBI does report to the Department of Justice, Sessions is within his rights to demand the firing of the head of the FBI and expect the President to respect his request. So if this proves to have been a reckless move, it will reflect Trump's poor judgment in selecting Sessions as his AG, who was a controversial pick from the outset. ..."
"... I support the firing of Comey, and would have supported it if done by Clinton, Obama, Sanders or Trump. His actions wrt "intent" in handling classified information, and his unilateral (in public at least) decision on leveling charges against Clinton (which was not his job) render him unfit for office. ..."
"... Both the Right and the Left are disinclined to believe in or care about any scandal involving Russia. And it was actually the Clinton partisans who demanded Comey's head in the first place–and we all know the Clinton history with independent prosecutors. So the Democrats who whine about this or call for an independent prosecutor just end up looking like the partisan hypocrites they are. ..."
"... What this does, after a few days, is get the Russian hacking investigation out of the news, so everyone can focus firmly on debating how many people need to lose their health care to satisfy the tax-cut gods. ..."
"... I'm already seeing Twitter Dems doubling down on the Russia stuff. The Russia hysteria is setting us up so that there will be absolutely no political incentive for future Presidents to be friendly with Russia. I wonder if they don't know (or just don't care) that they aren't going to be able to put this genie back in the bottle after Trump is gone. ..."
"... All it does is reinforce existing bias. Dems are even more convinced about Russian ties, Reps are even more concerned the wheels are off, TrumpNation is even more convinced there's an evil plot out to get their guy. And the media has a click frenzy to drive ad rates. ..."
"... being anti Russian is in the very DNA of the repubs. Would the repubs turn on Trump because Trump isn't fervently anti Russian enough? I very much think so .they have a good repub vice president that I am sure ALL of them much prefer .. ..."
"... Its important to remember the disdain the country has for Versailles in general. Trump became President despite universal support for Hillary and to a lesser extent Jeb on the shores of the Potomac.The Republican Id is dedicated to hating Democrats. Bill Clinton and Obama could play Weekend at Bernie's with Reagan corpse and kill Social Security, and Republicans would still hate them. ..."
"... Communists and other boogeymen of the past are secondary to this drive. The Versailles Republicans, a different breed, could never deliver Republican votes outside of Northern Virginia for one simple reason their base despises Democrats more than they might hate Stalin. They will never give credit to a Democrat. Remember the liberal whining about how Republicans never gave Obama credit for his right wing policy pushes. ..."
"... The other key point to the GOP voter relationship is Trump WON. He beat Jeb and his sheepdogs and then he beat Hillary (Hillary and the Dems lost). Trump is the their winner so to speak. As long as Trump is denounced by the usual suspects for bizarre reasons, Trump will maintain his hold. ..."
"... fbi sorta sat on gulen charter school investigation and it would certainly help emperor trompe and prince erdo relationship if Fethu found his old self on an express flight to Ankara considering the bean "kurd" thing recently added on the takeout menu ..."
"... People are fed up. Savings & Loan mess & Iran Contra & & & & yawn Wall Street destroys the economy & no one goes to jail, Medical Industrial Complex management bloodsuckers insure that sickness leads to penury ..."
"... I am no fan of Comey. I think his self-righteousness makes him a dangerous FBI Director and a loose cannon. However, people who think this is going to hurt Trump are likely wrong. If Trump knows there's nothing in the Russia story, but he continues to string out the Democrats with it, then they're the ones who are going to look foolish after having invested so much political capital in it. ..."
"... Since you can't prove a negative, the innuendo can continue ad nauseam. ..."
"... I suspect the Democrats are unaware they are indirectly insulting the Trump voters by the Russian influence story.. They are in effect saying Trump voters were played by the "evil" Russians into voting for Trump, despite the 1Billion spend by Clinton and her considerable support in the US media. I don't imagine the Trump voters like this message. ..."
"... If Trump indirectly destroys both the Democratic and Republican parties, he might rank as one of our more important Presidents, quite unintentionally. ..."
"... Why doesnt he fire the top 10 layers of CIA instead? They are wreaking havoc for real everywhere domestically and abroad. ..."
"... If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology. ( ) ..."
Posted on May 9, 2017 by
Yves Smith Trump's sudden and unexpected firing of
FBI director James Comey is likely to damage Trump. The question is whether this move will simply serve as the basis for sowing further
doubts in the mainstream media against Trump, or will dent Trump's standing with Republicans.
Comey made an odd practice of making moves that were arguably procedurally improper in his handling of the Clinton e-mail investigation,
but some favored Clinton while others were damaging, given an impression of impartiality to the general public via getting both parties
riled with Comey at various points in time. And regardless of what one thinks of his political and legal judgment, Comey had a reputation
of being a straight shooter.
And more generally, the director of the FBI is perceived to be a role above the partisan fray. Firing him is fraught with danger;
it has the potential of turning into in a Nixonian Saturday Night Massacre, where the firing of special prosecutor Archibald Cox
led the press and public to see Nixon as desperate to stymie an investigation into Watergate charges. It was the archetypal "the
coverup is worse than the crime".
To minimize risk, Trump's would have needed to have engaged in a whispering campaign against Comey, or least have notified some
key figures in Congress that this was about to happen and give the rationale for the turfing out. And it appears he did do that to
at least a degree, in that (as you will see below), Lindsay Graham, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made a statement
supporting the firing. But given the surprised reaction in the press, it looks like any ground-sowing for this move was minimal.
Caution and preparation don't rank high as Trump Administration priorities.
More specifically, whether true or not, the Democrats are likely to use this move to claim that Comey was fired for digging
too hard into Trump-Russia connections .
We'll know more in the coming hours and days. The official story is that attorney general Jeff Session and his deputy attorney
general Rosenstein wanted Comey's head. And since the FBI does report to the Department of Justice, Sessions is within his rights
to demand the firing of the head of the FBI and expect the President to respect his request. So if this proves to have been a reckless
move, it will reflect Trump's poor judgment in selecting Sessions as his AG, who was a controversial pick from the outset.
In a letter to Mr. Comey, the president wrote, "It is essential that we find new leadership for the FBI that restores public
trust and confidence in its vital law enforcement mission."
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a top member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in a statement thanked Mr. Comey for his years
of service to the country but said that a change in leadership at the bureau might be the best possible course of action.
"Given the recent controversies surrounding the director, I believe a fresh start will serve the FBI and the nation well. I
encourage the President to select the most qualified professional available who will serve our nation's interests," said Mr. Graham,
a South Carolina Republican.
Comey, who has led an investigation into Russia's meddling during the 2016 election and any possible links to Trump aides and
associates, is only the second FBI chief to have been fired. In 1993, President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno dismissed
William Sessions.
Trump's decision means that he will get to nominate Comey's successor while the agency is deep into the Russia inquiry. The
move quickly intensified Democratic calls for a special prosecutor.
Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that Trump "has catastrophically
compromised the FBI's ongoing investigation of his own White House's ties to Russia. Not since Watergate have our legal systems
been so threatened, and our faith in the independence and integrity of those systems so shaken."
Mr Comey's sudden dismissal shocked Republicans and Democrats. Brendan Boyle, a Democratic congressman, said the "stunning"
action "shows why we must have a special prosecutor like our nation did in Watergate".
The proof of the pudding is whether Trump and Sessions will be able to ride out demands for a special prosecutor. Given how much
noise and how little signal there has been, I would have though it was possible for Trump to tough this out. With the Democrats having
peripheral figures like Carter Page as their supposed smoking guns, all they had was innuendo, amplified by the Mighty Wurlitzer
of the media. But that may have gotten enough to Trump and his team to distort their judgment. Stay tuned.
Update 5/10, 12:15 AM . The Hill reports
Dems ask Justice Dept, FBI to 'preserve any and all files' on Comey firing / Despite much howling for blood in the comments section,
some readers there were able to provide what I was looking for, which is whether Congress had any basis for getting the info. Here
are the two key remarks:
I support the firing of Comey, and would have supported it if done by Clinton, Obama, Sanders or Trump. His actions wrt
"intent" in handling classified information, and his unilateral (in public at least) decision on leveling charges against Clinton
(which was not his job) render him unfit for office.
Anyone opposing this firing should note they share opinions w/ John McCain, which ought to give any non-neocon pause
Both the Right and the Left are disinclined to believe in or care about any scandal involving Russia. And it was actually
the Clinton partisans who demanded Comey's head in the first place–and we all know the Clinton history with independent prosecutors.
So the Democrats who whine about this or call for an independent prosecutor just end up looking like the partisan hypocrites they
are.
What this does, after a few days, is get the Russian hacking investigation out of the news, so everyone can focus firmly
on debating how many people need to lose their health care to satisfy the tax-cut gods.
Senate Minority Whip Richard Durbin (D-IL) made the biggest impression, going to the Senate floor about an hour after the
announcement to clearly outline the stakes.
"Any attempt to stop or undermine this FBI investigation would raise grave constitutional issues," he told colleagues.
Interestingly, Fed directors have a term of ten years and since Hoover, there has been only one to make it the full term. That
would be Mr. Mueller who went twelve years as director directly following 911.
FBI Director is one of those jobs where if you do a good job you should suffer burnout regardless of who you are. A 10 year
term is bizarre if you expect a quality job. I would expect resignation and early retirement if the job is being taken seriously.
Then you have to consider the quality of staff and team work arrangements at any given time and how much workload a FBI Director
or Cabinet Secretary has to deal with.
I'm already seeing Twitter Dems doubling down on the Russia stuff. The Russia hysteria is setting us up so that there will
be absolutely no political incentive for future Presidents to be friendly with Russia. I wonder if they don't know (or just don't
care) that they aren't going to be able to put this genie back in the bottle after Trump is gone.
Thanks I love it and they just don't care and hoping the lame stream corp. owned media will carry their propaganda. Demodogs
message is we didn't fail but those looser didn't vote for us the party of corp. Amerika. Double down
@Matt – I don't think the Twitter Dems can conceive of the notion that there is a genie or even a bottle in this situation.
They are so caught up in the Russia!, Russia! hysteria that there is no room in their thinking for any kind of rational thought
or any consideration of consequences.
You're more hopeful that I am. I think the more militaristic among them are so cavalier about conflict with Russia because
of the Hitler-level delusions many of them have about the military capacity of Russia.
"Just kick in the door, and the whole rotten structure will come down"
"We'll be greeted as liberators when we defeat the tyrant Putin!"
Just look at that SNL sketch that aired a few months ago. They think these people are frozen, ignorant peasants.
Personally I would be no good at power. My reading has led me to believe that you need a very strong stomach to endure what
you have to deal with, whether it be human gore, hypocrisy, or the dark side of any civilization. I don't have that stomach, and
if you take Comey's words at face value neither does he.
Nah, ask Obomber. Once you get past a little queasiness, getting "pretty good at killing folks" is a piece of cake. It's just
business as usual. Ask any Civil War or WW I general officer, or Bomber Harris, or Lemay or the young guy, farm boy from Iowa
who was a door gunner I knew on Vietnam. Just no problem killing gooks. His moral line was killing the water buffalo. "I know
how I'd feel if someone blew away my John Deere."
Re: The youg guy with the agricultural machinery sensibilities:
Although he was the manipulator of terrible power, I see him as a victim (in the scheme of things), not a member of the power-elite.
And the other military you mention, were they in the power-elite? Eisenhower should have been on your list, as he straddled the
divide.
I'm curious how this will be interpreted by people who get their news mostly via headlines. (I also wonder what proportion
of the voting population that is.)
The headlines I've seen so far, if they give a reason, just make reference to the Clinton email investigation. I sort of think
this will be interpreted by many mostly-headline news gatherers as meaning that Trump fired Comey because he did not, in fact,
lock her up. Indeed, even those who dig deeper may still believe that this is the real reason.
So, like so many things raged about in the media, I'm not sure this really hurts Trump amongst his voters. Probably helps,
really.
And for something completely different, Snowden is not a fan:
All it does is reinforce existing bias. Dems are even more convinced about Russian ties, Reps are even more concerned the
wheels are off, TrumpNation is even more convinced there's an evil plot out to get their guy. And the media has a click frenzy
to drive ad rates.
"Trump's sudden and unexpected firing of FBI director James Comey is likely to damage Trump."
How neutral or unconcerned with what the Establishment views as the requisite dogma regarding Russia is Trump? Articles about
Trump being unhappy about McMaster gives the impression that Trump still believe he (Trump) is the boss.
Yes, the dems have ridiculous notions about Russians as an excuse for Hillary. But being anti Russian is in the very DNA
of the repubs. Would the repubs turn on Trump because Trump isn't fervently anti Russian enough? I very much think so .they have
a good repub vice president that I am sure ALL of them much prefer ..
You're right, the red party is a virulently anti-red outfit. I can see the die hard GOPers turning on the Trumpster, but will
his base stand for it? The Trumpster does have a bit of a cult of personality going on in some circles.
Its important to remember the disdain the country has for Versailles in general. Trump became President despite universal
support for Hillary and to a lesser extent Jeb on the shores of the Potomac.The Republican Id is dedicated to hating Democrats.
Bill Clinton and Obama could play Weekend at Bernie's with Reagan corpse and kill Social Security, and Republicans would still
hate them.
Communists and other boogeymen of the past are secondary to this drive. The Versailles Republicans, a different breed,
could never deliver Republican votes outside of Northern Virginia for one simple reason their base despises Democrats more than
they might hate Stalin. They will never give credit to a Democrat. Remember the liberal whining about how Republicans never gave
Obama credit for his right wing policy pushes.
The other key point to the GOP voter relationship is Trump WON. He beat Jeb and his sheepdogs and then he beat Hillary
(Hillary and the Dems lost). Trump is the their winner so to speak. As long as Trump is denounced by the usual suspects for bizarre
reasons, Trump will maintain his hold.
They still have to have a case to make and there is none. Impeachment is just as much a fantasy as it was several months ago.
In fact they no longer even have the argument that Trump must be stifled and prevented from doing all his crazy promises since
they don't seem to be happening anyway.
Frankly I say good for Trump rather than letting Comey go all Janet Reno on him. If this country is going to be run by the
NYT and the WaPo and CNN then we are truly sunk. He had it right when he was attacking this bunch rather than kowtowing to them.
Although the Mighty Wurlitzer is going to take this firing and run with it, I wonder if anyone's really going to care outside
of folks that watch a ton of CNN and MSNBC. I think scalping him at this point in his administration is likely to generate more
protests and demonstrations than not scalping him.
Well don trumpioni may have stepped in it although, maybe this has less to do with russia perhaps fbi sorta sat on gulen
charter school investigation and it would certainly help emperor trompe and prince erdo relationship if Fethu found his old self
on an express flight to Ankara considering the bean "kurd" thing recently added on the takeout menu
Can easily imagine potus & his not ready for prime time players wanting to use the hoover building as a bludgeon against people
who dont fall in line the blob counterforce
comey the straight shooter methynx is a bit of a "legend" but even the most slick and corrupt have certain lines they wont
cross
Can easily imagine potus & his not ready for prime time players wanting to use the hoover building as a bludgeon against
people who dont fall in line the blob counterforce
The FBI would be the preferred outfit for this sort of thing due to their many decades of experience bludgeoning those who
don't fall in line.
"Will Trump's Firing of FBI Director James Comey Be His Saturday Night Massacre?'
It would be interesting to take a poll on what percentage of citizens know that "Saturday Night Massacre" is not a horror film.
I'd be willing to bet a beer that this kerfuffle will be confined to the Beltway media and Sunday talk shows and will fade
from the news cycle/Facebook feeds rather quickly.
People are tapped out mentally with political talk.
People are fed up. Savings & Loan mess & Iran Contra & & & & yawn Wall Street destroys the economy & no one goes to jail,
Medical Industrial Complex management bloodsuckers insure that sickness leads to penury
1973 was 28 years after 1945. 1973 was 44 years ago. The post WW2 psuedo consensus is looooooooong gone.
I thought we hated Comey cuz of what he did to HRC? Today we hate Trump cuz Comey was going after the Russians? Crap I hate
missing the 2 minute hate.
I am no fan of Comey. I think his self-righteousness makes him a dangerous FBI Director and a loose cannon. However, people
who think this is going to hurt Trump are likely wrong. If Trump knows there's nothing in the Russia story, but he continues to
string out the Democrats with it, then they're the ones who are going to look foolish after having invested so much political
capital in it. It may be the Russian story will be proven to be nonsense about October, 2018.
I suspect the Democrats are unaware they are indirectly insulting the Trump voters by the Russian influence story.. They
are in effect saying Trump voters were played by the "evil" Russians into voting for Trump, despite the 1Billion spend by Clinton
and her considerable support in the US media. I don't imagine the Trump voters like this message.
It is truly remarkable, the Russians spend about 10% of what the USA does on "Defense" and are able to influence a US electorate
that is largely unaware and unconcerned about world affairs.
I believe enough voters know that Clinton played fast and loose with the email server to avoid FOIA and the Clinton Foundation
pulled in a lot of money from foreign governments as payment in advance to President Hillary Clinton..
The harping on the "Russia influenced the election enough to elect Trump" will bite the Democrats as they avoid the jobs, medical
and economic issues that actually influenced the voters for Trump.
If Trump indirectly destroys both the Democratic and Republican parties, he might rank as one of our more important Presidents,
quite unintentionally.
I've taken to using doge speak in my comments on Yahoo articles and WaPo articles. I figure that's about as much intelligence
the publishers are investing into the articles and into the audience, that I therefore tune my intelligence accordingly.
If it has to do with the Russian electorial witch hunt stupidity, then yes, I think Comey ought to have been fired. For crying
out loud, enough already! Delicate matters are being attempted in the Middle East, and there is no sense in pursuing that craziness.
I don't understand why that shouldn't be a perfectly acceptable reason to change direction and start attending to real issues
with someone in the office who would support Trump's legitimate claim (and Putin's) that there was no there there.
I would imagine the CIA/Intel guys are way harder to get rid of. To quote the late, great Sen. Frank Church:
If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity
that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way
to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately
it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology. ( )
Because people here are smart enough to be skeptical of hysterical MSM headlines with no real goods, you act as if you are
some sort of smart contrarian, when you are just echoing a Democratic party/media narrative?
You do not seem to recognize that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The idea that billionaire, who was already
famous in the US by virtue (among other things) of having a TV show that ran for 14 years and got billions of free media coverage
during his campaign, is somehow owned by Putin, is astonishing on its face. Trump had to have been the focus of extensive Republican
and Democratic party opposition research while he was campaigning.
And perhaps most important, the night he won, Trump clearly did not expect to win. His longstanding friend Howard Stern stated
a view similar to ours, that Trump ran because it would be good PR and the whole thing developed a life of its own. And before
you try saying politics doesn't work that way, the UK is now on a path to Brexit for the same reasons.
All the Dems and the media have come up with are some kinda-sorta connections to Russia. Trump as a very rich man who also
has assembled a large team of political types in short order, would have people who knew people in all corners of the world. "X
has done business with Y" is hardly proof o of influence, particularly with a guy like Trump, who is now famous for telling people
what they want to hear in a meeting and backstabbing them the next day.
We've been looking at this for months. The best they can come up with is:
1. Manafort, who worked for Trump for all of four months and was fired. Plus his Russia connections are mainly through Ukraine.
Podesta has strong if not stronger Russia ties, is a much more central play to Clinton and no one is making a stink about that.
And that's before you get to the Clinton involvement in a yuuge uranium sale to Russia, which even the New York Times confirmed
(but wrote such a weedy story that you have to read carefully to see that).
2. Carter Page, who was even more peripheral
3. Flynn, again not a central player, plus it appears his bigger sin involved Turkey
4. The conversation with the Russian ambassador, which contrary to the screeching has plenty of precedent (in fact, Nixon and
Reagan did far more serious meddling)
5. The various allegations re Trump real estate and bank loans. Trump did have a really seedy Russian involved in a NYC development.
One should be more worried that the guy was a crook than that he was Russian. Third tier, not even remotely in the oligarch class.
There are also vague allegations re money laundering. The is crap because first, every NYC real estate player has dirty money
in high end projects (see the big expose by the New York Times on the Time Warner Center, developed by the Related Companies,
owned by Steve Ross). But second, the party responsible for checking where the money came from, unless it was wheelbarrows of
cash, is the bank, not the real estate owner. Since the NYT expose there have been efforts to make developers/owners responsible
too, but those aren't germane to Trump since they aren't/weren't in effect.
So please do not provide no value added speculation. If you have something concrete, that would be interesting, but I've been
looking and I've seen nothing of any substance.
Very few condos there are occupied for more than a few days per year, and most of the residents I encountered during my tenure
there were not US citizens.
We were all very entertained when the Times broke the story.
Just FYI, Ross does not own the TWC outright, he only has a stake in the place albeit a sizable one since aquiring TIme Warner's
office/studio unit.
Trump a crook, but not any other oligarchs? The old saying goes something like behind every great fortune is a great crime.
They clean up the image with a few rewrites and something like public office or foundations. The Presidency is Trump's ca-ching.
And the pauses on the promises and the falling in line (bombs away!). He'll be right in the club.
Mr Comey also made some statements recently about Clinton emails and Mr Wiener, statements that seemed to be in need of significant
reinterpretation. That might also have been the cause.
Corporate Government messaging has fallen apart. The description of Anthony Weiner's laptop went from "explosive" to "careless
but not criminal" to "just several" Clinton e-mails on it.
Democrats are generally supported by Wall Street, GOP by military contractors; but, together they are one war party. The new
Saturday Night Massacre shows that with Donald Trump's triumph, the government has split apart into nationalist and globalist
factions. No doubt the James Comey firing buries the Russian interference investigation. However, with the wars in Syria and Afghanistan
re-surging; this episode shows that nothing the government says or the media reports is near the truth.
"... But the political dimension of the dismissal is not about the Clinton email affair at all. It is about the "Russia interfered with the election" nonsense Clinton invented as excuse for her self-inflicted loss of the vote. The whole anti-Trump/anti-Russia campaign run by neocons and "Resistance" democrats, is designed to block the foreign policy - detente with Russia - for which Trump was elected. The anti-Russia inquisition is dangerous groupthink . ..."
"... He could have been sacked early on while the media's attention was focused on Trump's choices to fill the various Cabinet posts. ..."
"... It's likely the world will witness the POTUS get his wings clipped. Mr. Trump has never been confronted with existential adversity, his wealth has always protected him from that prospect. He is now captive in a golden cage of political power and has neither the personal experience, resources nor the capacity to conduct governance. Be prepared to watch Trump's Götterdämmerung. Put a fork in, Trump is done. ..."
"... Curiously I've come to the opposite conclusion: Hillary Clinton is done. Mark my words. ..."
"... This sort of stuff barely registers with me any more, since the one fact we can all rest assured isn't fakey is that long before an apparatchik such as Comey gets anywhere near the top trough, they will have been 'vetted' to ensure that they aren't the type of person to ever place principle ahead of self interest. ..."
"... But The Demorats -> Schumer in tears , Warren in war paint, et al and Snowden! - all have selective memories and are exceptional hypocrites. ..."
"... President Clinton today dismissed William S. Sessions, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who had stubbornly rejected an Administration ultimatum to resign six months after a harsh internal ethics report on his conduct. ..."
"... Who said it will make such a difference who sits in the FBI? A new guy will just show up saying the same stuff Comey have said. Just look at the new leaders at CIA, NSA, same warmongering hysterical stuff as under Obama. ..."
"... Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge says this is one of the biggest headlines out of the hearing today with the FBI director, pointing out that the FBI had found an email was obtained by Russian hackers that indicated that former DOJ hack Loretta Lynch would do everything she could to protect Hillary from prosecution: (VIDEO) ..."
"... Of course Comey wouldn't reveal who sent the email and to whom it was sent. But it sounds like it was sent from someone who worked closely with Lynch, and sent to someone who was very worried about Clinton going down in flames, probably someone very close to Clinton. At the end of the segment, Herridge pointed out that Comey suggested he was boxed in by Lynch and here is what she's talking about:[..] ..."
"... Reminds me of a little passage I read somewhere about a dish served cold. ..."
"... Some wonder why a guy like Trump, who made his bones telling people mano a mano that they were fired on prime time TV, wouldn't have picked up a phone to advise Comey he was done. Comey learned of his dismissal while giving a speech in LA. Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley says that was done so the president's people could access Comey's documents in his office while he was safely out of town. ..."
"... The assault on the wealth of the working classes will continue unabated. Mr. Trump is here to represent the wealthy elites, and is doing a fine job at that. Welcome to the new age of feudalism. ..."
"... Comey also gave immunity to 5 of Hillary's closest aids, including Huma. This insulated Hillary as these people could not be pressured to testify against her. ..."
"... Not to mention, jackrabbit, Hillary was never sworn in during her Saturday interview with the FBI. ..."
"... Trump fires Comey due to his political meddling but ... Trump won't prosecute Clinton about her email server. ..."
"... Clinton's Benghazi was treasonous covering up for Islamic terrorist/email means espionage not electronic mail/Clinton Foundation is treason for hire by the Secretary of State (who ruled America during the Great Interregnum when there was no President, 2009-2117, except when John Kerry was Secretary of State but it was still actually Clinton running things because everyone knows the Secretary of State doesn't make foreign policy) fake scandals were kept alive by Comey to intervene in the US election. (Whether it was his eager doing or he was pressured is irrelevant. ..."
"... Regarding "impromptu meeting b/w Clinton and Lynch on the tarmac", Comey was giving cover "to" Lynch, IMO. "no reasonable prosecutor". He was protecting the deal Lynch had already made with Clintons. ..."
"... Did you by chance listen/watch his testimony last week? If not, I recommend it as must watch especially after his being fired. He added more detail to the email investigation and his thinking at the time. ..."
"... The BBC running a live on Comey's end-of-contract?! Color revo any? Lavrov in Washington, guns for the Kurds, the US going for al-Nusra's head scalp... ..."
"... so treasonable Obama's scumbucket FBI director Comey gets fired. wowie zowie. nevermind the perjury, the obstruction of justice, the accessory to Clinton's sedition... ..."
"... Does Russia interfere in U.S. politics more than Israel does? ..."
"... Yes, caught part of the hearings. Just proved to me that deal was in stone before any tarmac meeting took place. And I bet Comey might not have even known Lynch would expose them so stupidly, how dumb was that. Did a FBI person leaked the meeting to the press?? ..."
"... I've been surprised that Russia doesn't release "white papers" that show what the NED and IRI have done including in places like Russia, Ukraine, and Georgia. ..."
President Trump dismissed the Director of the FBI James Comey on recommendation of the Deputy Attorney General, who had served under
Obama, and the Attorney General. The dismissal and the recommendation memos can be read
here.
Comey is accused of usurping the Attorney General's
authority on several occasions. In July 2016 Comey decided and publicly announced the closing of the Clinton email-investigations
without a recommendation of prosecution. He publicly announced the reopening of the investigation in October only to close it again
a few days later.
At the first closing of the investigation Comey held a press conference and
said:
"our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."
That, by far, exceeded his competency, Since when can a police officer decide how "reasonable" a prosecutor may or may not be,
and make public announcements about that? Clinton's running of a private email server broke several laws. Anyone but she would have
been prosecuted at least for breaching secrecy and security regulations.
It is not the job of the police to decide about prosecutions. The police is an investigating agent of the public prosecutors office.
It can make recommendations about prosecutions but not decide about them. Recommendations are to be kept confidential until they
are decided upon by the relevant authority - the prosecutor. There are additional issues with Comey. His agents used
sting or rather entrapment to lure many hapless
idiots into committing "ISIS terror acts". A full two third of such acts in the U.S. would not have been though about without FBI
help. Comey himself had signed
off on Bush's warrantless wiretapping program.
The formal dismissal of Comey is, in my view, the right thing to do. It should have been done earlier.
But the political dimension of the dismissal is not about the Clinton email affair at all. It is about the "Russia interfered
with the election" nonsense Clinton invented as excuse for her self-inflicted loss of the vote. The whole anti-Trump/anti-Russia
campaign run by neocons and "Resistance" democrats, is designed to block the foreign policy - detente with Russia - for which Trump
was elected. The anti-Russia inquisition is
dangerous groupthink.
There is no evidence - none at all - that Russia "interfered" with the U.S. election. There is no evidence - none at all - that
Russia colluded with the Trump campaign. The Democratic Senator Dianna Feinstein, who sits on the Judiciary Committee as well as
the Select Committee on Intelligence, recently confirmed that publicly
(vid) immediately
after she
had again been briefed by the CIA:
Blitzer mentioned that Feinstein and other colleagues from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence had visited CIA headquarters
on Tuesday to be briefed on the investigation. He then asked Feinstein whether she had evidence, without disclosing
any classified information, that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign.
It would be interesting to know why James Comey was sacked now and not earlier before the "Russia interfered in the elections"
narrative had much chance to damage Trump's presidency. He could have been sacked early on while the media's attention was
focused on Trump's choices to fill the various Cabinet posts.
It's likely the world will witness the POTUS get his wings clipped. Mr. Trump has never been confronted with existential adversity,
his wealth has always protected him from that prospect. He is now captive in a golden cage of political power and has neither
the personal experience, resources nor the capacity to conduct governance. Be prepared to watch Trump's Götterdämmerung. Put a
fork in, Trump is done.
Had Madam Clinton won the election, this would not have been possible. The organisation she headed would have taken immediate
control of all available power bases and would not have created such opportunity for attack.
The next one will be "Operation Gaslight ". The storyline will be that Trump is unstable and needs to be removed by his cabinet.
Trumps many enemies will never stop. There is too much at stake.
All this appointments soap opera is just distraction for the masses. The next appointee will just like Comey, do as he/she is
told.
This sort of stuff barely registers with me any more, since the one fact we can all rest assured isn't fakey is that
long before an apparatchik such as Comey gets anywhere near the top trough, they will have been 'vetted' to ensure that they aren't
the type of person to ever place principle ahead of self interest.
If perchance there was any motive other than inspiring yet more vapid chatter, we can be equally certain that is not going
to rate a mention from any of the hack pols or their media enablers until long after this storm in a teacup has subsided.
Out of curiosity: does anyone know the very first time this was said about Trump? I'm sure we can all agree this much though:
don't hold your breath on it being the last time it's said about Trump..
Recall Trump was written off through the Primaries as he offed 16 candidates. In the election cycle down to the wire HRC had
a 90% chance. Newsweek published edition cover page Madame President. (Dewey anyone?) I dislike that the Trump presidency is a
family affair -- Jared Kushner will be the stick and fork; the second high profile firing that should have been done.
But The Demorats -> Schumer in tears , Warren in war paint, et al and Snowden! - all have selective memories and are exceptional
hypocrites.
Flashback: New York Times - July 19, 1993 -> President William J. Clinton fires FBI Director
WASHINGTON, July 19- President Clinton today dismissed William S. Sessions, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
who had stubbornly rejected an Administration ultimatum to resign six months after a harsh internal ethics report on his conduct.
Mr. Clinton said he would announce his nominee to replace Mr. Sessions on Tuesday. He was expected to pick Judge Louis J.
Freeh of Federal District Court in Manhattan; officials said Judge Freeh had impressed Mr. Clinton favorably on Friday at their
first meeting.
Mr. Clinton, explaining his reasons for removing Mr. Sessions, effective immediately, said, "We cannot have a leadership
vacuum at an agency as important to the United States as the F.B.I. It is time that this difficult chapter in the agency's
history is brought to a close." Defiant to the End
But in a parting news conference at F.B.I. headquarters after Mr. Clinton's announcement, a defiant Mr. Sessions -- his
right arm in a sling as a result of a weekend fall -- railed at what he called the unfairness of his removal, which comes nearly
six years into his 10-year term.
"Because of the scurrilous attacks on me and my wife of 42 years, it has been decided by others that I can no longer be
as forceful as I need to be in leading the F.B.I. and carrying out my responsibilities to the bureau and the nation," he said.
"It is because I believe in the principle of an independent F.B.I. that I have refused to voluntarily resign."
Mr. Clinton said that after reviewing Mr. Sessions's performance, Attorney General Janet Reno had advised him that Mr. Sessions
should go. "After a thorough review by the Attorney General of Mr. Sessions's leadership of the F.B.I., she has reported to
me in no uncertain terms that he can no longer effectively lead the bureau
Despite the President's severe tone, he seemed to regret having to force Mr. Sessions from his post. He said he had hoped
that the issue could be settled at the Justice Department without the necessity of using his authority to dismiss the Director,
who has a 10-year term but may be removed by the President at any time.
But Mr. Sessions's intransigence had festered into an awkward situation for Mr. Clinton.
A Republican stranded in a Democratic Administration, Mr. Sessions was appointed to head the F.B.I. by President Ronald
Reagan in 1987 amid the turmoil of the Iran-contra affair. Mr. Sessions arrived as a respected judge from San Antonio, but
after five and a half years in office, he leaves with his star fallen, his agency adrift and his support at the F.B.I. all
but drained away. Troubled Tenure."[.]
Who said it will make such a difference who sits in the FBI? A new guy will just show up saying the same stuff Comey have
said. Just look at the new leaders at CIA, NSA, same warmongering hysterical stuff as under Obama.
Trump has a bad temper and demonstrates erratic behavior, like Hillary. The handlers keep it covered up until they no longer
keep it covered up. They let it slip that Hillary frequently blew up and used the F word vigorously as she berated her underlings
(which are everyone including Clenis). Trump is, likewise, a genuine asshole. He's not faking that part.
If McCabe is next to go , as he should be , this could represent a significant swamp-draining accomplishment for Trump. Depending
on who replaces them , of course.
The Rosenstein letter provided considerable legitimacy to Trump's move , considering the bipartisan support Rosenstein achieved.
It wouldn't be a bad move for Trump to choose a replacement for Comey that comes with Rosenstein's strong endorsement. A Sessions
endorsement would be about one-half as valuable.
did, 'All this appointments soap opera is just distraction for the masses. ... '
well, amend that to are pushed as a distraction for the masses and i'll certainly agree. there are so many levels at "arms'
length" now that they're really just filling in the alibis for the 'historians' ... schlesinger types who'll connect all the dots
once the deeds are done and show us the tragi-comedy in five acts. the masses are undistracted. people know it's all pure bullshit.
that they're being played and sold down the river. it would be really great if we did something about it. just for the hell of
it.
Obama and Hillary, however, addressed us in whole sentences and presented clearly structured concepts and arguments. Trump spits
out 140-character tweets at us from the early hours of the morning.
I see a keen distinction there.
Posted by: ralphieboy | May 10, 2017 7:23:56 AM | 15
... forgetting, of course, that most politicians (and an only slightly smaller proportion of ordinary folks) start talking,
or writing, or dialing, before they've decided precisely what they intend to say.Trump, and probably Putin, thinks before he communicates.
And if the result isn't worth saying, he shuts up. Same as Putin.
Agree. McCabe should follow Comey out the door. Patience grasshopper, one-at-a- time. If I were Hillary, (thank G-d for small
mercies), after reading Rosenstein's Memo for the Attorney General, I 'd be lawyering up with my wet work gang.
This excerpt is a tell; confirming indeed there was some simmering mutiny within the FBI house. Judge Nap called it.
[..] As you and I have discussed, however, I cannot defend the Director's handling of the conclusion of the investigation of
Secretary Clinton's emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept nearly universal judgement that he was mistaken.
Almost everyone agrees that the Director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives.[.]
Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge says this is one of the biggest headlines out of the hearing today with the FBI director,
pointing out that the FBI had found an email was obtained by Russian hackers that indicated that former DOJ hack Loretta Lynch
would do everything she could to protect Hillary from prosecution: (VIDEO)
Of course Comey wouldn't reveal who sent the email and to whom it was sent. But it sounds like it was sent from someone
who worked closely with Lynch, and sent to someone who was very worried about Clinton going down in flames, probably someone
very close to Clinton.
At the end of the segment, Herridge pointed out that Comey suggested he was boxed in by Lynch and here is what she's talking
about:[..]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
in the district of criminals, (aka D.C.), we find not only a swamp, but a few deep cess-pools.
So Trump includes in his firing letter that he appreciates the fact that Comey told him personally on three separate occasions
that he was not the subject of investigation. What's that doing there?
Some wonder why a guy like Trump, who made his bones telling people mano a mano that they were fired on prime time TV,
wouldn't have picked up a phone to advise Comey he was done. Comey learned of his dismissal while giving a speech in LA. Presidential
historian Douglas Brinkley says that was done so the president's people could access Comey's documents in his office while he
was safely out of town.
The Senate investigation just got started. This business about six months of investigation failing to produce a shred of evidence
and therefore the whole matter should be dropped isn't going to fly. The same people who natter on about how we masses, like mushrooms
kept in the dark and nurtured with bullshit, should disregard all this bafflegab about impropriety also say we should accept their
conclusion that there's nothing to see here and that it's time to move on. That ain't happening.
Senator Al Franken, who's insipid alter-ego George Smiley on Saturday Night Live was the epitome of insecurity, has turned
out to be a formidable poser of very tough questions to anyone unfortunate to be summoned before the senate panel. These senate
guys don't fuck around and will not be stonewalled. We're in for some very interesting television.
Comey will land on his feet in some corporate gig, from whence he came. The only interesting aspect is whether or not his replacement
will restore any smidgen of credibility to the FBI by acting on a basis of law or if the political games will continue. My guess
would be that the plutocracy will see that their candidate is installed as FBI Director and at a minimum this person will remain
at least neutral to the plutocracy's rule, silence being consent. That would be the big big silence on the Clinton criminality
as it is intertwined with plutocratic rule. More of the same only more so as the FBI and co-conspirators keep the plot to assassinate
any public leaders dusted off in case another Martin Luther King, another Occupy movement or some such should arise.
DiD @ 7 said: "All this appointments soap opera is just distraction for the masses. The next appointee will just like Comey, do
as he/she is told."
Well said, an IMO, absolutely spot on.
I think there are people above the Law, history proves that. HRC AND Mr. Trump are part of that group. I fully expect that
nothing will happen to either. As DiD said, " A distraction for the masses( sheep)."
The assault on the wealth of the working classes will continue unabated. Mr. Trump is here to represent the wealthy elites,
and is doing a fine job at that. Welcome to the new age of feudalism.
The musical chairs show in Washington is meaningless. The Democrats hated Comey but now that he's fired they love him because
they can use it to attack Trump. It's all political theatre and should be regarded as such. As others have said, another chump
willing to take orders will replace Comey and will surely carry out the same bad policies at the FBI.
Trump was just in the Oval Office with that imperial criminal punk, Kissinger, ironically, Nixon's NSA and Trump blurted out that
he fired Comey because he wasn't doing a good job.
The pot calling the kettle black is an understatement.
I don't give a damn one way or another who Trumpster fires; what I do give a damn about is abuse of power and manipulation
of the truth and Trump is repeatedly guilty of both.
No such dictatorial power should ever again be vested in that position and in a person who is prone to exceed his competencies.
And that's exactly how I would describe Herr Drumpf, danke!
Here's a great example of integrity. Try it sometime!:
This has nothing to do with Comey incompetence or the man himself. This is only about Trump abusing power as he's been doing
since DAY ONE. He just took it to the next level...that's all!
- Wolf Blitzer was once employed by AIPAC.
- Comey simply stepped on too many (sensitive) toes, both Republican & Democratic. In that regard it was a matter of time that
he was fired. It would have happened as well if Hillary Clinton had been elected to become the new president.
- But I also fear that a new FBI director (as appointed by one Jeff Sessions) will be as rightwing as one Jeff Sessions or even
worse.
Great post, b, and likklemore, your comments are appreciated.
What is troubling to me with all of this is how politicized Obama's Cabinet/team became. It is becoming more and more obvious
his appointments were made to serve him NOT the country and the public is witnessing the fallout from such authoritarian style
of leadership.
Comey is both a victim and beneficiary of this politicization. His testimony last week was more forthcoming than in previous
hearings, but what spoke volumes was his reaction to the impromptu meeting b/w Clinton and Lynch on the tarmac in Arizona. He
suggested his concerns about Lynch being compromised regarding the Clinton email investigation were confirmed during that meeting
while stating it was the last straw so to speak.
This pattern of politicization was obviously meant to continue under Hillary's leadership by cementing a permanent political
class in DC who would serve the president rather than all of us outside of Washington. Some term this as the 'UniParty' - a majority
of R and D's working in tandem to re orient DC machinations into a global governing body.
The neo's - libs and cons - are giddy over resigning the U.S. Constitution and the rest of America's founding papers into the
trash heap of history. Their march toward globalization is hindered by those pesky documents. But what these globalists never
counted on was a Trump win and, more importantly, conservatives gaining power in 28 states, six states shy of holding a Constitutional
Convention.
Now that Hillary lost, Obama and team are pulling together an organizational structure to stave off wins in those six states
while also trying to peel away those few who turned red in 2016.
This is the new political battleground - conservatives fighting for a constitutional convention and neo's fighting to remain
relevant. With Comey being gone, and soon McCabe and et al, the FBI has a shot at shedding the politicization of the department
and returning to its investigative roots.
This is the reason for Robby Mook's 'terrified' comment when learning of Comey's firing. He and his globalist cohorts should
be concerned, but it's Hillary who really needs to be terrified.
Comey also gave immunity to 5 of Hillary's closest aids, including Huma. This insulated Hillary as these people could not
be pressured to testify against her.
Why is it such a big thing? Some people here seems to take talking points from neocon media. He was fired because Trump didnt
have confidence in him, simply as that.
Not sad to see Comey go. I didn't think he was doing a good job, albeit he was put in a position where he had to tread carefully.
I guess he did "ok" with that careful treading. Unsure of Trump's motivations to fire him but not that surprised. As others have
posited here, Clinton would have done the same. Comey was probably at least partially prepared and possibly has a sinecure lined
up as I type this.
IMO, this isn't the worst of Trump's alleged "offenses" by a long shot. It certainly does provide a distraction from all the
other sh*t swirling around Trump, like Kushner selling US citizenships to high priced Chinese gangsters, like Trump's various
cabinet picks arresting citizens for questioning them the "wrong way" or laughing at them, like Trump's decisions to ruin the
environment and give away public lands to his rich pals, like the travesty of TrumpDon'tCare AHCA (which could end up even worse
after the Senate gets done with it - No women on the Senate committee, just great).
Yes a nifty distraction while Trump and his plutocrat cronies rob us all blind. Duly noted the Democrats engage in their own
dog 'n pony sideshow distractions re russia, Russia RUSSIA hysteria. All to avoid having to, you know, DO something about their
own disaster of a corporate-bought-off "party" and avoid having to do one d*mn thing that benefits their traditional constituents,
as opposed to ensuring that their Plutocratic masters are happy.
Every analysis of any current US political events that says anything about Clinton losing the election is deranged or dishonest.
There are no exceptions.
Clinton's Benghazi was treasonous covering up for Islamic terrorist/email means espionage not electronic mail/Clinton Foundation
is treason for hire by the Secretary of State (who ruled America during the Great Interregnum when there was no President, 2009-2117,
except when John Kerry was Secretary of State but it was still actually Clinton running things because everyone knows the Secretary
of State doesn't make foreign policy) fake scandals were kept alive by Comey to intervene in the US election. (Whether it was
his eager doing or he was pressured is irrelevant.) The thing for Comey, and his natural human need to at least pretend to
be a genuine human being, is, the Russia hacks the election is exactly the same kind of fake scandal, something arcane with dark,
dark hints of treason! treason! Comey can't suddenly discover sanity when the BS is flying at Trump, after having vociferously
claimed those were really Clark bars for the years prior.
The OP doesn't quite have the nerve to explain clearly how the supposed loser has the clout to make Comey dish on Trump. Or
the effrontery to clearly avow Benghazi/email server/Clinton cash/pizzagate were all gospel. Nonetheless it is still Trumpery.
Regarding "impromptu meeting b/w Clinton and Lynch on the tarmac", Comey was giving cover "to" Lynch, IMO. "no reasonable
prosecutor". He was protecting the deal Lynch had already made with Clintons.
Just read about Comey history with Clintons. He has been giving them cover a long time.
sl - Yep, I concur. And I think he had to protect whatever deal was agreed to b/w Lynch, Obama and Clinton. I'm not even sure
I'd call it a deal, but rather an order. I'm sure if he didn't adhere there would have been some hefty consequences to pay.
Did you by chance listen/watch his testimony last week? If not, I recommend it as must watch especially after his being
fired. He added more detail to the email investigation and his thinking at the time.
SlapHappy | May 10, 2017 1:12:56 Add to the long list:
Seth Rich, sen. Paul Wellstone, JFK jr, princess Diana, Michael Hastings, mysterious deaths of 9/11 witnesses, Phillip Marshall
with family, Michael Connell, that policeman from the WTC 1993 bombing investigation, Clinton body count, that German press insider,
Gary Webb ...
The BBC running a live on Comey's end-of-contract?! Color revo any? Lavrov in Washington, guns for the Kurds, the US going
for al-Nusra's head scalp...
so treasonable Obama's scumbucket FBI director Comey gets fired. wowie zowie. nevermind the perjury, the obstruction of justice,
the accessory to Clinton's sedition...
there's probably a multi-million dollar book deal in the pipeline. - Trump DOES have some very "interesting" connections to
Russia and some shady Russian persons. But this is the result of his own "wheeling & dealing".
@ h. Yes, caught part of the hearings. Just proved to me that deal was in stone before any tarmac meeting took place. And
I bet Comey might not have even known Lynch would expose them so stupidly, how dumb was that. Did a FBI person leaked the meeting
to the press??
Yep, Rosenstein is a law man. I won't be the slightest bit surprised to learn Grand Jury indictments handed down sometime in
the coming months for Hillary's arrest. Mr. Comey served as an obstacle to the DOJ to prosecute. Now that Sessions/Rosenstein,
both law men, are heading the DOJ nothing will surprise me. Nothing.
Does Russia interfere in the elections and governing institutions of others as much as the US does?
I've been surprised that Russia doesn't release "white papers" that show what the NED and IRI have done including in places
like Russia, Ukraine, and Georgia.
It sounds like Hillary Clinton boxed Comey in – in more ways that just that the meeting Lynch had with Bill Clinton. If that new
email is any indication, she very likely coerced him directly, pushing him to play the 'no intent' defense for Clinton and her aides.
Notable quotes:
"... The first is Comey's unprofessional handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, where he first decided not to prosecute her over the mishandling of classified information and then subsequently revealed to the public that the investigation had been reopened shortly before the election, possibly influencing the outcome. This is a serious matter, as Comey broke with precedent by going public with details of bureau investigations that normally are considered confidential. One might argue that it is certainly an odd assertion for the White House to be making, as the reopening of the investigation undoubtedly helped Trump, but it perhaps should be seen as an attempt to create some kind of bipartisan consensus about Comey having overreached by exposing bureau activities that might well have remained secret. ..."
"... As for the Russians, we are still waiting for the evidence demonstrating that Moscow intended to change the course of the U.S. election. Further investigation will likely not produce anything new, though it will undoubtedly result in considerable political spin to explain what we already know. It is unimaginable that Michael Flynn, for all his failings, agreed to work on behalf of Russian interests, while other names that have surfaced as being of interest in the case were hardly in a position to influence what the Trump administration might agree to do. There is no evidence of any Manchurian Candidate here. ..."
"... I am surprised that Dir. Comey didn't resign on his own terms after the election. The only other issue is it would have been less media convulsive and polite to allow him a graceful resignation and some departure time. ..."
The statements by the White House and Sessions cite two issues. The first is Comey's unprofessional handling of the Hillary Clinton
email investigation, where he first decided not to prosecute her over the mishandling of classified information and then subsequently
revealed to the public that the investigation had been reopened shortly before the election, possibly influencing the outcome. This
is a serious matter, as Comey broke with precedent by going public with details of bureau investigations that normally are considered
confidential. One might argue that it is certainly an odd assertion for the White House to be making, as the reopening of the investigation
undoubtedly helped Trump, but it perhaps should be seen as an attempt to create some kind of bipartisan consensus about Comey having
overreached by exposing bureau activities that might well have remained secret.
The second issue raised by both Sessions and the White House is Comey's inability to "effectively lead the Bureau" given what
has occurred since last summer. That is a legitimate concern. When the Clinton investigation was shelved, there was considerable
dissent in the bureau, with many among the rank-and-file believing that the egregious mishandling of classified information should
have some consequences even if Comey was correct that a prosecution would not produce a conviction.
And the handling of "Russiagate" also angered some experienced agents who believed that the reliance on electronic surveillance
and information derived from intelligence agencies was the wrong way to go. Some called for questioning the Trump-campaign suspects
who had surfaced in the initial phases of the investigation, a move that was vetoed by Comey and his team. It would be safe to say
that FBI morale plummeted as a result, with many junior and mid-level officers leaving their jobs to exploit their security clearances
in the lucrative government contractor business.
There has been considerable smoke about both the Clinton emails and the allegations of Russian interference in last year's election,
but I suspect that there is relatively little fire. As Comey asserted, the attempt to convict a former secretary of state on charges
of mishandling information without any ability to demonstrate intent would be a mistake and would ultimately fail. No additional
investigation will change that reality.
As for the Russians, we are still waiting for the evidence demonstrating that Moscow intended to change the course of the
U.S. election. Further investigation will likely not produce anything new, though it will undoubtedly result in considerable political
spin to explain what we already know. It is unimaginable that Michael Flynn, for all his failings, agreed to work on behalf of Russian
interests, while other names that have surfaced as being of interest in the case were hardly in a position to influence what the
Trump administration might agree to do. There is no evidence of any Manchurian Candidate here.
I believe that the simplest explanation for the firing of Comey is the most likely: Donald Trump doesn't like him much and doesn't
trust him at all. While it is convenient to believe that the FBI director operates independently from the politicians who run the
country, the reality is that he or she works for the attorney general, who in turn works for the president. That is the chain of
command, like it or not. Any U.S. president can insist on a national-security team that he is comfortable with, and if Trump is willing
to take the heat from Congress and the media over the issue he certainly is entitled to do what he must to have someone he can work
with at the FBI.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.
Brian, May 10, 2017 at 10:39 am
Jul 7, 2016 Justice Vs. "Just Us": Of Course the FBI Let Hillary off the Hook. The only thing that surprises me is that anyone
is surprised by this.
"Mr. Comey's appointment will be for an initial three-year term which, subject to re-election by shareholders, will expire
at the conclusion of the 2016 Annual General Meeting."
" . . . but there was a certain inevitability about it given the bureau's clear inability to navigate the troubled political
waters that developed early last summer and have continued ever since."
I am surprised that Dir. Comey didn't resign on his own terms after the election. The only other issue is it would have
been less media convulsive and polite to allow him a graceful resignation and some departure time.
But that he is gone, I think he was surprised only by the manner certainly not the inevitability.
Blind sided by the manner certainly not the course.
Mark Thomason, May 10, 2017 at 12:06 pm
True. But it is also true that NOBODY likes Comey much or trusts him at all. He has no defenders.
Trump has attackers. That is very different. They'd attack him for anything he does, they attack every day. This outrage is
only the latest, and will be repeated at every hint of opportunity.
Here they agree the guy needed to be fired and said themselves that Hillary was going to do it. But Trump did it, and that
is the problem.
Kurt Gayle, May 10, 2017 at 12:46 pm
Please consider the that the explanation for the Comey firing is simpler:
(1) The Deputy Attorney-General is the FBI Director's boss.
(2) Trump's nominee for the position of Deputy Attorney-General, Rod Rosenstein, although nominated on January 13th, was only
confirmed by the Senate on April 25th. Rosenstein took the oath of office the following day, Wednesday, April 26th, two weeks
ago today.
(3) Immediately upon assuming his duties as the Justice Department official directly responsible for the FBI, Mr. Rosenstein
determined that there were major problems concerning the FBI. Rosenstein reported his finding in a letter to his boss, Attorney-General
Sessions:
(4) "Over the past year the FBI's reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire
Department of Justice. That is deeply troubling to many Department employees and veterans, legislators and citizens."
(5) "The director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the
case should be closed without prosecution. It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director
should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors."
(6) "Compounding the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release
derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in
the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously "
(7) "The goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our thoughts at a press conference. The goal is to determine
whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a federal criminal prosecution, then allow a federal prosecutor who exercises
authority delegated by the Attorney General to make a prosecutorial decision, and then – if prosecution is warranted – let the
judge and jury determine the facts."
(8) "Concerning his letter to the Congress on October 28, 2016, the Director cast his decision as a choice between whether
he would 'speak' about the FBI's decision to investigate the newly-discovered email messages or 'conceal' it. 'Conceal' is a loaded
term that misstates the issue. When federal agents and prosecutors quietly open a criminal investigation, we are not concealing
anything; we are simply following the longstanding policy that we refrain from publicizing non-public information. In that context,
silence is not concealment."
(9) "My perspective on these issues is shared by former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General from different eras
and both political parties."
(10) "I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion
of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a
Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the
Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions."
With respect to Deputy Attorney-General Rosenstein's heading of the investigation into possible Russian interference in the
November election, the fact that Mr. Rosenstein would head the investigation (Attorney-General Sessions having recused himself)
was known to the Senate - and the Senate committee questioned him on his views on the matter - for a full week before the Senate
confirmed Mr. Rosenstein by a 94-6 vote.
MM, May 10, 2017 at 1:00 pm
I'm pleased to see this vociferous call by high-level Democratic officials for a U.S. Independent Counsel to investigate this
matter. It's a relief that these same officials are taking this stance from a position of principled consistency, as they were
the loudest in calling for independent investigations of the previous administration's questionable activities.
For example: NSA mass domestic surveillance, gun-running and associated false statements to Congress, IRS targeting of conservative
groups, and influence peddling in the State Department under Secretary Clinton, all of which the Justice Department at the time
was either directly involved in or responsible for burying any serious inquiries
Ellimist000, May 10, 2017 at 2:55 pm
MM,
"NSA mass domestic surveillance, gun-running and associated false statements to Congress, IRS targeting of conservative groups,
and influence peddling in the State Department under Secretary Clinton "
You're not wrong, but the reason nothing happened was that stuff of this nature has gone on from both sides since the Cold
War started (different names and techniques, of course). If you really wanted the Dems to suddenly see the light, under the 1st
black president no less, then I hope you are awaiting the GOP's ethics censure on Trump with great anticipation
Otto Zeit, May 10, 2017 at 4:02 pm
What baffles me is, why would the Democrats want the "Russiagate" inquiry to be left in the hands of a man who has already
shown himself to be blown by the winds of political partisanship?
MM, May 10, 2017 at 4:17 pm
Ellimist000,
I'd love to see any President censured by Congress, for anything, especially by his or her own party. But even that won't cause
the Hypocritical Old Party to see the light. The universal philosophy in a 2-party system like this one is to 1) never admit any
wrongdoing of one's own nor hold any objective ethical standard of behavior; and 2) declare the other party pure evil, all the
time.
"... The only way the people were ever going to believe in your system, was (and is) when you brought all of this Clinton email stuff before a grand jury and actually called it what it was and laid real charges!! ..."
"... When he laid out the case of everything Hillary did wrong in protecting classified information on her private server and then had the gumption to say that no "reasonable prosecutor" would take the case, I knew the fix was in. ..."
The only way the people were ever going to believe in your system, was (and is) when you
brought all of this Clinton email stuff before a grand jury and actually called it what it was
and laid real charges!!
Comey was paid off somehow or maybe he was blackmailed with a picture of him wearing a dress.
I'm not sure how.
When he laid out the case of everything Hillary did wrong in protecting
classified information on her private server and then had the gumption to say that no "reasonable
prosecutor" would take the case, I knew the fix was in.
On Wednesday the
American conservative non-partisan watchdog group released 1,184 pages of State
Department records including "previously unreleased" Hillary Clinton emails.
The watchdog specified that the emails were obtained through a Freedom
of Information Act lawsuit.
Judicial Watch's
press release
published on its website reveals that the records include 29
previously undisclosed Clinton's emails "of a total of which is now at least 288
emails that were not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to
the State Department."
"This further appears to contradict statements by [Hillary]
Clinton that, 'as far as she knew,' all of her government emails were turned over to
the State Department," the watchdog said.
For instance, back in February 2010, Jake Sullivan, then-Deputy Chief of Staff
to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sent information concerning former
Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed to Clinton's and deputy chief of staff Huma
Abedin's unsecure email accounts.
This email exchange has been classified by the State Department as information "to
be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy; foreign
relations or foreign activities of the US, including confidential sources."
Yet another email containing classified information was forwarded by Hillary
Clinton to Abedin's unsecure email account April 8, 2010.
The
original email
addressed to Sid Blumenthal and entitled "Change of Government
in Kyrgyzstan," apparently discloses the US State Department's role in the Kyrgyz
regime change in April 2010.
Blumenthal's source informed him that he/she had "worked
in the Kyrgyz Republic continuously since 1991" and "became acquainted with each
of the three Kyrgyz leaders" including Kyrgyz diplomat Roza Otunbayeva. The source
provided Blumenthal with detailed characteristics of Otunbayeva, explaining why she
was "selected" by the Kyrgyz opposition.
The source cited the opposition's doubts that Otunbayeva "can be a successful
candidate for president especially given her weak performance in prior elections
to parliament."
"It is stressed that her prospects increase as relations with foreign powers are
seen as problematic, since she alone among the opposition figures is viewed as having
the stature and skills necessary to cope with difficult foreign affairs problems,"
the source wrote.
In conclusion the redacted email reads that "all of this
suggests the necessity for the State Department to assert itself and take the lead
in developing relations with the new government."
The emails exposed that Doug Band, a former adviser to ex-president Bill Clinton
forwarded Abedin a request for help from Philip Levine, presumably the mayor of Miami
Beach. What is more interesting is that Levine had reportedly been a fundraiser
for the Clintons since the 1990s, the watchdog remarked.
In his
interviews with Sputnik
investigative journalist and Wall Street analyst Charles
Ortel, who is currently involved in a private inquiry into the Clinton Foundation's
alleged fraud, highlighted that Hillary Clinton has long been criticized for her
apparent use of "pay-for-play" schemes.
"These emails are yet more evidence of Hillary Clinton's
casual and repeated violations of laws relating to the handling of classified
information. The Justice Department should finally begin an independent investigation
into the Clinton email matter," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton stated.
There are cliques of employees in all these govt agencies who have political and religious views just like the rest of the
world, except they have access to spy satellites, phone tapping, and every other spy tool just like Snowden tried to expose. Finally
after watching the evil satan worshipping liberals for all these years use these tool to further the NWO thru clintons and hussein,
the patriot Christian conservative side is finally leaking info they have access to to TRUMP and he is able to fight back a little.
THis is good versus evil, no doubt in my mind. Choose this day whom you will serve. Especially you crossroad demon from hell.
Still waiting for any evidence to appear that Russians interfered with the elections or colluded with Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... The FBI did wiretap Trump Tower to monitor Russian activity, but it had nothing to do with the 2016 Presidential election, it has been reported. ..."
"... The Dems who were all for collecting on everyone can't (non-hypocritically) complain about Trump having all that now. I mean, we can never know how far the extremist have penetrated into our government unless we trace where all that Saudi money terrorist influence goes. ..."
"... The surveillance state bites the politicians that created it in the ass. I love that. They are not happy, I love that too. ..."
"... It was already a farce when McCain went after Paul. Though it was, before that, a horror film, with the 'ways the intelligence community can get you.' ..."
"... It is a satire, wrapped in a parody, hidden in slapstick, on top of a farce, buried in a bro-mance between a man with a tower and another man riding a horse without a shirt (and the man isn't wearing a shirt either .) ..."
"... Revealing this is treason. ..."
"... People will die. ..."
"... I agree that everybody is surveilled all the time, especially in the Beltway, where probably there are multiple simultaneous operations run against . well, everybody. ..."
There's also
this showing evidence that Trump Tower was specifically monitored during the Obama administration, although the probe was targeting
Russian mafia and not Trump and was done well before he declared his candidacy.
The FBI did wiretap Trump Tower to monitor Russian activity, but it had nothing to do with the 2016 Presidential election,
it has been reported.
Between 2011 and 2013 the Bureau had a warrant to spy on a high-level criminal Russian money-laundering ring, which operated
in unit 63A of the iconic skyscraper - three floors below Mr Trump's penthouse.
Not exactly a confirmation of Trump's rather wild claims, but something. Still waiting for any evidence to appear that
Russians interfered with the elections or colluded with Trump.
Ok, so they were just after the Russian mafia, phew I feel better already. So they got the felons and they are all arrested?
What utter BS! Why is Semion Mogilevitch still at large in Hungary and no extradition process? What about Felix Sater and Steve
Wynn and on and on. Why are they incapable of prosecuting mafia mobsters and instead chasing politicians?
That said, it was what happening potentially to all citizens, not just Donald Trump. I dislike this intensely, but why should
Trump get special dispensation over other citizens? Would like to know the reason for that.
Like Watergate, it's really about the denial or the lying. "When did you know about the, er, collecting?" For how many
days have we ridiculed Trump for his alternative universe imagination?
> He can join the other 310 million of us who can be "incidentally collected".
Didn't your mother tell you that 310 million wrongs don't make a right? Neither party establishment cares about that
quaint concept, civil liberties. If Obama's flip flip on FISA reform in July 2008, giving the Telco's retroactive immunity for
Bush's warrantless surveillance, didn't convince you, then his 17-city paramilitary crackdown on Occupy should have.
Not to mention monitoring a politician opens up a whole new can of worms. I'm convinced Trump must pretty clean relatively
because the IC hasn't gotten rid of him yet and you know they have all of his communications.
I'm with Lambert on neither party caring. I knew all I needed to when Obama voted for FISA and the following years just reinforced
how corrupt the Dems were. There is an import point here though. I don't think Trump would have thought that all of the surveillance
would be applied to him personally. It was just about other people. It was probably a legitimate eye opener. Now Trump is at the
head of the surveillance apparatus. Instead of asking Wikileaks to release all of Clintons emails, he should just do it himself.
The Dems who were all for collecting on everyone can't (non-hypocritically) complain about Trump having all that now. I
mean, we can never know how far the extremist have penetrated into our government unless we trace where all that Saudi
money terrorist influence goes.
Not just incidental, in Congressional hearings, Comey flat out says that Trump and his team were investigated for Russian connections,
and that none were found. The question now is was the investigations properly secured or not. Something completely in the air.
But team Dem is still playing the "wire tap" canad.
It is a satire, wrapped in a parody, hidden in slapstick, on top of a farce, buried in a bro-mance between a man with a
tower and another man riding a horse without a shirt (and the man isn't wearing a shirt either .)
Ordinary Internet users, American and non-American alike, far outnumber legally targeted foreigners in the communications
intercepted by the National Security Agency from U.S. digital networks, according to a four-month investigation by The Washington
Post.
Nine of 10 account holders found in a large cache of intercepted conversations, which former NSA contractor Edward Snowden
provided in full to The Post, were not the intended surveillance targets but were caught in a net the agency had cast for somebody
else.
And what was the reaction of many Congresspersons
(including many Dems, and all of the GOP except maybe Rand Paul and Justin Amash)? Revealing this is treason. People will die.
And Trump's CIA Director, Mike Pompeo, has called for Snowden's execution.
Sorry allan – I got all excited at seeing a Nunes article in ZeroHedge and posted a comment – your article is better and it
makes for more coherent comment threads to keep them together – I should have looked before I leaped (posted).
Nunes: "I recently confirmed that, on numerous occasions, the Intelligence Community incidentally collected information about
U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition.
Details about U.S. persons associated with the incoming administration-details with little or no apparent foreign intelligence
value-were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting.
I have confirmed that additional names of Trump transition team members were unmasked.
To be clear, none of this surveillance was related to Russia or any investigation of Russian activities or of the Trump team."
==============================================
So the worm turns. The hypocrisy espoused by all sides is ..well, 11th dimensional.
fresno dan, this was a major topic of discussion during the committee hearing with Comey and Rogers on Monday. I listened to
the whole thing – all five hours and 18 minutes' worth – because I suspected that the corporate media would omit important details
or spin it beyond recognition. And so they did.
The bipartisan divide is being portrayed as Democrats wanting to get to the truth of Russian efforts to snuff out Democracy,
and Republicans wanting to "plug leaks" (see Lambert's RCP except above), with some reports suggesting the Rs are advocating stifling
free speech, prosecuting reporters for publishing classified information, and the like.
Republican committee members were indeed focused on the leaks, and there was talk about how to prevent them, but their concern
– at least as they expressed publicly on Monday – was specifically related to whether all those current and former officials,
senior officials, etc., quoted anonymously in the NYT and WaPo (the infamous "nine current and former officials, who were in senior
positions at multiple agencies") violated FISA provisions protecting information about U.S. persons collected incidentally in
surveillance of foreign actors.
Sure, they're playing their own game, and it could be a ruse to divert attention from the Trump campaign's alleged Russian
ties or simply to have ammo against the Ds. Even so, after listening to all their arguments, I believe they are on more solid
ground than all the Dem hysteria about Russian aggression and Trump camp treason.
I don't think I'll ever get Trey Gowdy's cringe-worthy performance during the Benghazi hearings out of my head, but he made
some pretty good points on Monday, one of which was that investigating Russian interference and possible ties between Trump advisers
and Russia is all well and good, but there may or may not have been any laws broken; whereas leaking classified information about
U.S. citizens collected incidentally under FISA is clearly a felony with up to 10 years. Comey confirmed that by saying that ALL
information collected under FISA is classified.
And then he repeatedly refused to say whether he thought any classified information had been leaked or existed at all (I counted
more than 100 "no comment" answers from Comey, who astonishingly managed to find 50 different ways to say it).
My beef isn't so much the leak of classified information, but the gross dereliction of duty – if not outright abuse of First
Amendment powers – by reporters who collaborate with intelligence agencies and then quote them anonymously, giving everyone cover
to say or write whatever they want with zero accountability.
In fact, there were some interesting comments in Monday's hearing about the possibility that some of what has been reported
was fabricated. Then, you might expect Comey to say something like that. For all his talk about not tolerating leaks from his
agency, blahblah, it was clear that he'll provide his own people with cover, if necessary. I think that's what Gowdy and a couple
other Republicans were getting at.
It goes without saying, but I'll add that the Dems were hardly even trying to disguise their real goal, which isn't protecting
the American People® from the evil Russkies, but taking down Trump.
Thanks for watching the whole thing – the nation owes you a debt of gratitude.
"My beef isn't so much the leak of classified information, but the gross dereliction of duty – if not outright abuse of First
Amendment powers – by reporters who collaborate with intelligence agencies and then quote them anonymously, giving everyone cover
to say or write whatever they want with zero accountability."
First, I a squillion percent agree with you. This is a big, bit deal because essentially the military/IC/neocons is trying
to wrest control of the civilian government – the idea that the CIA is some noble institution that wants the best for all Americans
is preposterous, yet accepted by the media, which proves how much propaganda we are fed. The sheep like following, the mandatory
use of the adjective "murderous thug" before the name of "Putin" just shows that most of the media has been bought off or has
lost all their critical thinking faculties.
But I also don't want to be a hypocrite so I will explain that I don't have too much of a problem with leaks. WHAT I do have
a problem with is the purposeful naivete or ignorance of the media that the CIA and/or facets of the Obama administration is trying
to thwart rapprochement with Russia. Administrations BEFORE they are sworn in talk to foreign governments – the sheer HYSTERIA,
the CRIME of talking to a Russian is beyond absurd. We are being indoctrinated to believe all Russia, all bad
There is a ton of information about Podesta and the Clintons dealing with Russia for money. If Flynn and whatshisname are just
grifting that is pedestrian stuff and everybody in Washington does it (I thing they call it "lobbying"). If there is REAL treason
something should have come out by now.
I began covering congressional hearings while I was still in j-school and sat though many like this during my years as a reporter
in D.C. Even though I haven't worked as a full-time journalist for many years, I still prefer original sources and am willing
to take the time to dig for them or, in this case, to sit through a hearing as though I were covering it as a member of the press
– especially when I don't even have to wash my hair or get dressed!
I didn't mean to imply that I have a problem with leaks. I certainly encouraged enough of them in my time, and I don't think
there's anything inherently wrong with publishing leaked material, even certain kinds of classified information. It depends.
There's the kind of "classified" information that is restricted expressly to keep the public from knowing something they have
a right to know, and there's information that's classified to protect individual privacy. The first kind should be leaked early
and often. The second kind, close to never (and off the top of my head I can't think of an instance when it would be OK).
Even though journalists aren't (and shouldn't be) held liable for publishing classified information given to them by a third
party, they need to be scrupulous in their decisions to do so. Is it in the public interest? Who or what might be harmed? Would
sitting on the information cause more harm than publicizing it? Does it violate someone's constitutional rights?
These questions can get tricky with someone like Flynn, who's clearly a public figure and thus mostly fair game. However, if
I had been reporting that story, I think I would have sat on it until I had more information, even at the risk of getting scooped
– unless, of course, I was in cahoots with the leakers and out to get him and his boss.
At that point, I am no longer an objective journalist committed to fair and accurate reporting, but a participant in a political
cause. Although newspapers throughout history have taken sides, and pure "fact-based" journalism is a myth, there's a big difference
between having an editorial slant and being an active participant in the story. Evidently, BezPo has decided that the latter is
not only acceptable, but advantageous.
Sorry, didn't mean to ramble on when I'm likely preaching to the converted. I feel very strongly about this issue, and it's
disconcerting to me, as a lifelong Democrat, that I agreed more with the Republicans in that hearing. At the same time, the D's
propaganda machine is pumping out so much toxic fog that it's shaking my faith in unfettered freedom of the press.
> I began covering congressional hearings while I was still in j-school and sat though many like this during my years as a
reporter in D.C. Even though I haven't worked as a full-time journalist for many years, I still prefer original sources and am
willing to take the time to dig for them
I agree that everybody is surveilled all the time, especially in the Beltway, where probably there are multiple simultaneous
operations run against . well, everybody.
It doesn't, er, bug me that 70-year-old Beltway neophyte Trump used sloppy language - "wiretap" - to describe this state of
affairs. (I don't expect any kind of language from Trump but sloppy.) All are, therefore one is. It does bug me that
the whole discussion gets dragged off into legal technicalities about what legal regimen is appropriate for which form of Fourth
Amendment-destruction (emptywheel does this a lot). The rules are insanely complicated, and it's fun to figure them out, rather
like taking the cover off the back of a Swiss watch and examining all the moving parts. But the assumption is that people follow
the rules, and especially that high-level people (like, say, Comey, or Clapper, or Morrel, or Obama) follow the complicated rules.
That assumes facts not in evidence.
Incidental collection was always a likely scenario.
We've also seen statements from people like GHCQ that clains they surveilled Trump at Obama's behest were "absurd," but those
are non-denial denials. I can't recall a denial denial. Am I missing something?
The conclusion from 'no mens rea' implies "simple
negligence", simple negligence only applies to GS 3's. The
managers and the experience are held to a higher standard.
If it was 'no mens rea' then she was neither qualified nor
experienced, she is no accountable.
Which may be okay for crooks in the swamp needing drained.
What she did with "bathroom email server" is worse then a
crime. It is a blunder. Which disqualifies Hillary (and her
close entourage) for any government position.
The level of incompetence and arrogance demonstrated is
just astounding. Actually it is not astounding. It is
incredible. I can't believe that a person with Yale law
degree can be so hopelessly stupid and arrogant.
"... In any event, it was "intercepts" leaked from deep in the bowels of the CIA to the Washington Post and then amplified in a 24/7 campaign by the War Channel (CNN) that brought General Flynn down. ..."
"... But here's the thing. They were aiming at Donald J. Trump. And for all of his puffed up bluster about being the savviest negotiator on the planet, the Donald walked right into their trap, as we shall amplify momentarily. ..."
"... But let's first make the essence of the matter absolutely clear. The whole Flynn imbroglio is not about a violation of the Logan Act owing to the fact that the general engaged in diplomacy as a private citizen. ..."
"... It's about re-litigating the 2016 election based on the hideous lie that Trump stole it with the help of Vladimir Putin. In fact, Nancy Pelosi was quick to say just that: ..."
"... 'The American people deserve to know the full extent of Russia's financial, personal and political grip on President Trump and what that means for our national security,' House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a press release. ..."
"... And Senator Graham, the member of the boobsey twins who ran for President in 2016 while getting a GOP primary vote from virtually nobody, made clear that General Flynn's real sin was a potential peace overture to the Russians: ..."
"... We say good riddance to Flynn, of course, because he was a shrill anti-Iranian warmonger. But let's also not be fooled by the clinical term at the heart of the story. That is, "intercepts" mean that the Deep State taps the phone calls of the President's own closest advisors as a matter of course. ..."
"... As one writer for LawNewz noted regarding acting Attorney General Sally Yates' voyeuristic pre-occupation with Flynn's intercepted conversations, Nixon should be rolling in his grave with envy: ..."
"... Yes, that's the same career apparatchik of the permanent government that Obama left behind to continue the 2016 election by other means. And it's working. The Donald is being rapidly emasculated by the powers that be in the Imperial City due to what can only be described as an audacious and self-evident attack on Trump's Presidency by the Deep State. ..."
"... Indeed, the paper details an apparent effort by Yates to misuse her office to launch a full-scale secret investigation of her political opponents, including 'intercepting calls' of her political adversaries. ..."
"... Yet on the basis of the report's absolutely zero evidence and endless surmise, innuendo and "assessments", the Obama White House imposed another round of its silly school-boy sanctions on a handful of Putin's cronies. ..."
"... Of course, Flynn should have been telling the Russian Ambassador that this nonsense would be soon reversed! ..."
"... But here is the ultimate folly. The mainstream media talking heads are harrumphing loudly about the fact that the very day following Flynn's call -- Vladimir Putin announced that he would not retaliate against the new Obama sanctions as expected; and shortly thereafter, the Donald tweeted that Putin had shown admirable wisdom. ..."
"... That's right. Two reasonably adult statesman undertook what might be called the Christmas Truce of 2016. But like its namesake of 1914 on the bloody no man's land of the western front, the War Party has determined that the truce-makers shall not survive. ..."
General Flynn's tenure in the White House was only slightly longer than that of President-elect
William Henry Harrison in 1841. Actually, with just 24 days in the White House, General Flynn's tenure
fell a tad short of old "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too". General Harrison actually lasted 31 days before
getting felled by pneumonia.
And the circumstances were considerably more benign. It seems that General Harrison had a fondness
for the same "firewater" that agitated the native Americans he slaughtered at the famous battle memorialized
in his campaign slogan. In fact, during the campaign a leading Democrat newspaper skewered the old
general, who at 68 was the oldest US President prior to Ronald Reagan, saying:
Give him a barrel of hard [alcoholic] cider, and a pension of two thousand [dollars] a year
and he will sit the remainder of his days in his log cabin.
That might have been a good idea back then (or even now), but to prove he wasn't infirm, Harrison
gave the longest inaugural address in US history (2 hours) in the midst of seriously inclement weather
wearing neither hat nor coat.
That's how he got pneumonia! Call it foolhardy, but that was nothing compared to that exhibited
by Donald Trump's former national security advisor.
General Flynn got the equivalent of political pneumonia by talking for hours during the transition
to international leaders, including Russia's ambassador to the US, on phone lines which were bugged
by the CIA Or more accurately, making calls which were "intercepted" by the very same NSA/FBI spy
machinery that monitors every single phone call made in America.
Ironically, we learned what Flynn should have known about the Deep State's plenary surveillance
from Edward Snowden. Alas, Flynn and Trump wanted the latter to be hung in the public square as a
"traitor", but if that's the solution to intelligence community leaks, the Donald is now going to
need his own rope factory to deal with the flood of traitorous disclosures directed against him.
In any event, it was "intercepts" leaked from deep in the bowels of the CIA to the Washington
Post and then amplified in a 24/7 campaign by the War Channel (CNN) that brought General Flynn down.
But here's the thing. They were aiming at Donald J. Trump. And for all of his puffed up bluster
about being the savviest negotiator on the planet, the Donald walked right into their trap, as we
shall amplify momentarily.
But let's first make the essence of the matter absolutely clear. The whole Flynn imbroglio
is not about a violation of the Logan Act owing to the fact that the general engaged in diplomacy
as a private citizen.
It's about re-litigating the 2016 election based on the hideous lie that Trump stole it with
the help of Vladimir Putin. In fact, Nancy Pelosi was quick to say just that:
'The American people deserve to know the full extent of Russia's financial, personal and political
grip on President Trump and what that means for our national security,' House Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi said in a press release.
Yet, we should rephrase. The re-litigation aspect reaches back to the Republican primaries, too.
The Senate GOP clowns who want a war with practically everybody, John McCain and Lindsey Graham,
are already launching their own investigation from the Senate Armed Services committee.
And Senator Graham, the member of the boobsey twins who ran for President in 2016 while getting
a GOP primary vote from virtually nobody, made clear that General Flynn's real sin was a potential
peace overture to the Russians:
Sen. Lindsey Graham also said he wants an investigation into Flynn's conversations with a Russian
ambassador about sanctions: "I think Congress needs to be informed of what actually Gen. Flynn said
to the Russian ambassador about lifting sanctions," the South Carolina Republican told CNN's Kate
Bolduan on "At This Hour. And I want to know, did Gen. Flynn do this by himself or was he directed
by somebody to do it?"
We say good riddance to Flynn, of course, because he was a shrill anti-Iranian warmonger.
But let's also not be fooled by the clinical term at the heart of the story. That is, "intercepts"
mean that the Deep State taps the phone calls of the President's own closest advisors as a matter
of course.
This is the real scandal as Trump himself has rightly asserted. The very idea that the already
announced #1 national security advisor to a President-elect should be subject to old-fashion "bugging,"
albeit with modern day technology, overwhelmingly trumps the utterly specious Logan Act charge at
the center of the case.
As one writer for LawNewz noted regarding acting Attorney General Sally Yates' voyeuristic
pre-occupation with Flynn's intercepted conversations, Nixon should be rolling in his grave with
envy:
Now, information leaks that Sally Yates knew about surveillance being conducted against
potential members of the Trump administration, and disclosed that information to others. Even
Richard Nixon didn't use the government agencies themselves to do his black bag surveillance operations.
Sally Yates involvement with this surveillance on American political opponents, and possibly the
leaking related thereto, smacks of a return to Hoover-style tactics. As writers at Bloomberg and
The Week both noted, it wreaks of 'police-state' style tactics. But knowing dear Sally as I do,
it comes as no surprise.
Yes, that's the same career apparatchik of the permanent government that Obama left behind
to continue the 2016 election by other means. And it's working. The Donald is being rapidly emasculated
by the powers that be in the Imperial City due to what can only be described as an audacious and
self-evident attack on Trump's Presidency by the Deep State.
Indeed, it seems that the layers of intrigue have gotten so deep and convoluted that the nominal
leadership of the permanent government machinery has lost track of who is spying on whom. Thus, we
have the following curious utterance by none other than the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee,
Rep. Devin Nunes:
'I expect for the FBI to tell me what is going on, and they better have a good answer,' he told
The Washington Post. 'The big problem I see here is that you have an American citizen who had his
phone calls recorded.'
Well, yes. That makes 324 million of us, Congressman.
But for crying out loud, surely the oh so self-important chairman of the House intelligence committee
knows that everybody is bugged. But when it reaches the point that the spy state is essentially using
its unconstitutional tools to engage in what amounts to "opposition research" with the aim of election
nullification, then the Imperial City has become a clear and present danger to American democracy
and the liberties of the American people.
As Robert Barnes of LawNewz further explained, Sally Yates, former CIA director John Brennan and
a large slice of the Never Trumper intelligence community were systematically engaged in "opposition
research" during the campaign and the transition:
According to published reports, someone was eavesdropping, and recording, the conversations of
Michael Flynn, while Sally Yates was at the Department of Justice. Sally Yates knew about this eavesdropping,
listened in herself (Pellicano-style for those who remember the infamous LA cases), and reported
what she heard to others. For Yates to have such access means she herself must have been involved
in authorizing its disclosure to political appointees, since she herself is such a political appointee.
What justification was there for an Obama appointee to be spying on the conversations of a future
Trump appointee?
Consider this little tidbit in
The Washington Post . The paper, which once broke Watergate, is now propagating the benefits
of Watergate-style surveillance in ways that do make Watergate look like a third-rate effort. (With
the) FBI 'routinely' monitoring conversations of Americans...... Yates listened to 'the intercepted
call,' even though Yates knew there was 'little chance' of any credible case being made for prosecution
under a law 'that has never been used in a prosecution.'
And well it hasn't been. After all, the Logan Act was signed by President John Adams in 1799 in
order to punish one of Thomas Jefferson's supporters for having peace discussions with the French
government in Paris. That is, it amounted to pre-litigating the Presidential campaign of 1800 based
on sheer political motivation.
According to the Washington Post itself, that is exactly what Yates and the Obama holdovers did
day and night during the interregnum:
Indeed, the paper details an apparent effort by Yates to misuse her office to launch a full-scale
secret investigation of her political opponents, including 'intercepting calls' of her political
adversaries.
So all of the feigned outrage emanating from Democrats and the Washington establishment about
Team Trump's trafficking with the Russians is a cover story. Surely anyone even vaguely familiar
with recent history would have known there was absolutely nothing illegal or even untoward about
Flynn's post-Christmas conversations with the Russian Ambassador.
Indeed, we recall from personal experience the thrilling moment on inauguration day in January
1981 when word came of the release of the American hostages in Tehran. Let us assure you, that did
not happen by immaculate diplomatic conception -- nor was it a parting gift to the Gipper by the
outgoing Carter Administration.
To the contrary, it was the fruit of secret negotiations with the Iranian government during the
transition by private American citizens. As the history books would have it because it's true, the
leader of that negotiation, in fact, was Ronald Reagan's national security council director-designate,
Dick Allen.
As the real Washington Post later reported, under the by-line of a real reporter, Bob Woodward:
Reagan campaign aides met in a Washington DC hotel in early October, 1980, with a self-described
'Iranian exile' who offered, on behalf of the Iranian government, to release the hostages to Reagan,
not Carter, in order to ensure Carter's defeat in the November 4, 1980 election.
The American participants were Richard Allen, subsequently Reagan's first national security adviser,
Allen aide Laurence Silberman, and Robert McFarlane, another future national security adviser who
in 1980 was on the staff of Senator John Tower (R-TX).
To this day we have not had occasion to visit our old friend Dick Allen in the US penitentiary
because he's not there; the Logan Act was never invoked in what is surely the most blatant case ever
of citizen diplomacy.
So let's get to the heart of the matter and be done with it. The Obama White House conducted a
sour grapes campaign to delegitimize the election beginning November 9th and it was led by then CIA
Director John Brennan.
That treacherous assault on the core constitutional matter of the election process culminated
in the ridiculous Russian meddling report of the Obama White House in December. The latter, of course,
was issued by serial liar James Clapper, as national intelligence director, and the clueless Democrat
lawyer and bag-man, Jeh Johnson, who had been appointed head of the Homeland Security Department.
Yet on the basis of the report's absolutely zero evidence and endless surmise, innuendo and
"assessments", the Obama White House imposed another round of its silly school-boy sanctions on a
handful of Putin's cronies.
Of course, Flynn should have been telling the Russian Ambassador that this nonsense would
be soon reversed!
But here is the ultimate folly. The mainstream media talking heads are harrumphing loudly
about the fact that the very day following Flynn's call -- Vladimir Putin announced that he would
not retaliate against the new Obama sanctions as expected; and shortly thereafter, the Donald tweeted
that Putin had shown admirable wisdom.
That's right. Two reasonably adult statesman undertook what might be called the Christmas
Truce of 2016. But like its namesake of 1914 on the bloody no man's land of the western front, the
War Party has determined that the truce-makers shall not survive.
We haven't had deep state (successfully) take out a President since JFK. I am sure they will
literally be gunning for Donald Trump! His election screwed up the elite's world order plans ...
poor Soros ... time for him to take a dirt knap!
Be careful Trump! They will try and kill you! The United States government is COMPLETELY corrupt.
Draining the swamp means its either you or they die!
Let us help Trump's presidency to make America (not globalist) great again.
Not only democrats rigged Primary to elect Clinton as presidential candidate last year even
though she has poor judgement (violating government cyber security policy) and is incompetent
(her email server was not secured) when she was the Secretary of State, and was revealed to be
corrupt by Bernie Sanders during the Primary, but also democrats encourage illegal immigration,
discourage work, and "conned" young voters with free college/food/housing/health care/Obama phone.
Democratic government employees/politicians also committed crimes to leak classified information
which caused former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn losing his job and undermined Trump's
presidency.
However middle/working class used their common senses voting against Clinton last November.
Although I am not a republican and didn't vote in primary but I voted for Trump and those Republicans
who supported Trump in last November since I am not impressed with the "integrity" and "judgement"
of democrats, Anti-Trump protesters, Anti-Trump republicans, and those media who endorsed Clinton
during presidential election and they'll work for globalists, the super rich, who moved jobs/investment
overseas for cheap labor/tax and demanded middle/working class to pay tax to support welfare of
illegal aliens and refugees who will become globalist's illegal voters and anti-Trump protesters.
To prevent/detect voter fraud, "voter ID" and "no mailing ballots" must be enforced to reduce
possible "voter frauds on a massive scale" committed by democratic/republic/independent party
operatives. All the sanctuary counties need to be recounted and voided county votes if recount
fails since the only county which was found to count one vote many times is the only "Sanctuary"
county, Wayne county, in recount states (Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin) last year. The
integrity of voting equipment and voting system need to be tested, protected and audited. There
were no voting equipment stuck to Trump. Yet, many voting equipment were found to switch votes
to Clinton last November. Voter databases need to be kept current. Encourage reporting of "voter
fraud on a massive scale" committed by political party operatives with large reward.
Trump knows whats coming. Rush Limbaugh said "I've known Trump for a long time, he is a winner
and I am sure none of this phases him at all. The media didn't create him, the media can't destroy
him."
Flynn has been there for several years. If he was such a threat why did they not take action
sooner since Soweeto appointed him in 2012? It must be that Soweto Obama is his spy buddy then,
both of them in league with the Russians since Obama has been with Flynn for a much longer time
he had to know if something was up.
The entire Russian spy story is a complete Fake news rouse.
I am wondering what they'll say tomorrow to draw attention awya form the muslim riots in Sweden.
If the news of Muslim riots in Sweden, then Trump will be even more vindicated and the MSM will
look even more stupid and Fake.
The Deep State has accentually lost control of the Intelligence Community via its Agents /
Operatives & Presstitute Media vehicle's to Gas Light the Masses.
So what Criminals at large Obama, Clapper & Lynch have done 17 days prior to former CEO Criminal
Obama leaving office was to Decentralize & weaken the NSA. As a result, Intel gathering was then
regulated to the other 16 Intel Agencies.
Thus, taking Centuries Old Intelligence based on a vey stringent Centralized British Model,
De Centralized it, filling the remaining 16 Intel Agenices with potential Spies and a Shadow Deep
State Mirror Government.
All controlled from two blocks away at Pure Evil Criminal War Criminal Treasonous at large,
former CEO Obama's Compound / Lair.
It's High Treason being conducted "Hidden In Plain View" by the Deep State.
It's the most Bizzare Transition of Power I've ever witnessed. Unprecedented.
Flynn did not tell Pence that Pence's best friend was front and center on the Pizzagate list.
That's what cost Flynn his job...it had fuck all do do with the elections.
"... ..."Multiple reports show that my former colleagues in the intelligence community have decided that they must leak or withhold classified information due to unsettling connections between President Trump and the Russian Government... ..."
"... The deep state is running scared! I never+ attribute to coincidence that which is the FBI trampling the bill of rights. It is coincidence the deep state (fbi, nsa, various CIA and DoD spooks) tapped Russia spies who talk to private citizens who have no opportunity at espionage. Then the innuendo is leaked to the Clinton media! ..."
"... Worse on Trump for calling them out for leaking rather than as a civil liberty trampling Gestapo. Ben Franklin was right, give the democrat run spooks the power to protect you and you lose liberty and protection! ..."
This is running now on FoxNews.com, total fabrication especially the last sentence but Trumpers believe this Fake News. I think
this is where ilsm gets his intell insights from, phoney former intell officers, they sound exactly like him - check it out for
yourself
"I'm a Democrat (and ex-CIA) but the spies plotting against Trump are out of control"
By Bryan Dean Wright...February 18, 2017...Foxnews.com
..."Multiple reports show that my former colleagues in the intelligence community have decided that they must leak or
withhold classified information due to unsettling connections between President Trump and the Russian Government...
Days ago, they delivered their verdict. According to one intelligence official, the president "will die in jail."..."
The deep state is running scared! I never+ attribute to coincidence that which is the FBI trampling the bill of rights. It
is coincidence the deep state (fbi, nsa, various CIA and DoD spooks) tapped Russia spies who talk to private citizens who have
no opportunity at espionage. Then the innuendo is leaked to the Clinton media!
Worse on Trump for calling them out for leaking rather than as a civil liberty trampling Gestapo. Ben Franklin was right,
give the democrat run spooks the power to protect you and you lose liberty and protection!
"... Most of the major changes he mentions are clearly and explicitly the consequence of policy changes, mostly by Republicans, starting with Reagan: deregulation, lower taxes on the wealthy, a lack of antitrust enforcement, and the like. ..."
This is frankly rather disingenuous. Most of the major changes he mentions are clearly and explicitly
the consequence of policy changes, mostly by Republicans, starting with Reagan: deregulation,
lower taxes on the wealthy, a lack of antitrust enforcement, and the like.
libezkova -> DrDick... January 25, 2017 at 09:29 PM
Read through the link and it's not nearly that simple, especially when you consider the fact that
some trends, though plausibly or certainly reinforced through policy, aren't entirely or even
primarily caused by policy.
I did not say they were the *only* factors, but they are the primary causes. If you look at the
timelines and data trends it is pretty clear. Reagan broke the power of the Unions and started
deregulation (financialization is a consequence of this), which is the period when the big increases
began. Automation plays a secondary role in this. what has happened is that the few industries
which are most conducive to automation have remained here (like final assembly of automobiles),
while the many, more labor intensive industries (automobile components manufacturing) have been
offshored to low wage, not labor or environmental protections countries.
Both parties participated in the conversion of the USA into neoliberal society. So it was a bipartisan
move.
Clinton did a lot of dirty work in this direction and was later royally remunerated for his
betrayal of the former constituency of the Democratic Party and conversion it into "yet another
neoliberal party"
Obama actually continued Bush and Clinton work. He talked about 'change we can believe in'
while saving Wall street and real estate speculators from jail they fully deserved.
Very true. Republicans were in the vanguard and did most heavy lifting. That's undeniable.
But Clinton's negative effects were also related to the weakening the only countervailing force
remaining on the way of the neoliberalism -- trade unionism. So he played the role of "subversive
agent" in the Democratic Party. His betrayal of trade union political interests and his demoralizing
role should be underestimated.
hile everyone's been gearing up for President Trump's inauguration, the Clinton Foundation made a
major announcement this week that went by with almost no notice: For all intents and purposes, it's
closing its doors.
In a tax filing, the Clinton Global Initiative said it's firing 22 staffers and closing its
offices, a result of the gusher of foreign money that kept the foundation afloat suddenly drying up
after Hillary Clinton failed to win the presidency.
It proves what we've said all along: The Clinton Foundation was little more than an
influence-peddling scheme to enrich the Clintons, and had little if anything to do with "charity,"
either overseas or in the U.S. That sound you heard starting in November was checkbooks being
snapped shut in offices around the world by people who had hoped their donations would buy access to
the next president of the United States.
And why not? There was a strong precedent for it in Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of
state. While serving as the nation's top diplomat, the Clinton Foundation took money from at least
seven foreign governments - a clear breach of Clinton's pledge on taking office that there would be
total separation between her duties and the foundation.
Is there a smoking gun? Well, of the 154 private interests who either officially met or had
scheduled phone talks with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state, at least 85 were donors
to the Clinton Foundation or one of its programs.
... ... ...
Using the Freedom of Information Act, Judicial Watch in
August obtained emails
(that had been hidden from investigators) showing that Clinton's top
State Department aide, Huma Abedin, had given "special expedited access to the secretary of state"
for those who gave $25,000 to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. Many of those were facilitated
by a former executive of the foundation, Doug Band, who headed Teneo, a shell company that managed
the Clintons' affairs.
As part of this elaborate arrangement, Abedin was given special permission to work for the State
Department, the Clinton Foundation and Teneo - another very clear conflict of interest.
As Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said at the time, "These new emails confirm that Hillary
Clinton abused her office by selling favors to Clinton Foundation donors."
The seedy saga doesn't end there. Indeed, there are so many facets to it, some may never be
known. But there is still at least one and possibly four active federal investigations into the
Clintons' supposed charity.
Americans aren't willing to forgive and forget. Earlier this month, the IBD/TIPP Poll asked
Americans whether they would like President Obama to pardon Hillary for any crimes she may have
committed as secretary of state, including the illegal use of an unsecured homebrew email server. Of
those queried, 57% said no. So if public sentiment is any guide, the Clintons' problems may just be
beginning.
Writing in the Washington Post in August of 2016, Charles Krauthammer pretty
much summed up the whole tawdry tale
: "The foundation is a massive family enterprise disguised
as a charity, an opaque and elaborate mechanism for sucking money from the rich and the tyrannous to
be channeled to Clinton Inc.," he wrote. "Its purpose is to maintain the Clintons' lifestyle
(offices, travel accommodations, etc.), secure profitable connections, produce favorable publicity
and reliably employ a vast entourage of retainers, ready to serve today and at the coming Clinton
Restoration."
Except, now there is no Clinton Restoration. So there's no reason for any donors to give money to
the foundation. It lays bare the fiction of a massive "charitable organization," and shows it for
what it was: a scam to sell for cash the waning influence of the Democrats' pre-eminent power
couple. As far as the charity landscape goes, the Clinton Global Initiative won't be missed.
NYT tries to hide one interesting nuance: whether emails in Huma computer contained the set of emails deleted by Hillary from her.
Notable quotes:
"... The inspector general's office said that it was initiating the investigation in response to complaints from members of Congress and the public about actions by the F.B.I. and the Justice Department during the campaign that could be seen as politically motivated. ..."
"... Republicans, who made her use of a private email server a centerpiece of their campaign against Mrs. Clinton, attacked Mr. Comey after he decided there was not sufficient evidence she had mishandled classified information to prosecute her. ..."
"... In the end, the emails that the F.B.I. reviewed - which came up during an unrelated inquiry into Anthony D. Weiner, the estranged husband of a top Clinton aide, Huma Abedin - proved irrelevant to the investigation's outcome. ..."
"... Inspectors general have investigated F.B.I. directors before, but rarely. The most high-profile example was the investigation of William S. Sessions, who was fired by President Bill Clinton after an internal inquiry cited him for financial misconduct. In recent years, the inspector general has investigated accusations of wrongdoing by the F.B.I. involving some of its most sensitive operations, including a number of surveillance and counterterrorism programs. ..."
"... Mr. Horowitz said he would also investigate whether the Justice Department's top congressional liaison, Peter Kadzik, had improperly provided information to the Clinton campaign. A hacked email posted by WikiLeaks showed that Mr. Kadzik alerted the campaign about a coming congressional hearing that was likely to raise questions about Mrs. Clinton. ..."
"... Investigators will be helped in gathering evidence by a law that Congress passed just last month, which ensures that inspectors general across the government will have access to all relevant agency records in their reviews. ..."
"... Mr. Trump has not indicated whether he intends to keep Mr. Comey in his job. When he cleared Mrs. Clinton of criminal wrongdoing during the campaign, Mr. Trump accused him of being part of a rigged system. ..."
Comey Letter on Clinton Email Is Subject of Justice Dept. Inquiry
By ADAM GOLDMAN, ERIC LICHTBLAU and MATT APUZZO
JAN. 12, 2017
WASHINGTON - The Justice Department's inspector general said Thursday that he would open a broad investigation into how the
F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, handled the case over Hillary Clinton's emails, including his decision to discuss it at a news
conference and to disclose 11 days before the election that he had new information that could lead him to reopen it.
The inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, will not look into the decision not to prosecute Mrs. Clinton or her aides. But
he will review actions Mr. Comey took that Mrs. Clinton and many of her supporters believe cost her the election.
They are: the news conference in July at which he announced he was not indicting Mrs. Clinton but described her behavior as
"extremely careless"; the letter to Congress in late October in which he said that newly discovered emails could potentially change
the outcome of the F.B.I.'s investigation; and the letter three days before the election in which he said that he was closing
it again.
The inspector general's office said that it was initiating the investigation in response to complaints from members of
Congress and the public about actions by the F.B.I. and the Justice Department during the campaign that could be seen as politically
motivated.
For Mr. Comey and the agency he heads, the Clinton investigation was politically fraught from the moment the F.B.I. received
a referral in July 2015 to determine whether Mrs. Clinton and her aides had mishandled classified information. Senior F.B.I. officials
believed there was never going to be a good outcome, since it put them in the middle of a bitterly partisan issue.
Whatever the decision on whether to charge Mrs. Clinton with a crime, Mr. Comey, a Republican former Justice Department official
appointed by President Obama, was going to get hammered. And he was.
Republicans, who made her use of a private email server a centerpiece of their campaign against Mrs. Clinton, attacked
Mr. Comey after he decided there was not sufficient evidence she had mishandled classified information to prosecute her.
The Clinton campaign believed the F.B.I. investigation was overblown and seriously damaged her chances to win the White House
and resented Mr. Comey's comments about Mrs. Clinton at his news conference. But the campaign was particularly upset about Mr.
Comey's two letters, which created a wave of damaging news stories at the end of the campaign, when Mrs. Clinton and her supporters
thought they had put the email issue behind them.
In the end, the emails that the F.B.I. reviewed - which came up during an unrelated inquiry into Anthony D. Weiner, the
estranged husband of a top Clinton aide, Huma Abedin - proved irrelevant to the investigation's outcome.
The Clinton campaign said Mr. Comey's actions quite likely caused a significant number of undecided voters to cast ballots
for President-elect Donald J. Trump.
F.B.I. officials said Thursday that they welcomed the scrutiny. In a statement, Mr. Comey described Mr. Horowitz as "professional
and independent" and promised to cooperate with his investigation. "I hope very much he is able to share his conclusions and observations
with the public because everyone will benefit from thoughtful evaluation and transparency," Mr. Comey said.
Brian Fallon, the former press secretary for the Clinton campaign and the former top spokesman for the Justice Department,
said the inspector general's investigation was long overdue.
"This is highly encouraging and to be expected, given Director Comey's drastic deviation from Justice Department protocol,"
he said. "A probe of this sort, however long it takes to conduct, is utterly necessary in order to take the first step to restore
the F.B.I.'s reputation as a nonpartisan institution."
Mr. Horowitz has the authority to recommend a criminal investigation if he finds evidence of illegality, but there has been
no suggestion that Mr. Comey's actions were unlawful. Rather, the question has been whether he acted inappropriately, showed bad
judgment or violated Justice Department guidelines. It is not clear what the consequences would be for Mr. Comey if he was found
to have done any of those things.
The Justice Department and the F.B.I. have a longstanding policy against discussing criminal investigations. Another Justice
Department policy declares that politics should play no role in investigative decisions. Both Democratic and Republican administrations
have interpreted that policy broadly to prohibit taking any steps that might even hint at an impression of partisanship.
Inspectors general have investigated F.B.I. directors before, but rarely. The most high-profile example was the investigation
of William S. Sessions, who was fired by President Bill Clinton after an internal inquiry cited him for financial misconduct.
In recent years, the inspector general has investigated accusations of wrongdoing by the F.B.I. involving some of its most sensitive
operations, including a number of surveillance and counterterrorism programs.
As part of the review, the inspector general will examine other issues related to the email investigation that Republicans
have raised. They include whether the deputy director of the F.B.I., Andrew G. McCabe, should have recused himself from any involvement
in it.
In 2015, Mr. McCabe's wife ran for a State Senate seat in Virginia as a Democrat and accepted nearly $500,000 in political
contributions from Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a key ally of the Clintons. Though Mr. McCabe did not assume his post until February
2016, months after his wife was defeated, critics both within the agency and outside of it felt that he should have recused himself.
The F.B.I. has said Mr. McCabe played no role in his wife's campaign. He also told his superiors she was running and sought
ethics advice from F.B.I. officials.
Mr. Horowitz said he would also investigate whether the Justice Department's top congressional liaison, Peter Kadzik, had
improperly provided information to the Clinton campaign. A hacked email posted by WikiLeaks showed that Mr. Kadzik alerted the
campaign about a coming congressional hearing that was likely to raise questions about Mrs. Clinton.
Investigators will be helped in gathering evidence by a law that Congress passed just last month, which ensures that inspectors
general across the government will have access to all relevant agency records in their reviews.
The law grew out of skirmishes between the F.B.I. and the Justice Department inspector general over attempts by the F.B.I.
to keep grand jury material and other records off limits. The new law means Mr. Horowitz's investigators should have access to
any records deemed relevant.
Mr. Trump has not indicated whether he intends to keep Mr. Comey in his job. When he cleared Mrs. Clinton of criminal wrongdoing
during the campaign, Mr. Trump accused him of being part of a rigged system.
Although the president does not need cause to fire the F.B.I. director, a critical inspector general report could provide justification
to do so if Mr. Trump is looking for some.
The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799 ) is a United States
federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments having
a dispute with the U.S. It was intended to prevent the undermining of the government's position.
Good summary, but now, with some time passed, and Hillary out of Presidential race we can create
a more detailed summary. Actually for me it is unclear whether she is a felon, but she is definitely
a moron (along with all her close entourage).
The key question here is the actual level of damage to national security achieved by her actions
(or inactions). It might be great, but it might be nothing at all.
There is no question that Hillary Clinton "private" (aka bathroom) email server violated a
lot of regulations and her NDA. So formally she is guilty as hell and as a felon should go to
jail, like a lot of common folks do for similar, or even lesser, violations.
But she belongs to the "masters of the universe' and as such is above the common law. So
let's limit ourselves to the question whether she really damaged national security
First of all what Hillary did is the not just creation of her private email server. She created her "Shadow IT" Department within State Department staffed with
people, who are probably OK or even good for running IT in non-profits and charities, but not
above this level. And that even abstracting from formalities such as security clearance, presence
of classified mail in her mail stream, wiping the evidence, etc creation of Shadow IT is a a big "No-no".
Clearly
severely punishable "career-limiting" move. I now understand why Mills advised Hillary not to
run. So why she survives after such a move. That's mystery.
In corporate environment the creation of "Shadow IT" is a very serious, typically fatal charge that usually leads to immediate termination.
For federal government it is even worse, as it smells with treason. That means that all senior level IT staff
of State Department is fully complicit, and needs to be investigated and probably persecuted for
their cowardice. They understood well the level of danger and choose to ignore it "hiding their
head in the sand, like an ostrich"
But there are a lot of strange thing in this story. Both the behavior of NSA, and, surprise, surprise White house IT staff was very strange. They
definitely knew about this setup. They did not directly or indirectly reported to Hillary, unlike
IT staff of State Department. And still they did nothing. Obama himself also knew about it.
Did nothing. That
tells us something about this president. Although interception of domestic communication were never in NSA charter, still this is what
they do for living, and that means the NSA also played very strange, unexplainable to me role
in this story. NSA staff also knew about the setup from Hillary request to provide a specially secured version
of Blackberry (similar to what Obama used). Which surprisingly was denied. Looks like NSA did
not like Hillary much, is not it.
Now about the security. On the level required to create State Department infrastructure the setup used was completely
childish. It was not even incompetent, it was childish. Probably IT people responsible never saw
any other type of IT infrastructure then cash poor non-profits and never ever read NIST recommendations
for setup of this type of servers, to say nothing about more serious staff.
Even on my rather primitive understanding of computer security all those men and women involved
in Clinton bathrooms mail server drama look like complete and utter morons. But this is a real
life and such situations do happen in very large corporations, but not that often. So again
what was the real damage?
Any discussion of whether the server was "open" for hacking to state or non state actors or
not simply does not make any sense. My impression is that the level of security in Hillary's Shadow
IT server infrastructure (which includes internet modem (they were using regular ISP, like any
non-profit), router and other staff like networked printer(s)) was much lower that is required
for this question to make sense.
Still miracles happen and may be some foreign agencies thought that this is a trap, a "honeypot"
in "security-speak". So being utter moron might be a good security protection
measure in its own right, as paradoxical as it is.
But it is unclear at what point the traffic was intercepted if it was. People usually
concentrate of "bathroom server". But what about internet router and modem?
If traffic was intercepted on the router level in real time (it was not encrypted) then the damage was very real and
Hillary can be viewed as a traitor. If not, and only dumps of old emails were obtained after
she left her position of State Secratary, the question
about real damage is more complex and here the situation is alot similar with the situation
with Manning. An old staff (assuming that it was more the a year old) may be embarrsing, may
be danaging, bit it is what it is "old". Played cards. Even if some of them were
classified it is unclear what useful info can extracted for such emails. Compromising
information probably yes. Tactical information that preempts some US actions probably .no.
Also we need to take into account that Huma Abedin was a completely computer illiterate person,
who did her own set of blunders (including creating a hidden channel that copied emails to her
home server). And that Hillary herself looks like reckless sociopath, concerned only about her personal
power and money, not the interests of the state. Not to understand the level of danger she exposed State Department communications is unconceivable
for any lawyer, forget about Yale graduate at the top of her class. That increase the
damage.
Please note that whether the idea was to hide her activities was connected with "pay for pay" involving Clinton
foundation, paranoia, or something else is a completely separate topic.
IMHO Comey proved to be a "despicable coward" who first decided not to derail Clinton run (probably
not without pressure from Obama and/or Bill Clinton via Attorney General Loretta Lynch), but then,
when he discovered "Abedin channel" it well might be that he has had a second thought. That's how I read his controversial behavior. Nothing honorable in this interpretation of his
behavior too.
The whole set of events looks like literally taken from pages of the famous novel "The Good
Soldier Svejk: and His Fortunes in the World War". And we know what eventually happened to Austro-Hungarian
empire.
Twenty-five years ago, Bill Clinton almost single-handedly sold the Democratic Party to Wall Street
making it the second neoliberal party in the USA (soft neoliberals) and betaying interest of working
class and middle class. The political base of the party became "neoliberal intelligencia" and minority
groups, such as sexual minorities, feminists (with strong lesbian bent) deceived by neoliberals part
of black community (that part that did not manage to get in jail yet ;-) , etc. Clintonism (aka "soft"
neoliberalism) as an ideology was dead after 2007, but still exists in zombie stage. and even counterattacks
in some countries.
The author is afraid using the term "neoliberalism" like most Us MSM. Which is a shame. In this
sense defeat of Hillary Clinton was just the last nail in the coffin of "soft neoliberalism" (Third
Way) ideology. Tony Blair was send to dustbin of history even earlier then that. Destruction of jobs
turned many members of trade unions hostile to Democrats (so much for "they have nowhere to go" Bill
Clinton dirty trick) and they became easy pray of far right. In this sense Bill Clinton is the godfather
of far right in the USA and he bears full personal responsibility for Trump election.
In foreign policy Clinton was a regular bloodthirsty neocon persuing glibal neoliberal empire led
by the USA, with Madeline Albright as the first (but not last) warmonger female Secretary of State
Notable quotes:
"... Twenty-five years ago, Bill Clinton almost single-handedly repositioned the Democratic Party
for electoral success, co-opting and defusing Republican talking points ..."
"... "New Democrat" he'd once exemplified was now extinct, a victim first of Clinton's own successes,
and then of the economic and social dislocations of the globalism whose inevitability he foresaw when
he predicted that Americans would one day "change jobs four or five times in their lifetimes!" ..."
"... Bill Clinton's "Third Way" ideology was also undone by sheer geopolitical realities ..."
"... ..."People thought she'd been conceived in Goldman Sachs' trading desk," says one veteran Clinton
aide ..."
"... his personal and sexual misconduct in office, and his and his wife's tendency toward legalistic
corner-cutting-a point Sanders also drove home, even as he disavowed any interest in "her damn emails."
..."
their quarter-century project to build a mutual buy-one, get-one-free Clinton dynasty has ended
in her defeat, and their joint departure from the center of the national political stage they had
hoped to occupy for another eight years. Their exit amounts to a finale not just for themselves,
but for Clintonism as a working political ideology and electoral strategy.
Twenty-five years ago, Bill Clinton almost single-handedly repositioned the Democratic Party
for electoral success, co-opting and defusing Republican talking points and moving the party
toward the center on issues like welfare and a balanced budget, in the process becoming the first
presidential nominee of his party since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win two consecutive terms.
... ... ...
"New Democrat" he'd once exemplified was now extinct, a victim first of Clinton's own successes,
and then of the economic and social dislocations of the globalism whose inevitability he foresaw
when he predicted that Americans would one day "change jobs four or five times in their lifetimes!"
Bill Clinton's "Third Way" ideology was also undone by sheer geopolitical realities --
there are almost no Blue Dog Democrats left after a generation of redistricting, primary challenges
and electoral defeats in the South
...while Hillary Clinton recognized the change intellectually, she seemed unable to catch up to
the practical realities of its political implications for her campaign
..."People thought she'd been conceived in Goldman Sachs' trading desk," says one veteran
Clinton aide
...Obama had not only largely overlooked the concerns of white working-class voters but, with
his health care overhaul, had been seen as punishing them financially to provide new benefits to
the poorest Americans. Fairly or not, he lost the public argument.
...Bill Clinton himself was far from an unalloyed asset in Hillary's campaign this year. The rosy
glow that had come to surround much of his post presidency, and his charitable foundation's good
works around the world, receded in the face of Trump's relentless reminders of his personal and
sexual misconduct in office, and his and his wife's tendency toward legalistic corner-cutting-a point
Sanders also drove home, even as he disavowed any interest in "her damn emails."
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
© REUTERS/ Carlos Barria #LockHerUp: Hillary Clinton Gradually Losing Veneer of Being 'Too Big to Jail' Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton insists that the US Department of Justice should launch an independent investigation into the Clinton email case.
© Twitter: RT_America Emailgate: Untold Story of Clinton Foundation's Ties With Defense Contractors The exposure has once again shed light on Clinton's mishandling of classified information.
© REUTERS/ Yonhap Clinton's #Emailgate: The Dangerous Militarization of the Asia-Pacific Region The email was sent at the beginning of the Second Kyrgyz Revolution, which resulted in the ousting of Kyrgyz president Kurmanbek Bakiyev and appointment of Otunbayeva as the country's interim leader and then the country's president.
© REUTERS/ Carlos Barria Flynn's RT Case: What About Hillary Clinton Taking Fees From Foreign Gov'ts? Meanwhile, an email exchange dated March 15, 2010, indicates that numerous accusations against Hillary Clinton, which cited possible conflicts of interest, were not completely unjustified.
New
York Times