Rep. Trey Gowdy from South Carolina, speaking about the current FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe on Dec. 15, said: "I'll be a little
bit surprised if he's still an employee of the FBI this time next week." McCabe skipped his scheduled testimony before the Congress
a wekk befor that datek when infomation about Bruce Ohr contacts with former MI6 Agent Christopher Steele and the Fusion GPS surfaced.
Including the fact that Ohr's wife worked on the Russia case for Fusion GPS.
McCabe surfaced in Stele dossier saga in May 2017 —In a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on May 2, Senator
Charles Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, asked if now-acting FBI director Andrew McCabe was involved in approving
or establishing the FBI’s reported arrangement with Christopher Steel, the British MI6 agent who prepared a widely-discredited dossier
on now President Trump for the Clinton campaign, or if McCabe vouched for or otherwise relied on this dossier in the course of the FBI
investigation of alleged collusion between President Trump’s associates and the Russians.
McCabe for years worked Russian organized crime in New York for the FBI, previous to his Washington D.C. rise. He led the FBI’s Eurasian
Organized Crime Task Force, a joint
operation with the NYPD. In this role he has close contacts with MI6 (Steele) and Justice Department (Bruce Ohr).
Timeline: Hillary server details exposed to the public. Jill McCabe was asked to run for the Senate around that time. Andrew and
Jill McCabe meet with Democrats about donations. Hillary makes appearance to raise money for Jill. Andrew McCabe gets a promotion. Andrew’s
promotion entitles Andrew to work personally on email case.
Hillary Emails, the McCabe's and
Who is Peter Strzok - American Digital News
The Steele dossier, is a series
of memos which were ordered by Clinton campaign via Fusion GPS (currently under
investigation by House intelligence committee) and by former MI6 agent Christopher
Steele (born 1964) for enumeration of around $160K. Steele delivered a total of 16 reports to
Fusion GPS between June and early November 2016. All of them found way to FBI almost immediately. That raises several questions about
the role of FBI in Steele dossier creation and propagation. Steele is not some unknown to
FBI player. He was a member of old McCabe squad and it is possible that it was McCabe who ordered this hit job to Steele and try to
mask it via Fusion GPS (via Bruce Ohr or other channels). So McCabe might well be in the center
of this scandal (Trump
Dossier Author Christopher Steele Worked With FBI's McCabe & DOJ's Ohr on Russian Organized Crime Long Before 2016 Election):
...Steele was well known by the Bureau and CIA long before that and shared Intel with both agencies on cases with British links,
especially dealing with MI6's interest in Russian Organized crime, federal law enforcement sources said. It is little wonder the
Justice Department and the FBI refuse to release any documents dealing with Steele. Or the payments from government coffers -- including
the FBI -- to Steele or Fusion GPS.
We are getting definitive Intel from FBI and federal law enforcement sources that Christopher Steele worked with the FBI when
he was a MI6 Agent working Russian Organized Crime. Before his retirement from the British spy agency. That's the same desk and the
exact same time frame FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe worked before coming the Washington, D.C., heading up the FBI Eurasian Organized
Crime Task Force in Manhattan, along with NYPD Intel sources and resources. And on the Justice Department side, also in New York
at the very same time, Bruce Ohr was working organized crime for the DOJ in the Southern District of New York, beginning in the 1990s
through the identical timeline of Steele and McCabe. That's the same Bruce Ohr who was just demoted at DOJ for conducting secret
meetings with Fusion GPS, who hired Steele to write the Trump Dossier. And Fusion GPS also hired Ohr's wife, a former CIA employee.
"You're finding that they all worked together," one FBI source said. "That's huge." If you wonder how Fusion GPS founder Glenn
Simpson met Steele, look no further than Ohr. Or Ohr's wife. Or McCabe. Ohr ran the DOJ's Organized Crime and Racketeering Section
from 1999 to 2011, mostly out of New York City. McCabe ran the FBI Eurasian Task Force up until 2006. Ohr's Organized Crime and Racketeering
Section and the FBI were debriefed by Steele in London in 2010 on the FIFA corruption crime scheme, a major case for the DOJ. According
to the Guardian, Steele trekked to Rome in 2010 to also swap Intel on FIFA with a FBI contact from its Eurasian Organized Crime Task
Force. That was McCabe's old squad.
This information is one search "McCabe and MI6" away, but you will never read about this in Neoliberal MSM like WaPo, or NYT ;-)
As McCabe was the special agent of the Eurasian Organized Crime Task Force from 2003 to 2006 and undoubtedly maintained close contacts
with MI6. Did McCabe use his contacts in the Eurasian Organized Crime Task Force to facilitate the direct intervention of FBI into the
US Presidential elections?
FBI Director James Comey appointed McCabe as
Deputy Director of the FBI on January 29, 2016, and he assumed those duties on February 1, 2016.
The Inspector General of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee are investigating McCabe for concerns
that he should have recused himself from the investigation of
use of a private email server because of a potential conflict of interest caused by donations to his wife's Virginia State Senate
On May 9, 2017, McCabe became acting Director of the FBI after President Trump dismissed James Comey as Director.
In the absence of a Senate-confirmed Director, the Deputy Director automatically becomes acting Director.
Statute allows the president to choose an interim FBI director (acting Director) outside of the standard order of succession.
That process began on May 10, 2017, as Attorney General
Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General
Rod Rosenstein interviewed four candidates to serve
as interim FBI director.
Sessions said that McCabe was "also under consideration."
McCabe is married to Dr. Jill McCabe, a pediatrician. They have two children. McCabe is a
triathlete who bikes 35 miles to his
office from his home in Virginia.
FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe abruptly cancelled his closed door testimony in front of the House Intelligence
Committee as news emerged that the wife of Senior DOJ official Bruce Ohr
worked for Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm which assembled the infamous "Trump dossier."
Ohr was demoted last week after allegedly trying to conceal his contacts with Fusion.
Fox News reporter Chad Pergram's sources tell him "McCabe has an Ohr problem," and
they believe "FBI DepDir McCabe not coming to Hse Intel Cmte tomorrow because he'd be asked about Bruce
Ohr & Ohr's wife Nellie who worked for Fusion GPS," adding "something far more sinister."
Pergram also tweeted "Expect subpoenas to compel McCabe to appear this wk."
As we reported
yesterday, Nellie Ohr, the wife of disgraced DOJ official Bruce Ohr, was employed at Fusion GPS last year.
Her term of employment overlapped with the period when the Trump dossier was being compiled.
Though Fox was unable to discern the exact nature of her role at the firm, its reporters discovered that she
has done extensive research on Russia-related topics for think tanks based in the Washington, DC area.
A senior Justice Department official demoted last week for concealing his meetings with the men behind
the anti-Trump "dossier" had even closer ties to Fusion GPS, the firm responsible for the incendiary
document, than have been disclosed, Fox News has confirmed: The official's wife worked for Fusion GPS during
the 2016 election.
Contacted by Fox News, investigators for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI)
confirmed that Nellie H. Ohr, wife of the demoted official, Bruce G. Ohr, worked for the opposition research
firm last year. The precise nature of Mrs. Ohr's duties - including whether she worked on the dossier
- remains unclear but a review of her published works available online reveals Mrs. Ohr has written extensively
on Russia-related subjects. HPSCI staff confirmed to Fox News that she was paid by Fusion GPS through the
summer and fall of 2016.
Also notable is the fact that Bruce Ohr's wife not only worked for Fusion GPS, but also represented
the CIA's "Open Source Works" group in a 2010 "expert
working group report on international organized crime" along with Bruce Ohr and Fusion GPS cofounder
Of note Open Source Works is described as the "CIA's in-house open source analysis
component, devoted to intelligence analysis of unclassified, open source information." So - Nellie
Ohr, the wife of recently demoted DOJ official Bruce Ohr - worked for both Fusion GPS and the CIA.
It is unclear whether her time at Fusion overlapped with her time at the CIA.
Open Source Works, which is the CIA's in-house open source analysis component, is devoted to intelligence
analysis of unclassified, open source information. Oddly, however, the directive that established Open Source
Works is classified, as is the charter of the organization. In fact, CIA says the very existence of any such
records is a classified fact. "The CIA can neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence
of records responsive to your request," wrote Susan Viscuso, CIA Information and Privacy Coordinator,
in a November 29 response to a Freedom of Information Act request from Jeffrey Richelson of the National
Security Archive for the Open Source Works directive and charter.
"The fact of the existence or nonexistence of requested records is currently and properly classified and
is intelligence sources and methods information that is protected from disclosure," Dr. Viscuso wrote. This
is a surprising development since Open Source Works - by definition - does not engage in clandestine collection
of intelligence. Rather, it performs analysis based on unclassified, open source materials. -FAS
House investigators determined that during the 2016 election, Bruce Ohr met with former MI6 spy
Christopher Steele, and shortly after the 2016 election he met with Glenn Simpson, the co-founder of Fusion
GPS - who commissioned Steele to assemble the dossier.
Another factor in McCabe's sudden cancellation is a report from The Hill's John Solomon that Rep.
Ron DeSantis (R-FL) recently interviewed a retired FBI supervisor who told him he was instructed by
Deputy Director Andrew McCabe
not to call the 2012 Benghazi attack an act of terrorism when distributing the FBI's findings to
the larger intelligence community - despite knowing exactly who conducted the
The agent found the instruction concerning because his unit had gathered incontrovertible evidence
showing a major al Qaeda figure had directed the attack and the information had already been briefed to President
Obama, the lawmaker said. -The
If true, it means McCabe lied for the Obama administration in a clear, partisan violation of the FBI's
mandate to "detect and prosecute crimes against the United States," not "lie for the President so as not to
offend Islam." As Rep. DeSantis told The Hill:
"What operational reason would there be to issue an edict to agents telling them, in the face of
virtually conclusive evidence to the contrary, not to categorize the Benghazi attack as a result of terrorism?
By placing the interests of the Obama administration over the public's interests, the order is yet
another data point highlighting the politicization of the FBI."
Whether McCabe cancelled over his "Ohr problem," or for instructing a retired FBI supervisor to lie about the
Benghazi attack, or because he doesn't want to talk about Peter Strzok's dismissal from the Mueller probe -
one thing is for sure; Devin Nunes can't be happy, and we can probably expect subpoenas to start flying off
his desk as soon as this morning.
When somebody is above the law it is called royalty. That why we can call Hillary Clinton to be Queen.
Too Big to Jail, Too Innocent to Flail, or Both
Should Clinton have been prosecuted at all? It depends on whether you wish to apply the law (many do), to apply what others consider
common sense, or to rebalance the scale of unequal prosecution. And if the latter, rebalance in which direction? Should Clinton go
to jail, or should Manning, among others, go free? I would personally be fine if Clinton never saw a courtroom and prisoners like
Manning were freed. For the overall good of the nation, I would take that trade. Others, I’m sure, would choose differently.
Returning to why Clinton wasn’t prosecuted — was it just that Clinton is too important, too protected, to prosecute? “Too big
to jail” in other words? Too high to be brought down by something as low as the law? After all, starting with Nixon, the circle of
those who can never be punished for their crimes has grown constantly more inclusive. (I almost wrote “for their non-violent crimes,”
but then I remembered the torturing George W. Bush.) That’s certainly a possible explanation, even a likely one, given our recent
failure to prosecute even a
thief like former Goldman Sachs chief, ex-governor and Democratic Party fundraiser Jon Corzine.
But we live in a punishing, prosecutorial state as well, one that treats its enemies as harshly as it treats its friends gently,
especially its inner circle friends. It’s this second aspect, not just who is too big to jail, but who is too high-minded and innocent
to torture and
flail — too “loyal” to be treated, in other words, like Sterling and Manning — that must be considered before we can understand
the unequal application of these laws. Clinton, for all her faults in James Comey’s eyes, was no Chelsea Manning.
As Wheeler says in her closing, this is “another way of saying our classification system is largely a way to arbitrarily label
people you dislike disloyal.” On reflection, it’s hard to disagree.
August 20, 2015:Former CIA Director James Woosley suggests Clinton could have committed a felony.
Woolsey, who was CIA director from 1993 to 1995 under President Bill Clinton, comments on Clinton’s email scandal: “What is
really wrong here was setting up this separate email system and using it for government work. If anybody wants to set one up and
use it for yoga appointments, wedding planning, okay, fine. But to have a server in a bathroom closet in Colorado that is dealing
with potentially extremely classified material because it is material that is passing through the secretary of state’s conversations
with her staff, that’s really very irresponsible. It is a felony. I think and there are some ways of dealing with this, putting
something in the wrong place and making a mistake that are only a misdemeanor. But we’ve had now several of my successors in the
intelligence business at senior levels plead to charges and be in situations where it is clear they violated the law, around some
of those things look very similar to what has happened here.”(Fox News, 8/20/2015)
As Edward Snowden noted: “Anyone who has the clearances that the secretary of state has or the director of any top level agency has
knows how classified information should be handled. When the unclassified systems of the United States government—which has a full time
information security staff—regularly get hacked, the idea that someone keeping a private server in the renovated bathroom of a server
farm in Colorado, is more secure is completely ridiculous.” (Al Jazeera America, 9/3/2015)
There are at least four legal charges that are implicit in "emailgate" scandal and more or less applicable to this case. Violation
of NDA was the clear among them for anybody who took time to study the main facts. Each of which might lead to criminal conviction:
[Dropped] Mishandling of classified information. This was the most serious change but due to Comey statement those changes
were dropped. Sill it is the fact that Hillary copied all her emails on several USB sticks and gave them to her private lawyer and
his staff. That involves the Espionage Act. Section 793(d) which makes it a felony if a person entrusted with “information relating
to the national defense” “willfully communicates, delivers [or] transmits” it to an unauthorized person. While in case of
server she can claim gross negligence, but passing copies of emails on USB to her lawyer was definitely done willfully and that can
be proved. There were several top secret email discovered. Adjusting for the typical for government tendency to overclassify they
probably were just secret. But that's enough. Also, most if not all of the Obama--Clinton email exchanges were presumptively classified.
Yet, both Obama and Clinton knowingly conducted them not only outside the government’s secure system for classified information but
using the private email server.
RICO changes connected with Clinton Foundation. Investigation might be active. Comey refused to answer the question whether
FBI is investigating Clinton Foundation.
Revealing identities of CIA operatives. This is similar to famous
Valeria Plame case. Valeria Plame was the wife of former
Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson. Plame had her identity
as covert officer of the CIA leaked to the press by members of the
George W. Bush administration and subsequently
Obstruction of justice and/or destruction of evidence. Obstruction charges can be laid if a person alters, destroys, or
conceals physical evidence, even if he was under no compulsion at any time to produce such evidence. wiping the server clean
here might qualify. Often, no actual investigation or substantiated suspicion of a specific incident need exist to support a
charge of obstruction of justice.
Attempt to violate government employees disclosure rules by deleting emails from the server. Apparently Hillary’s problems
with the FOIA cases will worsen after Comey statement. It is also clear that maintaining private email server was done deliberately
to hide information about her activities from public and obstructing the national record of elected officials correspondence. As
Dan Metcalfe states in
POLITICO, “Hillary’s Email Defense Is Laughable...I should know — I ran FOIA for the U.S. government.”
Violation of State Department procedures and installation of private email server into State Department environment (essentially
a Trojan Horse). Which was managed by personnel without any government security clearance. As well as the use of a retail version
of Blackberry to access them. Such a setup during the lifetime of the server also include moving the server from her house to unidentified
NJ datacenter where backups to the cloud for the server content were accidentally made. Here we can talk about gross negligence.
There are several sanctions that can be applied to Hillary Clinton:
They can disbar her like previously Bill Clinton for lying to Congress
They can strip her of security clearance
Prohibition to hold any positions which requires security clearance
Rejection of her nomination during the Congress of the Democratic Party
It turns out that the Espionage Act has become a popular tool of punishment under the Obama administration, which has broadened its
application from use against actual espionage to use against unfriendly
leakers and whistle-blowers:
Under the Obama administration, seven
Espionage Act prosecutions have been related not to traditional
espionage but to either withholding information or communicating
with members of the media. Out of a total eleven prosecutions under the Espionage Act against government officials accused of providing
classified information to the media, seven have occurred since Obama took office.
“Leaks related to national security can put people at risk,” the President said at a news conference in 2013. “They can put men and
women in uniform that I’ve sent into the battlefield at risk. I don’t think the American people would expect me, as commander in
chief, not to be concerned about information that might compromise their missions or might get them killed.”
Secrecy is a virtual religion in Washington. Those who violate its dogma have been punished in the harshest and most excessive
manner – at least when they possess little political power or influence. As has been
widely noted, the Obama administration has prosecuted more leakers under the 1917 Espionage Act than all prior administrations
combined. Secrecy in DC is so revered that even the most banal documents are reflexively marked classified, making their
disclosure or mishandling a felony. As former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden
said in 2010, “Everything’s secret.
I mean, I got an email saying ‘Merry Christmas.’ It carried a top secret NSA classification marking.”
Even when no leakage or other damage was contemplated or occurred, the Espionage Act was applied against violators. Here’s
what happened to Naval Reserve Engineer Brian Nishimura (link via Greenwald above):
A Naval reservist was sentenced for mishandling classified military materials.
A federal attorney announced Wednesday that Bryan Nishimura of Folsom, California, pleaded guilty to the unauthorized removal
and retention of classified materials.
Nishimura, deployed in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008 as a regional engineer, admitted to downloading classified briefings and digital
records onto his personal electronic devices. He carried the materials off base and brought them back to the U.S. when his deployment
An FBI search of Nishimura’s home turned up classified materials, but did not reveal evidence he intended to distribute them.
How was his case handled? He was obviously prosecuted, as the lead paragraph tells us. Then:
He was sentenced to two years of probation and a $7,500 fine, and was ordered to surrender his security clearance.
He is barred from seeking a future security clearance.
This is a Navy engineer who took home downloaded briefings and records. We’re not told under what act he was prosecuted, but we don’t
need to be told, just that doing what he did was a crime. The Espionage Act is perfectly suited to that crime, if the prosecutors wished
to use it.
According to court documents, Nishimura was a Naval reservist deployed in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008. In his role as a Regional
Engineer for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, Nishimura had access to classified briefings and digital records that could only
be retained and viewed on authorized government computers. Nishimura, however, caused the materials to be downloaded and
stored on his personal, unclassified electronic devices and storage media. … In the United States, Nishimura continued to
maintain the information on unclassified systems in unauthorized locations, and copied the materials onto at least one additional
unauthorized and unclassified system
Sounds like what Clinton did to a T. Should she be prosecuted? Loretta Lynch, speaking through James Comey, doesn’t think so. To
understand why not, let’s look at three more notorious and more vigorously prosecuted cases: Jeffrey Sterling, Thomas Drake and Chelsea
Manning. Those cases not only reveal why Clinton, in the eyes of many, should be prosecuted; they reveal why she wasn’t.
Jeffrey Sterling, Thomas Drake and Chelsea Manning
This gets to the heart of the problem related to when and why to prosecute. There’s first a question of what should happen
and what does happen. Then there’s a question of intent, as in, what intent if any is the target of the law, and what
intent is the target of prosecutors who apply the law. These are not the same.
Greenwald doesn’t think Clinton should be prosecuted, since in isolation her crime, as he sees it, doesn’t merit it. What
Clinton did was attempt to shield all of her communications to the extent she could, an act that in his mind doesn’t deserve jail time,
despite the letter of the law. I would add that we’re talking about applying the Espionage Act after all, and Clinton in
no way committed or intended to commit espionage.
But that kind of sensible thinking isn’t what does happen. What does happen is that under Obama, certain people are prosecuted
and sentenced very harshly. Greenwald again (bolded emphasis mine):
But this case does not exist in isolation. It exists in a political climate where secrecy is regarded as the highest end, where
people have their lives destroyed for the most trivial – or, worse, the most well-intentioned – violations of secrecy laws, even
in the absence of any evidence of harm or malignant intent. And these are injustices that Hillary Clinton and most of her stalwart
Democratic followers have never once opposed – but rather enthusiastically cheered. In 2011, Army Private Chelsea Manning was charged
with multiple felonies and faced decades in prison for leaking documents that she firmly believed the public had the right to see;
unlike the documents Clinton recklessly mishandled, none of those was Top Secret. Nonetheless,
this is what then-Secretary
Clinton said in justifying her prosecution…
Clinton’s justification for Manning’s prosecution is this (emphasis Greenwald’s):
“I think that in an age where so much information is flying through cyberspace, we all have to be aware of the fact that some
information which is sensitive, which does affect the security of individuals and relationships, deserves to be protected and
we will continue to take necessary steps to do so.“
Seems damning in retrospect, especially the emphasized portion. For Clinton, “necessary steps” to protect “sensitive” information
that’s “flying through cyberspace” means
In 2010, Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning, the
United States ArmyPrivate First Class accused of the largest leak of
state secrets in U.S. history, was charged under Article 134 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice, which
incorporates parts of the Espionage Act
18 U.S.C.§ 793(e). At the time, critics worried that the broad
language of the Act could make news organizations, and anyone who reported, printed or disseminated information from WikiLeaks, subject
to prosecution, although former prosecutors pushed back, citing Supreme Court precedent expanding First Amendment protections.
On July 30, 2013, following a judge-only trial by court-martial lasting eight weeks, Army judge Colonel Denise Lind convicted Manning
on six counts of violating the Espionage Act, among other infractions.
That harsh punishment doesn’t count the torture
she endured while in pre-trial detention. The fate that befell Chelsea Manning was (and is) draconian. Again, in retrospect Clinton’s
words at the time are damning.
Let’s look at two more cases, starting with
Jeffrey Sterling. As you read, see if
you can see the thread that ties these three cases together:
Jeffrey Alexander Sterling, a former
CIA agent was indicted under the [Espionage]
Act in January 2011 for alleged unauthorized disclosure of national defense information to
James Risen, a New York Times reporter, in 2003 regarding his book
State of War. The indictment described
his motive as revenge for the CIA’s refusal to allow him to publish his memoirs and its refusal to settle his racial discrimination
lawsuit against the Agency. Others have described him as telling Risen about a backfired CIA plot against Iran in the 1990s.
But the evidence of wrong-doing was almost non-existent,
and the conviction relied heavily on the jury’s reaction to the government’s presentation of motive.
The government’s case consisted mostly of records of emails and phone calls between Sterling and Risen that began in 2001
and continued into 2005. The emails were very short, just a line or so, and did not reference any CIA programs. The phone calls were
mostly short too, some just a few seconds, and the government did not introduce recordings or transcripts of any of them.
Sterling was represented by two lawyers, Edward MacMahon Jr. and Barry Pollack. In his opening statement, MacMahon pointed to
the lack of hard evidence against his client.
“Mr. Trump is a fine lawyer,” MacMahon
he had an email with details of these programs or a phone call, you would have heard it, and you’re not going to hear it in this
case .… Mr. Trump told you that [Sterling] spoke to Risen. Did you hear where, when, or anything about what happened? No. That’s
because there isn’t any such evidence of it whatsoever .… You don’t see a written communication to Mr. Risen from Mr.
Sterling about the program at all, no evidence they even met in person.”
Nevertheless, despite this lack of real evidence:
[T]he jury convicted Sterling, based on what the judge, Leonie Brinkema, described at
sentencing as “very powerful circumstantial evidence.” She added, “In a perfect world, you’d only have direct evidence, but many
times that’s not the case in a criminal case.” …
A few minutes before three in the afternoon, Judge Brinkema said that Sterling would go to prison for three and a half years.
This was far below the sentencing guidelines — and was seen as a
of the prosecution’s portrayal of Sterling as a traitor who had to be locked away for a long time. But that wasn’t much comfort
for Sterling or his wife, because he would nonetheless be locked away. After the hearing ended, Sterling walked to the front row
of seats to console his sobbing wife. You could hear her wails in the courtroom.
His lawyers requested that he be allowed to serve his sentence in his home state of Missouri, so that his wife and other family
members could easily visit him. Earlier this week, Sterling reported to the prison that was selected for him. It is in Colorado.
We still don’t know for sure that Sterling was the person who leaked information to reporter James Risen. Nothing showing that they
worked together was presented in court. Nothing. Yet the prosecutor did a good job of painting Sterling as “a traitor” motivated by
“anger, bitterness, selfishness,” adding, “The defendant struck back at the CIA because he thought he had been treated unfairly. He
had sued the agency for discrimination and demanded that they pay him $200,000 to settle his claim. When the agency refused, he struck
back with the only weapon he had: secrets, the agency’s secrets.”
On that basis and almost no evidence, the jury convicted.
Finally, in the case of Thomas Drake, mentioned above by both Wheeler and Greenwald, this happened:
What sets Drake, Sterling and Manning apart from Clinton in the way their violations of the Espionage Act are treated? It’s not just
her elite status.
Why Is Clinton’s Case Different?
Clinton may well have been let off because the Justice Department thought prosecution was just the wrong thing to do. Given all the
arcane rules of classification, and the fact that Clinton, put plainly, is not a spy, Comey and Lynch may well have decided that prosecution
was pointless. Espionage, after all, was never her intent, and getting Hillary Clinton convicted on espionage charges may have looked
to them like a very heavy lift. Yet espionage was never the intent of Sterling, Drake or Manning, yet they had the proverbial book thrown
at them, and more. (Read the rest of the
article on Sterling
to see how his prosecution nearly destroyed his life, literally.)
The government’s behavior in these four cases isn’t clarified when comparing motives, at least not initially. It could be argued
that the motives of Sterling, Drake and Manning were entirely beneficial, since whistle-blowers intend to perform a societal good, whereas
Clinton’s motives were more self-centered, less morally defensible, and possibly illegal — at the very least, she was attempting to
move all of her communication beyond the reach of FOIA records requests. (We’ll have to wait to see if she may have had other motives,
such as shielding the Clinton Foundation from embarrassing scrutiny, or worse. I keep seeing mention of a separate investigation into
Which brings us to the the matter of intent — not the intent contemplated by the law (intent to steal or to otherwise mishandle government
secrets), but the intent contemplated by the prosecutors in applying the law. Look again at the Sterling conviction and what the prosecution
relied on to get it. The man was painted by his prosecutors as, in effect, evil — a man whose goal was to harm the government, a betrayer,
a traitor, motivated by anger, bitterness, selfishness, a man taking revenge. Though most stark in Sterling’s prosecution (and in Manning’s
torture), you see this thread in all three whistle-blower cases.
What separates these cases from Clinton’s is the desire of the government to punish “evil deeds,” attempts to harm the country
as the prosecutors defined harm, then secondarily to use the Espionage Act as a tool of that punishment, wielded in such a heavy
way as to frighten others. Note that this initial filter — looking for who has done the kind of harm deserving of punishment, as opposed
to looking for who violated the law — precedes the prosecution itself. What doesn’t precede the prosecution — certainly not in Clinton’s
case — is an even-handed application of the law.
Yes, this is selective prosecution, but it’s much more than elites protecting elites, though it’s that as well. It’s also and primarily
using the prosecutorial weight of the established state to mercilessly crush the perceived enemies of that state, while protecting its
friends from that weight should they also stray under the law’s dark umbrella.
In other words, the key to determining who will be prosecuted is indeed intent, but not intent to violate the law. What’s being prosecuted
is intent to violate the state as the state perceives it.
So we return where we started, to Marcy Wheeler, who calls the real crime of Sterling and Drake “disloyalty” and not a violation
of the Espionage Act itself.
Wheeler (my emphasis):
I can only imagine Comey came to his improper public prosecutorial opinion via one of two mental tricks. Either he — again, not
the prosecutor — decided the only crime at issue was mishandling classified information (elsewhere in his statement he describes
having no evidence that thousands of work emails were withheld from DOJ with ill intent, which dismisses another possible
crime), and from there he decided either that it’d be a lot harder to prosecute Hillary Clinton (or David Petraeus) than it would
be someone DOJ spent years maligning like Sterling or Drake. Or maybe he decided that there are no indications that Hillary is
disloyal to the US.
Understand, though: with Sterling and Drake, DOJ decided they were disloyal to the US, and then used their alleged mishandling
of classified information as proof that they were disloyal to the US (Drake ultimately
plead to Exceeding Authorized Use of a Computer).
Ultimately, it involves arbitrary decisions about who is disloyal to the US, and from that a determination that the crime
of mishandling classified information occurred.
This entirely ignores the political dimension, which I’ll take up at another time. But it perfectly characterizes, as I see it, the
After a brief introduction, Comey states the FBI was looking into
“whether classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on [Clinton’s] personal system in violation of the Federal
statute that makes it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way; or a second
statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.”
And he presented the evidence of guilt. Of the approximately 30,000 emails Hillary Clinton turned over to State in 2014, the FBI
“110 emails, in 52 email chains, have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they
were sent or received.
Eight of those chains contained information that was ‘Top Secret’ at the time they were sent; 36 of those chains contained
‘Secret’ information at the time; eight contained ‘Confidential’ information at the time.”
This chain of events has reinforced the American public’s perception that there are now no prosecutions of unlawful conduct
by persons of sufficient wealth, power and influence who consider themselves to be above the law.
It’s not a right-wing theory, a conservative fever dream, conspiracy nonsense or anti-Hillary fear-mongering of a rabid Sanders or
Trump supporter. It’s a cold hard facts:
Email box of Hillary Clinton contained multiple instances of classified information on different levels of classification. Several
emails that were deemed classified were deleted by her.
She hosted those emails on unprotected private server which was managed by multiple administrators without any security clearance
in violation of basic rules for such important for the nation servers.
Clinton copied emails on thumb drives and gave them to her private lawyer.
On several occasions she misrepresented the facts including in her testimony to Congress (which represents perjury).
Hillary Clinton is the only presidential candidate in American history who was linked to two (or may be three) FBI investigations.
Typically a person who is under the investigation by FBI loses his/her security clearance until the end of the investigation.
That did not happened.
Comey motives for no indicting her created a cottage industry of pundits. No question the case was highly politicized, especially
after impromptu meeting of Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch. For some reason Obama also behaves as if he wants to join Clinton Foundation
after the end of his term in office. Who in his sound mind endoce a person under FBI investigation. Only constitutional scholars do
Looks like Comey was forced to lie about several aspects of this Clinton case and later was caught during congressional hearings
(for which he, surprisingly, instantly agreed). If might well be tht he played dual role: mortally wounding Hillary candidacy and at
the same time saving his boss (and indirectly Obama administration) from further embarrassment:
This article doesn't explain why a punishment such as the one given to Petraeus was not considered by Comey or the DOJ.
Petraeus was an elite insider who was not a spy and did not threaten the state, yet he still received a minor punishment so as
not to delegitimatize the legal system and in order to give at least a minimal impression of fairness. Since Comey said it was
possible - and most experts say very possible - that foreign governments read Hillary's emails, she may have caused significant
damage to the US national interest over four years. Therefore even a loyal elite could expect to be at least fined for such gross
negligence. Why wouldn't a fine and a reprimand and/or temporary loss of security clearance be normal even for a loyal DC insider?
This suggests that the power of the Clinton Machine and its real-world ability to deliver retribution was the deciding factor
in the lack of any suggestion of indictment. Comey surely wants to keep his job.
The article also fails to deal with the fact that Comey mistakenly claimed that only one person had ever been prosecuted
under the 1917 Espionage Act. This is clearly not the case, and you list some of those prosecuted. There have also been several
other convictions, including US vs. McGuinness in 1992 (see Andrew C. McCarthy, "Military Prosecutions Show That A Gross Negligence
Prosecution Would Not Unfairly Single Out Mrs. Clinton" National Review (7/7/2016), CIA director John Deutch in 1997 (pardoned
by Bill Clinton), James Hitselberger (who carried classified documents off his naval base in 1997 and simply kept them), and Jason
Brezler, a Marine Major who sent classified information about a dangerous Afghan mayor in order to warn a colleague in 2014 (he
is now appealing his conviction based on Comey's criteria).
Also please see Jared Beck, "Why Hillary Clinton's Emails Matter: A Legal Analysis" (6/6/2016): Beck lists 4 convictions
under 793(f) alone. Also see Beck's "Comey's Volley, Or The Indictment That Wasn't" (7/11/2016). You also need to deal with the
question of why Comey ignored the obvious fact that Hillary willfully and knowingly broke State Department rules in setting up
the private server and therefore knew she was endangering security. The fact that Comey gave a false number of prosecutions under
s. 793 and avoided mention of willful, knowing acts by Hillary suggests his decision to oppose indictment was a political decision,
not a legal decision.
The article also fails to deal with the theory that Comey, taking into account various evidence, such as his talks with
DOJ attorneys and the fact that Lynch agreed to meet Bill Clinton, decided that that there was no possibility that the Democrat-staffed
DOJ would indict Hillary. Therefore Comey decided to make the best of a difficult situation by giving a two-part speech that first
laid out reasons why Hillary could be indicted and then explained that it was not "reasonable" to indict her. "Reasonable" is
of course a legal term, but it also covers a variety of meanings, including political motives. Do you reject this theory,
or were you just unaware of it?
Criminality of this actions aside, all-in-all in dealing with this scandal she behaved more like a member of a clan that a statesman.
That reminds me Godfather II.
Why did Hillary Clinton need to use a private server exclusively? I ask why Clinton needed this server in my latest
YouTube segment, and I’m especially interested in learning
why from Hillary supporters. The answer could very likely lead to Hillary Clinton’s indictment, which would then automatically lead
to a Bernie Sanders nomination and Bernie destroying Trump by
points in the general election.
On CNN, Lt. General Michael Flynn stated that Hillary Clinton should “drop out” of the presidential race and
“If it were me, I would have been out the door and probably in jail.” I mentioned Lt. General Flynn’s views on the FBI investigation
during my latest CNN appearance.
In regards to the unique aspects of the FBI’s email investigation,
POLITIFACT states “Although some former secretaries of state occasionally used personal emails for official business, Clinton
only one who never once used an @state.gov email address in the era of email.”
Thus, asking why she’s the only Secretary of State who refused to use an @state.gov email address is not only relevant, but vital
to understanding the severity of the FBI’s investigation. As Dan Metcalfe states in
POLITICO, “Hillary’s Email Defense Is Laughable...I should know—I ran FOIA for the U.S. government.” Saying others did
worse also can’t explain the fact
FBI agents have worked on the case, especially since there’s never been a presidential candidate in American history linked to
an ongoing FBI investigation.
National Review suggested "her lax handling of our most sensitive national-security information, Clinton all but served it to
foreign intelligence services on a platter." (National
Clinton held one of the highest offices of the United States, and communications involving high-level intelligence were a routine
part of her job. Despite her protestations to the contrary, it was inevitable that classified information would be exchanged in her
“private” e-mails and stored on her “private server.”
What was inevitable is now undeniable. Inspectors general from both the intelligence community and the State Department have reported
to Congress that Clinton’s e-mails contain classified information. And remember, they have been able to review only portions of the
30,000-odd e-mails Clinton deigned to surrender (in paper-copy form) on the State Department’s demand, two years after she departed.
Regarding the access to sensitive information, the position of the Secretary of State is not that different from the position of
Army Generals and high level officials at CIA. It might well be more close to the latter, taking into account State Department role
in collecting intelligence information and staging color revolutions abroad. A similar level official at CIA or Pentagon would receive
much harsher treatment: despite "bathroom server" scandal and a clear, provable violation of NDA she signed, Hillary Clinton retained
her security clearance
While Clinton has kept her clearance, it’s common practice to suspend them while an investigation or internal inquiry is ongoing,
according to some national security experts on Capitol Hill and in private practice.
... ... ...
“Whether you’re a member of the military, a high-ranking executive branch official or anybody else with a security clearance,
people should be treated equally,” said Grassley, R-Iowa. “If rank-and-file military and intelligence community employees have
their clearances suspended during security investigations, then senior officials should not get any special exemptions.”
The key here in not personality of Hillary Clinton and her conduct, but the role of Obama in this misconduct. He is, so to speak,
complicit in Mrs. Clinton’s misconduct by communicating with her on unprotected private server, which was set-up by personnel from Clinton
Foundation. While, most probably, he personally does feel much sympathy for "this woman", the "preservation of legacy" dictated the
polices that helped to get her off the hook.
We we now know after FBI announcement, mishandling of classified information changes were dropped. She was cleaned on any wrongdoing
in this aspect of "emailgate". But all other relevant aspects of "emailgate" such as violation of FOIA, destruction of evidence, are
They are minimal in comparison with what Hillary Clinton did:
Hillary Clinton Emailed Names of US Intelligence Officials, Unclassified. He revealed the information to a single person (his biographer),
who was an army intelligence officer with top security clearance. While Hillary Clinton revealed her emails to her private lawyer and
his staff as well as indirectly to all server administrators of the "bathroom server". She also potentially guilty in lying to Congress
under the oath.
At one point, we thought General David Petraeus would be a strong candidate for U.S. President. Certainly against this
crop of GOP candidates, he’d be the clear front-runner. But then, he shared classified information, and more than that, with
his biographer-turned-mistress (Paula Broadwell), according to ABC News, undoing an impressive military career, with plenty of
political upside. ...instead of offering the typical hubris, misdirection, or blame shifting, he thought it was important to again
show true remorse for his actions
... ... ...
Hillary Clinton, the former New York Senator and Secretary of State, has been the anti-Petraeus. As of last week, she still
was claiming to the Associated Press that she had done nothing wrong and her actions were allowed. Even in her “apology,” she
claiming it was just a “mistake” according to Fox News. Well, here’s what kind of “mistake” Clinton’s actions might cause.
The U.S. National Security Agency Chief, Admiral Mike Rogers, explained that it would really help the NSA if someone like Vladimir
Putin or the Supreme Leader of Iran had done the same, using classified information on a private email,
as noted in The Guardian.
When classified information gets in the hands of our enemies and rivals, bad things happen for our beleaguered intelligence
forces. Sometimes, it leads to the capture, and possible deaths, of our agents and sources. There’s no excuse for putting them
in any more harm than they already face. General Petraeus gets that it is wrong. But as Clinton
blames Republicans for her woes on NBC’s Meet the Press, it’s clear she still just doesn’t get it.
Please note that as Andrew C. McCarthy pointed in his June 11, 2015 article (
National Review ) when Obama’s Justice Department prosecuted former CIA director David Petraeus for mishandling classified information,
it included notes of “defendant DAVID HOWELL PETRAEUS’s discussions with the President of the United States of America.” That
completely destroys Hillary Clinton’s defense that the classified e-mails were not “marked” as such? Well, Petraeus’s notes were not
marked either. But this was not a problem to his prosecution. Here is how it was revered -- it also included the use of email:
In May 2012, Jill Kelley filed a complaint with the FBI after receiving disturbing emails from a user identifying as "kelleypatrol".
Kelley, her husband Scott, and her sister Natalie Khawam
also happened to be friends of Petraeus and his wife Holly from the time they were stationed at
Petraeus and Broadwell used fake names to create free webmail
accounts exchanging messages without encryption tools.
They would share an email account, with one saving a message in the drafts folder and the other deleting it after reading it.
The FBI, using electronic metadata that pinpointed
the times, places and IP addresses, identified Paula Broadwell
as the source of "kelleypatrol" emails. At this point FBI and intelligence agencies noted the presence in her mailbox of information
about high-ranking US military personnel and Petraeus and that some of the exchanges were "sexually charged".
It is reasonable to assume that Hotmail mailbox is on the same of higher level of securty as private email server Hillary Clinton
used. It also did not have two facto authentication and mailbox contained sensitive information. If you read Wikipedia article about
emailgate (Hillary Clinton email
controversy) and compare it with General Petraeus transgressions the question of double standards definitely comes to mind.
"They were careless people ... they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast
carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made . . . . ”
― F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby
FBI director said Crooked Hillary compromised our national security. No charges. Wow! #RiggedSystem
-- Donald Trump Twit, Jul 5, 2016
In order to get Hillary Clinton off the hook FBI rewrote the existing and pretty strict statute:
Although denying that he was effectively re-writing the language of any relevant statute to reach his conclusion, Director Comey
asserted that it was appropriate to ignore the express “gross negligence” element in one such statute dealing with the gathering
of defense-related information (18 U.S. Code §793(F)). He based his decision to ignore the “gross negligence” statutory element,
despite his own statement that Hillary Clinton had been “extremely careless” in the “handling of very sensitive, highly classified
information,” on his understanding of past precedent.
He explained that federal prosecutors have brought only one case based on gross negligence in the last 99 years because, in part,
of constitutional concerns with convictions in cases where there is no showing of criminal intent. He also concluded that it would
be unfair to embark on what he called “celebrity hunting” by singling out Hillary Clinton for prosecution for “gross negligence”
when only one such case has been brought in 99 years.
Similarly, the director disputed that the requisite criminal intent was provable under a separate criminal statute involving the
unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material in an unauthorized location (18 U.S. Code § 1924), even though
that is precisely what Hillary Clinton did.
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) had an exchange with Director Comey that set out the case for concluding that Hillary Clinton had criminal intent
based on such circumstantial evidence. It is worth quoting from at length (Comey's
Peculiar Explanations Frontpage Mag):
“GOWDY: …I’m going to ask you to put on your old hat. False exculpatory statements — they are used for what?
COMEY: Well, either for a substantive prosecution, or for evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.
GOWDY: Exactly. Intent, and consciousness of guilt, right? Is that right?
GOWDY: Consciousness of guilt, and intent. In your old job, you would prove intent, as you just referenced, by showing the jury
evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record. And you would be arguing, in
addition to concealment, the destruction that you and I just talked about, or certainly the failure to preserve. You would argue
all of that under the heading of intent.
You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme: when it started, when it ended, and the number of e-mails, whether
they were originally classified or up-classified. You would argue all of that under the heading of intent…
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, she kept these private e-mails for almost two years, and only
turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private e-mail account.
So you have a rogue e-mail system set up before she took the oath of office; thousands of what we now know to be classified
e-mails, some of which were classified at the time; one of her more frequent e-mailed comrades was, in fact, hacked, and you don’t
know whether or not she was; and this scheme took place over long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records
— and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent?
You say she was “extremely careless,” but not intentionally so. Now, you and I both know intent is really difficult to prove.
Very rarely do defendants announce, “On this day, I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I
am going to break the law on this day.” It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence — or, if you’re
Congress, and you realize how difficult it is to prove specific intent, you will formulate a statute that allows for “gross negligence.”
For those of you salivating — or trembling — at the thought of Hillary Clinton being clapped in handcuffs as she prepares to deliver
her acceptance speech at the Democratic convention this summer: deep, cleansing breath. Based on the available facts and the
relevant precedents, criminal prosecution of Clinton for mishandling classified information in her emails is extraordinarily unlikely.
There are two main statutory hooks. Title 18, Section 1924, a misdemeanor, makes it a crime for a government employee to “knowingly
remove” classified information “without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location.”
Prosecutors used this provision in securing a guilty plea from former CIA director David H. Petraeus, who was sentenced to probation
and fined $100,000. But there are key differences between Petraeus and Clinton.
... ... ...
Another possible prosecutorial avenue involves the Espionage Act. Section 793(d) makes it a felony if a person entrusted with
“information relating to the national defense” “willfully communicates, delivers [or] transmits” it to an unauthorized person.
That might be a stretch given the “willfully” requirement.
Section 793(f) covers a person with access to “national defense” information who through “gross negligence permits the same
to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust.” The government has used the
“gross negligence” provision to prosecute a Marine sergeant who accidentally
put classified documents in his gym bag, then hid them in his garage rather than returning them, and an Air Force sergeant
who put classified material in a Dumpster so he could get home early.
The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special
obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty
of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to
But those consideration are now mute. On July 5, FBI Director James Comey has completed his investigation of Hillary Clinton's private
email server. His agency recommended to the Justice Department that Clinton not face criminal prosecution, despite calling Clinton
and her staff, 'extremely careless.' As one commenter to
Found that Hillary put classified information of all levels on her personal email server.
Found evidence of Hillary being extremely careless in her handling of classified information.
States that none of these emails should have ever been stored on unofficial/personal servers.
Found that Hillary utilized her private email servers extensively in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.
States that because of this its highly likely that said adversaries gained access to her email account.
States that hostile actors also gained access to the private commercial email accounts of the people Hillary communicated
Found that Hillary, her lawyers and technicians, had removed a wide range of emails in such a way that they could not be recovered.
States that if anyone else were to engage in a similar activities, they most likely would face severe consequences and security
or administrative sanctions.
Found that there was no 'intentional' misconduct
Recommends no indictment.
Clinton won in the legal arena but could yet lose in the court of public opinion. Now Hillary opponents were given enough ammunition
by the FBI report to keep the issue alive and emphasize the issue of trust until election day. Moreover, as Hillary Clinton was essentially
put above the law that can double efforts in ares were she was not cleared by FBI investigation.
Political fallout for Hillary Clinton started along the lines that she’s inherently untrustworthy or, in Trump’s words: “a
world-class liar”. Even as Comey helped clear the way for Clinton to be legally exonerated, he rebuked her for being “extremely
careless” in using a private email server for classified information, adding that lesser government officials might have faced administrative
sanction. Contrary to what Comey said in such cases intent does not matter.
When Comey stated there would be no recommendation for prosecution what I think he was indirectly saying was that no one in
the Obama administration or the DOJ is willing to bring an indictment or prosecute her. Even though there is ample evidence of
criminality. Obama does not want prosecution because Obama would be called as a witness and found to be guilty himself of
knowing she was using an unsecured server. Thus making him guilty as well.
people the age of these callers allowed Clinton's election cheating to be successful by voting for her. We had the chance for
an anti corruption, for the people candidate, and we threw it away for "first women president" or some bull. Even without the
indictment I hope we get another candidate. The world is changing, we don't need corporations, lobbyist, and politicians that
only care about the advancement of their careers!
Dr. Tim Williams
With the latest announcement from the FBI shows that Hillary Clinton was very negligent during her tenure as Secretary of State.
A series of gross negligence moves concerning classified e-mails is equivalent to what the military terms as a dereliction of
duty in her performance as Secretary of State. As the Democratic convention looms ahead the findings by the FBI has to be a real
wake up call for every delegate to consider the weakness of a Clinton candidacy. It has to be noted that Senator Sanders who the
media continues to ignore has moved the nation into realizing that change is needed to secure that our democratic process returns
to the way our founding fathers intended. Make no mistake that if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee leaves open the more
than probability that Trump will win in November. Or if the wheels of corruption by the DNC and the already super delegates that
are being pulled by Clinton's purse strings succeed at striping the nomination away from Senator Sanders manage to convince enough
voters in November it will be a sad day for all Americans.
The democratic leaders need to lead and ask for Hillary to step down and allow Bernie to be the nominee. Congress needs to
make sure Loretta Lynch indicts Hillary for her crimes. Bernie is honest and brings much enthusiasm. I don't understand why I
constantly hear the media asking Sanders to step down when Hillary is the worst candidate. Watching the election fraud videos
from San Diego and not hearing about any of it in the news is disgusting. It feels like Hillary brought much corruption to our
party. I am a lifelong democrat and will never vote for Hillary. I may have to leave it.
Congressman Gowdy asked Director Comey point-blank if Clinton’s testimony that she did not e-mail “any classified material to anyone
on my e-mail” was true. Comey said it was not true. Was Clinton telling the truth when she said that she used only one device while
Secretary of State? Comey said she used multiple devices. Did she return all work-related e-mails to the State Department as she had
claimed? No was the reply. “We found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned,” Comey said.
There were also funny exchange in which Comey suggested that Hillary might be not "sophisticated enough" to understand that
classified markings are present (in other word that she is not qualified for any government position):
FBI Director James Comey is suggesting that it's possible Hillary Clinton may not have been able to identify classified markings
Comey's investigation found that there were 113 emails that were sent or received by Clinton containing classified material, contradicting
Clinton's previous statements.
Comey says under questioning from a Republican lawmaker that they asked Clinton about three emails that bore "C'' markings indicating
that the documents are classified. He says there's a question of whether Clinton was "sophisticated enough" to understand what
the C markings meant.
North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows says a reasonable person would think someone who is the secretary of state would understand what
that means. Meadows says after Clinton's time in the Senate and at the State Department, "that's hard to believe."
Looks like there might be multiple servers in the basement. Here are some interesting fragments:
"... It is not at all clear that Steele wrote the dossier attributed to him. Maybe Nellie Ohr wrote some of it and Steele was used to "launder" it as he was a "reliable" FBI asset. ..."
"... In any case Trump has shown that he doesn't want to get to the bottom of it either. He got to the declassification brink at the behest of Nunes, Meadows and Jordan but then quickly walked it back. It seems he prefers to tweet witch hunt. That makes sense as Brad Parscale has noted that the way they have built the database of potential Trump voters is by getting them to respond to social media provocations. ..."
"... As the past 2 years have marched on, the seditious conspiracy theory has grown more stronger while the Russian collusion theory is looking much more as pure propaganda. And the Mueller probe seems a vehicle to inflict as much damage on Trump and those that worked for him. ..."
"... Corruption at the highest levels of our law enforcement and intelligence apparatus could possibly be at banana republic levels. ..."
"... When Rosy according to McCabe brought up the 25th amendment discussion most would expect the Acting Director of the FBI to shut the conversation down providing the advice that the discussion was moving into the Sedition area. That did not occur.....I suspect Rosy is being set up. ..."
"McCabe blithely went about meeting with the president, continued to do his normal work, and
said nothing about it publicly. Is it reasonable to believe a career law officer wouldn't shout
from the rooftops, and even risk his job, to blow the whistle on such a catastrophic potential
national security risk? McCabe and his cabal knew that the entire Russia collusion narrative
was bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign. We know McCabe knew this from the congressional
testimony of former associate deputy attorney general Bruce Ohr, who swore under oath (and
he, unlike McCabe, was not fired for lying) that he told McCabe and others at the FBI that the
Steele dossier was being
pushed by a Trump-hater and should be relied upon with caution.
By May 2017, McCabe implies he was in a state of panic on behalf of the gullible nation led
by a Russian asset -- but as Ohr said, McCabe and his cronies were aware that the explosive
claims in the dossier were unverified. How could there be panic about unverified allegations? "
"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down , or to destroy by force
the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the
authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the
United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States
contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined or imprisoned not more than 20
years , or both.
For a seditious conspiracy charge to be effected, a crime need only be planned, it need not
be actually attempted ." wiki on seditious conspiracy.
20 years, pilgrims, 20 years AND a fine perhaps. McCabe is an interesting case, a senior
civil servant who believes that he and his fellow mandarins ARE the government of the United
States in much the same way that many Catholic clergy believe that THEY are the church rather
than the people in the pews, the actual People of God.
Club Fed won't be all that bad. There are lots of opportunities for self-improvement. McCabe
and Rosenstein could study American Government in a seminar made up of their fellow
conspirators with a few Bubbas and Bros thrown in for "seasoning." That would be a good way to
meet new friends to help pass the time in jail.
If McCabe is truthful in this the studied arrogance involved is memorable, but .. I remember
much the same kind of attitude, the "Yes Minister" mindset from the time when I was an SES.
The former priest Theodore McCarrick has been laicized (de-frocked) by Pope Francis. What
took so long? It has been widely known for a long time among the clergy, hierarchy, and lay
hangers-on of the RC church apparat that Teddy was madly, wildly gay. I sat in a number of
meetings that he chaired and must say that it was a very creepy experience. The leprechaun act
was painful to watch.
Let's see if the new AG has as much, or hopefully more guts about this as Francis. pl
In response to the Great Recession, rather than jail the crooks, the Obama Administration
political appointees and senior executives were complicit in making the ruling elite whole
again. They also looked the other way at the Great Enablers' (the Clinton family)
shenanigans. They were wedded to the need for Hillary Clinton to be the President. When she
failed, it was so dastardly, it had to have been the Russians; not their own failings.
The real problem is that the Republicans with Democrats assistance have flushed government
down the toilet. There is no government by or for the people; only connected cronies. Ann
Coulter's epitaph "Idiot" is appropriate for them all. The condition has also seized Great
Britain and French governments; indicating that this is a global plague.
"How could there be panic about unverified allegations?"
The inexorable momentum of bureacracy. Once in, all in. Their political proclivities by now
should be obvious. They tanked the Clinton e mail investigation, they blew past the Clinton
Foundation corruption case that was staring at them in plain view, and when Steele gave them
a hook, despite not only being unverified but unverifiable by conventual means of
investigation, they swallowed it whole because he was telling them something they wanted to
hear...and Steele traded on that. Steele also leaked to the media to create a feedback
mechanism to reinforce the faux atmosphere of Russian menace that had them straining at the
leashes. Incompetence? Malice? Both? Who at this point knows?
When Trump fired Comey, the fuse was lit. Comey further inflamed the situation with his leak
to the NYT with the expressed purpose of triggering a SC. McCabe was suddenly in a decision
making position he was in no way prepared for, ditto Rosenstein, there was no authority above
them to rein them in, Sessions having stupidly and unnecessarily recused himself, except for
Trump that is, and sadly enough there was no one below them either to talk sense into them;
so yes, they panicked. They thought they had hit a Solomon like decision bringing in Mueller.
I wonder who was in on that decision, talk about collusion.
I read today that Steele continues to resist testifying before the Senate. How about that for
a glaring hole in the effort to find out who did what to whom, and why.
It is not at all clear that Steele wrote the dossier attributed to him. Maybe Nellie Ohr
wrote some of it and Steele was used to "launder" it as he was a "reliable" FBI asset.
In any case Trump has shown that he doesn't want to get to the bottom of it either. He got
to the declassification brink at the behest of Nunes, Meadows and Jordan but then quickly
walked it back. It seems he prefers to tweet witch hunt. That makes sense as Brad Parscale
has noted that the way they have built the database of potential Trump voters is by getting
them to respond to social media provocations.
This is the gift that will keep giving. Conspiracy writers will keep the tales going for
many a moon as the convoluted nature of it all is perfect for so many tales.
As the past 2 years have marched on, the seditious conspiracy theory has grown more
stronger while the Russian collusion theory is looking much more as pure propaganda. And the
Mueller probe seems a vehicle to inflict as much damage on Trump and those that worked for
Roger Stone has been indicted for lying to Congress and arrested with a pre-dawn FBI SWAT
team raid televised by CNN. Brennan & Clapper who are known to have lied to Congress are
treated with reverence by the media.
Manafort has been convicted of money laundering which took place years ago. But the
Podesta brothers and the legions of political consultants in DC for who money laundering is a
way of life are not prosecuted.
Flynn was indicted for lying to the FBI and threatened with not registering under FARA for
his Turkish money. AIPAC spends hundred of millions on American politics and the Chinese,
Saudis and other Arabs also spend hundreds of millions on DC think-tanks, politicians and US
Corruption at the highest levels of our law enforcement and intelligence apparatus could
possibly be at banana republic levels.
It's frightening to read many of the comments on the article in The Hill . I've
noticed that leftists, trolls, and [possible] bots seem to come out of the woodwork en force
to comment on articles of this sort -- articles that turn the spotlight on the possibility of
These rare articles are in such opposition to the barrage of anti-Trump commentary
that's broadcast daily that I wonder if the MSM may even employ some of those who so quickly
and assiduously refute anything that contradicts their anti-Trump fare.
The leftist progressives don't need to pay anyone to make those comments against Trump and
anyone who is a bit conservative. The NEA has made sure the organizations that pass for
public education systems are training up those mindless but nasty comment trolls.
When Rosy according to McCabe brought up the 25th amendment discussion most would expect the
Acting Director of the FBI to shut the conversation down providing the advice that the
discussion was moving into the Sedition area. That did not occur.....I suspect Rosy is being
McCabe's book and TV appearances are his attempt at his cleansing prior to the coming
onslaught. Interesting that the Justice Dept. SES executives make up 10% of the total SES
executives in the government a percentage that should definitely come down. Unfortunately the
SES should be the managers of the nuts and bolts of our government but they have become too
highly politicized which is turning younger and brighter individuals away from that career
Seems the Old Grey Lady has an article out today that further condemns the actions of a few
(actually too many) of our priests and unfortunately our nuns. One priest in talking about
the makeup of the priesthood says " one third are gay, one third are straight and the other
third who knows" he did indicatate they were all celibate.
My four year old grandson from Central America has a saying when he does not like
something "Que Asco" which literally means "That is Disgusting" thus a pox on those
miscreants in the FBI and the Priesthood.
The revelation that McCarrick's homosexuality was widely known in certain circles, but not
to, AFAIK, the general public
emboldens me to ask a question I have long wanted to ask, but been afraid to:
What is the sexual orientation and family status of the Executive Editor of the
Martin Baron ?
I know the answer to such personal questions often is, and should be, that "It's none of
That certainly does apply to most people in America.
However Baron plays such a significant role in "
The Fourth Estate ", shaping opinion and framing issues, that I think the answers to
those questions should be a matter of public record.
After all, as his newspaper constantly states, "Democracy Dies in Darkness".
So too do traditional values.
I think the question can and should be expanded to: which of the Post 's opinion
leaders and reporters are homosexual?
Again, the reason is that all of them, like Baron, are shaping our opinions and framing
Surely the public has a right to know if they are doing so in pursuit of their own, personal,
In other words, do they have a conflict of interest on this matter?
A comparison: If a reporter owned shares in, say, General Electric, and also reported on it,
that would clearly be a conflict of interest.
So, too, if a reporter is homosexual and writing about it, is that not also a conflict of
interest? I think it is.
I would like to flesh out the actions behind the statement by McCabe, or cryptic illusion,
anyway, that perhaps "two" cabinet officers may have been inclined to go along with the 25th
Amendment plan. Who in the cabinet was sounded out? By who were they sounded out? What
precisely was their response? That would make for interesting reading.
Those would be my top two candidates as well. With Mnuchin as dark horse. But it would take a
grand jury to have even a chance to get to the facts. Congressional hearings won't do it. Not
in any 5 minute questioning format, with interruptions by the 'other side'. .
Impeachment is part of the constitution and the procedure is clear. A conspiracy by the
political police to overthrow the president because they do not like him is not in the 25th
Amendment where the action has to be among the cabinet and the VP.
Love to hear what Rosenstein has to saw now that McCabe through him under the bus. So it was
Rosenstein's idea of using the 25th Amendment? Nobody knew of this plan before this
interview. McCabe mentions this out of the blue and makes sure to say that it wasn't his idea
but Rosenstein. Why?
"Nobody knew of this plan before this interview. "
That is not true. There has been a widespread and ongoing effort to discredit the Trump
administration and remove him from office. Here's an example from 2017.
That's a natural reaction to the revelation of Andrew G. McCabe, the former deputy FBI
director, that top Justice Department officials, alarmed by Donald Trump's firing of former
Bureau director James Comey, explored a plan to invoke the 25th Amendment and kick the duly
elected president out of office.
According to New York Times reporters Adam Goldman and Matthew Haag, McCabe made the
statement in an NBC 60 Minutes interview to be aired on Sunday. He also reportedly said
that McCabe wanted the so-called Russia collusion investigation to go after Trump for
obstructing justice in firing Comey and for any instances they could turn up of his working in
behalf of Russia.
The idea of invoking the 25th Amendment was discussed, it seems, at two meetings on May
16, 2017. According to McCabe, top law enforcement officials pondered how they might recruit
Vice President Pence and a majority of cabinet members to declare in writing, to the Senate's
president pro tempore and the House speaker, that the president was "unable to discharge the
powers and duties of his office." That would be enough, under the 25th Amendment, to install
the vice president as acting president, pushing aside Trump.
But to understand what kind of constitutional crisis this would unleash and the precedent it
would set, it's necessary to ponder the rest of this section of the 25th Amendment. The text
prescribes that, if the president, after being removed, transmits to the same congressional
figures that he is indeed capable of discharging his duties, he shall once again be president
after four days. But if the vice president and the cabinet majority reiterate their declaration
within those four days that the guy can't govern, Congress is charged with deciding the issue.
It then takes a two-thirds vote of both houses to keep the president removed, which would have
to be done within 21 days, during which time the elected president would be sidelined and the
vice president would govern. If Congress can't muster the two-thirds majority within the
prescribed time period, the president "shall resume the powers and duties of his office."
It's almost impossible to contemplate the political conflagration that would ensue under
this plan. Citizens would watch those in Washington struggle with the monumental question of
the fate of their elected leader under an initiative that had never before been invoked, or
even considered, in such circumstances. Debates would flare up over whether this comported with
the original intent of the amendment; whether it was crafted to deal with physical or mental
"incapacitation," as opposed to controversial actions or unsubstantiated allegations or even
erratic decision making; whether such an action, if established as precedent, would destabilize
the American republic for all time; and whether unelected bureaucrats should arrogate to
themselves the power to set in motion the downfall of a president, circumventing the
impeachment language of the Constitution.
For the past two years, the country has been struggling to understand the two competing
narratives of the criminal investigation of the president.
One narrative -- let's call it Narrative A -- has it that honorable and dedicated federal
law enforcement officials developed concerns over a tainted election in which nefarious Russian
agents had sought to tilt the balloting towards the candidate who wanted to improve
U.S.-Russian relations and who seemed generally unseemly. Thus did the notion emerge, quite
understandably, that Trump had "colluded" with Russian officials to cadge a victory that
otherwise would have gone to his opponent. This narrative is supported and protected by
Democratic figures and organizations, by adherents of the "Russia as Threat" preoccupation, and
by anti-Trumpers everywhere, particularly news outlets such as CNN, The Washington Post
, and The New York Times .
The other view -- Narrative B -- posits that certain bureaucratic mandarins of the
national security state and the outgoing Obama administration resolved early on to thwart
Trump's candidacy. After his election, they determined to undermine his political standing, and
particularly his proposed policy toward Russia, through a relentless and expansive
investigation characterized by initial misrepresentations, selective media leaks, brutal law
enforcement tactics, and a barrage of innuendo. This is the narrative of most Trump supporters,
conservative commentators, Fox News, and The Wall Street Journal editorial page, notably
columnist Kimberley Strassel.
The McCabe revelation won't affect the battle of the two narratives. As ominous and
outrageous as this "deep state" behavior may seem to those who embrace Narrative B, it will be
seen by Narrative A adherents as evidence that those law enforcement officials were out there
heroically on the front lines protecting the republic from Donald J. Trump.
And those Narrative A folks won't have any difficulty tossing aside the fact that McCabe was
fired as deputy FBI director for violating agency policy in leaking unauthorized information to
the news media. He then allegedly violated the law in lying about it to federal investigators
on four occasions, including three times while under oath.
Indeed, Narrative A people have no difficulty at all brushing aside serious questions posed
by Narrative B people. McCabe is a likely liar and perjurer? Doesn't matter. Peter Strzok, head
of the FBI's counterespionage section, demonstrated his anti-Trump animus in tweets and emails
to Justice official Lisa Page? Irrelevant. Christopher Steele's dossier of dirt on Trump,
including an allegation that the Russians were seeking to blackmail and bribe him, was compiled
by a man who had demonstrated to a Justice Department official that he was "desperate that
Donald Trump not get elected and passionate about him not being president"? Not important. The
dossier was paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party? Immaterial.
Nothing in the dossier was ever substantiated? So what?
Now we have a report from a participant of those meetings that top officials of the
country's premier law enforcement entity sat around and pondered how to bring down a sitting
president they didn't like. The Times even says that McCabe "confirmed" an earlier
report that deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein suggested wearing a wire in meetings with
Trump to incriminate him and make him more vulnerable to the plot.
There is no suggestion in McCabe's interview pronouncements or in the words of Scott Pelley,
who conducted the interview and spoke to CBS This Morning about it, that these federal
officials ever took action to further the aim of unseating the president. There doesn't seem to
be any evidence that they approached cabinet members or the vice president about it. "They were
speculating, 'This person would be with us, this person would not be,' and they were counting
noses in that effort," said Pelley. He added, apparently in response to Rosenstein's
insistence that his comments about wearing a wire were meant as a joke, "This was not perceived
to be a joke."
What are we to make of this? Around the time of the meetings to discuss the 25th Amendment
plot, senior FBI officials also discussed initiating a national security investigation of the
president as a stooge of the Russians or perhaps even a Russian agent. These talks were
revealed by The New YorkTimes and CNN in January, based on closed-door
congressional testimony by former FBI general counsel James Baker. You don't have to read very
carefully to see that the reporters on these stories brought to them a Narrative A sensibility.
The Times headline: "F.B.I. Opened Inquiry into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on
Behalf of Russia." CNN's: "Transcripts detail how FBI debated whether Trump was 'following
directions' of Russia." And of course, whoever leaked those hearing transcripts almost surely
did so to bolster the Narrative A version of events.
The independent journalist Gareth Porter, writing at Consortium News, offers a penetrating
exposition of the inconsistencies, fallacies, and fatuities of the Narrative A matrix, as
reflected in how the Times and CNN handled the stories that resulted from what were
clearly self-interested leaks.
Porter notes that a particularly sinister expression in May 2017 by former CIA director
John O. Brennan, a leading Trump antagonist, has precipitated echoes in the news media ever
since, particularly in the Times . Asked in a committee hearing if he had intelligence
indicating that anyone in the Trump campaign was "colluding with Moscow," Brennan dodged the
question. He said his experience had taught him that "the Russians try to suborn individuals,
and they try to get them to act on their behalf either wittingly or unwittingly."
Of course you can't collude with anybody unwittingly. But Brennan's fancy expression has the
effect of expanding what can be thrown at political adversaries, to include not just conscious
and nefarious collaboration but also policy advocacy that could be viewed as wrongheaded or
injurious to U.S. interests. As Porter puts it, "The real purpose is to confer on national
security officials and their media allies the power to cast suspicion on individuals on the
basis of undesirable policy views of Russia rather than on any evidence of actual collaboration
with the Russian government."
That seems to be what's going on here. There's no doubt that McCabe and Rosenstein and
Strzok and Brennan and Page and many others despised Trump and his resolve to thaw relations
with Russia. They viewed him as a president "who needed to be reined in," as a CNN report
described the sentiment among top FBI officials after the Comey firing.
So they expanded the definition of collusion to include "unwitting" collaboration in order
to justify their machinations. It's difficult to believe that people in such positions would
take such a cavalier attitude toward the kind of damage they could wreak on the body
Now we learn that they actually sat around and plotted how to distort the Constitution, just
as they distorted the rules of official behavior designed to hold them in check, in order to
destroy a presidential administration placed in power by the American people. It's getting more
and more difficult to dismiss Narrative B.
Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington journalist and publishing executive, is the
author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century. MORE FROM THIS
You're right, it didn't change a thing in the full-throated support to depose an elected
President they disagree with. The bureaucratic cabal has long had a more informal absolute
veto over who can even run for President. This guy challenged that hegemony of insider power
brokers, and caused the revelation that we have morphed into a Potemkin-style, managed
democracy, in which we don't choose who gets to run, just which of their choices we are allowed
Such is the decadent trajectory, of republics that transition into empires, where
democratic accountabilty to the governed, domestic and foreign, decays in favor of empire
administrators and their elite beneficiaries and their sinecures at the expense of the
People rail against Trump as some sort of would-be Caesar, but he is elected, while those
permanent unaccountable "national security" czars acting in secrecy they are willing to
transfer all power to, are not.
No form of popular government can survive when secret police recording everything and spying
on the population become the real power.
"It's difficult to believe that people in such positions would take such a cavalier attitude
toward the kind of damage they could wreak on the body politic."
What we don't want to recognize is that people in such positions are, in fact, just that
dumb. It is unfortunately true. While not a Trump supporter, I would be out on the streets with
them if these jacka$$es had tried to pull this off. They should ALL be immediately terminated
and any benefits revoked.
Last night (Feb 14, 2019) Tucker Carlson interviewed retired Harvard law professor Alan
Carlson: "Professor, thanks very much for coming on. So now the suspicions of many are
confirmed by one of the players in it. The Department of Justice discussed trying to remove the
President using the 25 Amendment. What's your reaction to that?
Dershowitz: "Well, if that's true, it is clearly an attempt at a coup d'état.
Relating to what your former guest said, let's take the worst case scenario: Let's assume the
President of the United States was in bed with the Russians, committed treason, committed
obstruction of justice -- the 25 Amendment simply is irrelevant to that. That's why you have an
impeachment provision. The 25th amendment is about Woodrow Wilson having a stroke. It's about a
president being shot and not being able to perform his office. It's not about the most
fundamental disagreements. It's not about impeachable offenses. And any Justice Department
official who even mentioned the 25th Amendment in the context of President Trump has committed
a grievous offense against the Constitution. The framers of the 25th amendment had in mind
something very specific. And trying to use the 25th amendment to circumvent the impeachment
provisions, or to circumvent an election is a despicable act of unconstitutional
power-grabbing. And you were right when you said it reminded me of what happens in third world
countries. Look, these people may have been well-intentioned. They may believe that they were
serving the interests of the United States. But you have to obey the law and the law is the
Constitution and the 25th Amendment is as clear as could be: incapacity, unable to perform
office. That's what you need. That's why you need 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate
agreeing. And it has to be on the basis of a medical or psychological incapacity. Not on the
basis of even the most extreme crimes -- which there is no evidence were committed -- but even
if they were, that would not be basis for invoking the 25th Amendment. And I challenge any
left-wing person to get on television and to defend the use of the 25th Amendment. I challenge
any of my colleagues who are in the "Get Trump At Any Cost" camp to come on television and
justify the use of the 25 Amendment other than for physical or psychiatric incapacity.
Carlson: I bet they're doing that right now. This is an attack on our system, I would say,
not just the President. Alan Dershowitz, thank you very much.
Dershowitz: It is an attack on our system. It's an attack on the constitution. Thank
How many millions of dollars did Bill and Hill receive from Russians? How much of America's
uranium deposits did Hillary sell to Russians during her time in the Obama administration? The
New York Times informs us:
" . . . the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity
in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for
national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from
a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off
was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton's wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions
from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton
Foundation. Uranium One's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling
$2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an
agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.
Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
"And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in
Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank
with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
"At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease
concerns about ceding control of the company's assets to the Russians. Those promises have been
repeatedly broken, records show."
The article states: " top officials of the country's premier law enforcement entity sat around
and pondered how to bring down a sitting president they didn't like."
-- -- -- --
Which makes one wonder if "The rule of law" is becoming the rule of outlaws? When the
non-elected in the justice profession appear to have their own agenda.
"The pages of this publication drift further and further into utter insanity and
despicable defense of Trump. Stand up for the values of the Constitution, or something, but
not for this man who is no more than a self-enriching demagogue with no understanding of the
reactionary politics he uses to delude the rubes and attract asinine threadbare pieces like
Actually no. Consider me the inverse of Peter. I didn't vote for Trump due to the character
weaknesses Peter describes. However, what I see is a seriously flawed man who has served the
useful purpose of revealing an echo chamber of flawed and self-serving biases shared by the
media and political establishment of this country. I see CNN, the NY Times, the Washington
Post, and even some key leaders of our security services in a completely different light than I
did two years ago. I am thankful for the clarity. I consider Merry's article to be a
contribution in that direction.
"Peter" sez: "Can't imagine why career law enforcement officials were concerned with a guy they
knew to be a criminal taking over the office of the presidency."
Weird but no one has shown any actual criminal behavior by said President. Two years later
still no charges. But Peter and these "career law enforcement officials" KNEW he was a
criminal. Then Peter appeals to the Constitution, apparently oblivious to the fact that the
Constitution doesn't make any provisions for plotting to remove the lawfully elected President
because you don't like just because you "know" he is a "criminal", in spite of any actual
"After his election, they (the deep state) determined to undermine his political standing, and
particularly his proposed policy toward Russia, through a relentless and expansive
investigation characterized by initial misrepresentations, selective media leaks, brutal law
enforcement tactics, and a barrage of innuendo. This is the narrative of most Trump supporters,
conservative commentators, Fox News, and The Wall Street Journal editorial page, notably
columnist Kimberley Strassel."
The trouble with that is it completely ignores the ton of evidence pointing to really
Lots of times, when there's smoke, there's fire. And when the smoke is overwhelming there
probably is a fire. A big one.
Trump has been going after the Russians since his inauguration. Therefore, those trying to
remove him from office are likely the actual Russian agents. Of course they would need smoke
and mirrors to hide that fact and deflect attention from themselves. It just so happens that
Russian spies are trained by the FSB to accuse others of being a spy, for just this purpose.
I'm looking at you, John O. (Oleg?) Brennan
No matter who the President is, there is some group of people in Washington is ALWAYS trying to
bring him down. Who those people are, and how large and powerful the group is, depends on a
variety of factors. But a competent president manages to enact his agenda while staying one
step ahead of his intriguers. Obama and GWB accomplished both, more or less because they were
intelligent men of good character (though Obama was much smarter and better man than W)
While Bill Clinton's character was too low to avoid impeachment he was a smart and able
administrator. Trump has both low character and low intellect so it is not surprising A. that
many people want to bring him down and B. that they have been pretty effective.
Politics may be a blood sport in Washington but that's not the same as a "deep state". And
Trump can't compete and win with anyone in Washington who doesn't grovel before him like the
supine Senate Republicans. And that is no one's fault but his.
"If it turns out that Trump IS a Russian asset, will you apologize, Robert Merry? Because he
certainly acts like one. And, as REAL Republicans used to say, if it looks like a duck, walks
like a duck, and quacks like a duck, maybe it's a duck."
@One Guy Yeah, because sending deadly aid to Ukraine is so pro-Russian. What an idiot you
The issue with the 25th amendment, is that the President's character flaws or mental deficiency
were known and very visible before the election. Is it constitutionally proper for Congress to
suspend a President for a preexisting condition that was known to and unhidden from voters? If
Congress did that, it means Congress has a veto over who the public is allowed to vote in as
Forget the Covington students, Andrew McCabe and his lady co-workers have some pretty punchable
faces. (Ok, I'm enough of a sexist to not punch a lady. I'd use eye-rolling and mocking
The problem is not the existence of the deep state. It's inevitable that there will be
unelected officials who will continue to shape policy regardless of who is elected President.
The problem is that the deep state is blatantly working to undermine its elected
leadership. If you can't in good conscience work with your President, the honorable thing
to do is resign as some undoubtedly have. It's not an excuse for insubordination.
"... Baker said McCabe was cool, calm and collected throughout the discussions, telling lawmakers: "At this point in time, Andy was unbelievably focused and unbelievably confident and squared away. I don't know how to describe it other than I was extremely proud to be around him at that point in time because I thought he was doing an excellent job at maintaining focus and dealing with a very uncertain and difficult situation. So I think he was in a good state of mind at this point in time." ..."
"... According to McCabe, Rosenstein "raised the issue and discussed it with me in the context of thinking about how many other cabinet officials might support such an effort," adding that Rosenstein was "definitely very concerned about the president, about his capacity and about his intent at that point in time." ..."
Two Trump Cabinet officials were "ready to support" a DOJ scheme to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump , according
Fox News , citing closed-door testimony from the FBI's former top lawyer, James Baker - who said that the claim came from Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
The testimony was delivered last fall to the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees. Fox News has confirmed portions of the
transcript. It provides additional insight into discussions that have returned to the spotlight in Washington as fired FBI Deputy
Director Andrew McCabe revisits the matter during interviews promoting his forthcoming book. -
While Baker did not identify the two Cabinet officials, he says that McCabe and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page approached him to
relay their conversations with Rosenstein, including their discussions of the 25th Amendment scheme. "I was being told by some combination
of Andy McCabe and Lisa Page, that, in a conversation with the Deputy Attorney General, he had stated that he -- this was what was
related to me -- that he had at least two members of the president's Cabinet who were ready to support, I guess you would call it,
an action under the 25th Amendment," Baker told the Congressional committees.
The 25th Amendment allows for the removal of a sitting president from office through various mechanisms - including the majority
of a president's Cabinet agreeing that the commander-in-chief is incapable of performing his duties.
Rosenstein - who is slated to leave the Justice Department in the near future, has denied the claims. Baker said McCabe was cool,
calm and collected throughout the discussions, telling lawmakers: "At this point in time, Andy was unbelievably focused and unbelievably
confident and squared away. I don't know how to describe it other than I was extremely proud to be around him at that point in time
because I thought he was doing an excellent job at maintaining focus and dealing with a very uncertain and difficult situation. So
I think he was in a good state of mind at this point in time."
told "60 Minutes" in an interview set to air Sunday night that Rosenstein was concerned about Trump's "capacity."
According to McCabe, Rosenstein "raised the issue and discussed it with me in the context of thinking about how many other cabinet
officials might support such an effort," adding that Rosenstein was "definitely very concerned about the president, about his capacity
and about his intent at that point in time."
"Rosenstein was actually openly talking about whether there was a majority of the cabinet who would vote to remove the president?"
asks CBS News anchor Scott Pelly, to which McCabe replied: " That's correct. Counting votes or possible votes. "
The New York Times
last year that McCabe alleged in memos that Rosenstein had talked about using the 25th Amendment to oust Trump -- or wearing a
wire to surreptitiously monitor the president -- in the hectic days in May 2017 after Trump fired James B. Comey as FBI director.
At the time, Rosenstein disputed the reporting. -
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called the 25th Amendment scheme a "
bureaucratic coup " led by enemies of President Trump. On Sunday morning, Graham said he would subpoena McCabe and Rosenstein
"if that's what it takes" to get to the bottom of the 25th Amendment claim.
On Thursday, the DOJ issued a statement claiming that Rosenstein rejects McCabe's version of events "as inaccurate and factually
incorrect," and also denied that Rosenstein ever approved wearing a "wire" to record Trump.
"The deputy attorney general never authorized any recording that Mr. McCabe references," reads the DOJ statement. "As the deputy
attorney general previously has stated, based on his personal dealings with the president, there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment,
nor was the DAG in a position to consider invoking the 25th Amendment."
McCabe, meanwhile, walked back some of his "60 Minutes" statements . On Friday a spokeswoman for the former Deputy Director said:
"Certain statements made by Mr. McCabe, in interviews associated with the release of his book, have been taken out of context and
misrepresented," adding "To clarify, at no time did Mr. McCabe participate in any extended discussions about the use of the 25th
Amendment, nor is he aware of any such discussions."
Baker acknowledged during his testimony that he was not directly involved in the May 2017 discussions, rather, McCabe and Page
approached him contemporaneously following a meeting with Rosenstein in the days following former FBI Director James Comey's firing.
"I had the impression that the deputy attorney general had already discussed this with two members in the president's Cabinet
and that they were onboard with this concept already," said Baker.
Question: "Do you know what direction that went? Was it Mr. Rosenstein seeking out members of the Cabinet looking to pursue
this 25th Amendment approach or was it the other way around?"
Baker: "What I recall being said was that the Deputy Attorney General had two members of the Cabinet. So he – how they came
to be had, I don't know, but "
Question: "So he had two members, almost like he was taking the initiative and getting the members?"
"Our choice now seems to be between a "new war" and a new world. As always, the forces of reaction and wealth are telling us
we have no choice but war, and no right or power to decide. They are calling for a secret investigation, a secret conviction,
a secret method of execution, and a totally secret war abroad.
"The American people as a whole are the only ones in the world who have the right to decide on a national response to this
tragedy, and it must be one that takes into account the rights of all the other peoples and nations of the world."
"... In interviews to boost his forthcoming book, fired former FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe confirms that Obama holdovers repeatedly discussed removing President Donald Trump under the pretext of the 25th Amendment, and that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein more than once seriously offered to "wear a wire" in meetings with the President. After Trump fired James Comey as FBI Director in May 2017, McCabe, Comey's deputy director, launched a phony "obstruction of justice" investigation, and said that he began to accumulate files of memos on that and the "Russia Collusion" investigation, to try to ensure that the investigations would continue if he were fired as well. ..."
In interviews to boost his forthcoming book, fired former FBI
Acting Director Andrew McCabe confirms that Obama holdovers repeatedly discussed removing
President Donald Trump under the pretext of the 25th Amendment, and that Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein more than once seriously offered to "wear a wire" in meetings with the
President. After Trump fired James Comey as FBI Director in May 2017, McCabe, Comey's deputy
director, launched a phony "obstruction of justice" investigation, and said that he began to
accumulate files of memos on that and the "Russia Collusion" investigation, to try to ensure
that the investigations would continue if he were fired as well.
Now, after its own two years of investigation and 200 interviews, Chairman of the Senate
Intelligence Committee Richard Burr (R-NC) has said, "There is no factual evidence of collusion
between the Trump campaign and Russia." Ranking Member Mark Warner (D-VA) said he disagrees
with the way Burr characterized the evidence, but declined to give his own assessment.
Veteran criminal attorney John Dowd, a member of Trump's legal team from June 2017 to March
"I know exactly what he [Mueller] has. I know exactly what every witness said, what every
document said. I know exactly what he asked. And I know what the conclusion or the result
What will be the result of the probe?
"It's been a terrible waste of time.... This is one of the greatest frauds the country has
ever seen. I'm just shocked that Bob Mueller didn't call it that way and say, 'I'm being
used.' I would've done that.
"I'd have gone to [then Attorney General] Sessions and Rosenstein and said, 'Look. This is
nonsense. We are being used by a cabal in the FBI to get even.' "
Asked about Mueller's final report, he responded, "I will be shocked if anything regarding
the President is made public, other than, 'We're done.' "
At the same time, former NSA Technical Director William Binney has published new evidence
which shows that the DNC documents posted by WikiLeaks in July 2016, were probably not hacked
over the internet, by Russians or anyone else -- rather, the only available forensic evidence
indicates that they were downloaded from within the DNC's network. His evidence is summarized
in an article he co-authored with former CIA analyst Larry Johnson on Col. Pat Lang's "Sic
Semper Tyrannis" blog yesterday.
Remember when Dan Rather self-immolated his credibility in a desperate attempt to take out George W. Bush? The Killian documents
controversy (also referred to as Memogate or Rathergate) involved six purported documents critical of U.S. President George W. Bush's
service in the Texas Air National Guard in 1972–73.
Four of these documents were presented as authentic in a 60 Minutes II broadcast aired by CBS on September 8, 2004, less than
two months before the 2004 presidential election, but it was later found that CBS had failed to authenticate the documents.
Subsequently, several typewriter and typography experts concluded the documents were forgeries.
Well, looks like Buzzfeed did not learn from history. Buzzfeed set the media world on fire on Friday with a story that appeared
well sourced that claimed Donald Trump had directed his lawyer, Michael Cohen, to lie to Congress about a Moscow real estate deal
that never came to fruition. The mainstream media went into hyper impeachment drive.
This was the nail in the Trump coffin as far as they were concerned. Trump was as good as dead.
Then a funny thing happened. Robert Mueller's press guy issued an unprecedented statement calling the Buzzfeed story pure,
unadulterated bullshit. Whoops!!
The Trump is dead meme quickly evaporated. Why did Mueller do this? The answer is simple. Bill Barr.
The soon to be new Attorney General is known as a man of impeccable integrity with a minimal tolerance for bullshit. Mueller,
as an old friend of Barr, knew that he had to do something dramatic to distance himself and his staff from this toxic story.
Once Barr is installed in office, stand by. The Department of Justice and the FBI will received the equivalent of a high powered
enema. Both are sick institutions and need to have the feces flushed out.
"...Bill Barr. The soon to be new Attorney General is known as a man of impeccable integrity with a minimal tolerance for bullshit."
Mr. Barr seems as swampy as they get. He played a key role in the mass surveillance of all Americans and is the classic beltway
sophist who has done much to reinterpret the constitution eviscerating the Bill of Rights. His past actions don't make him a man
of integrity unless of course being in service to the national security state is considered virtuous.
I believe Mr. Johnson's optimism of Barr's nomination leading to a "high powered enema" at the DOJ & FBI is unfounded. IMO,
none of the seditionists will be held to account. In any case POTUS Trump seems quite content with tweeting witch hunt rather
than declassifying and ordering a prosecutor convene a grand jury and have Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and all the other putschists
"He played a key role in the mass surveillance of all Americans"
He served under H.W. Bush who lost to Clinton. Obama did just what, beside get great protection from Brennan, Clapper, Comey
and a list of others you haven't named yet. How many of of the FBI and DOJ's top leadership from the Obama administration
have gotten fired and are being investigated for criminal conduct? What kind of support do you think the Trump administration
was getting from those outstanding civil servants for the past two years?
"What kind of support do you think the Trump administration was getting from those outstanding civil servants for the past
Well, it is the Trump administration that nominated Sessions, Rosenstein and Wray and now Barr. How many of those fired have
testified to a grand jury? They're nicely ensconced with their lucrative sinecures until the next Borg administration. Mueller
has spent tens of millions in going after Trump campaign minions. Where is the witch hunt against Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Lynch,
et al? Of course its not that POTUS has no agency here. He can order declassification and the appointment of a prosecutor with
a stroke of pen. Tweeting however is more like his pace.
Rather interviewed me in the library of the Army and Navy Club in DC at the height of the excitement over the obviously approaching
US invasion of Iraq in 2002. At one point he asked me if the Bushies were going to invade Iraq. I told himthat should not even
be a question. He did not believe me.
The only difference is that Rather had some small degree of credibility before the incident in question. I don't believe that
Buzzfeed has ever had a shred of credibility to anyone with the slightest ability to think.
Essentially they are trying to control the US foreign policy. That's a sign of the slide to neofascism as under
neofascism intelligence agencies have a political role and are instrumental in crashing the dissent.
"... The Times article goes on to describe how FBI officials monitored the platform adopted at the Republican National Convention, reporting that the spy agency "watched with alarm as the Republican Party softened its convention platform on the Ukraine crisis in a way that seemed to benefit Russia." That is, the nation's top police agency was concerned that the positions adopted contravened certain basic tenets of dominant sections of the foreign policy establishment. ..."
"... By what constitutional authority can the FBI, based on political positions adopted by one or the other of the two main capitalist parties, open up a secret investigation into treason and conspiracy? Such an operation bespeaks a police state and recalls the methods of the Stalinist NKVD. ..."
"... The operations of the FBI, encouraged, aided and abetted by the Times , recall the paranoid rantings of the John Birch Society, the ultra-right group formed in the 1950s, whose founder, Robert Welch, notoriously claimed that President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the former World War II commander of Allied forces in Europe, was a "a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy." ..."
"... Claims that once were the province of an extremist group, on the fringes of American politics, are now embraced by the military-intelligence apparatus, appear on the front page of the most influential American daily newspaper, and dominate the network and cable television news. ..."
"... But these allegations have no credibility. Why should anyone believe claims that Trump, at age 70, after decades as a real estate mogul, con man and media celebrity, with a billion-dollar fortune, suddenly decided to throw in his lot with Vladimir Putin? Even the Times report itself concedes, in a single sentence buried in the 2,000-word text, "No evidence has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly in contact with or took direction from Russian government officials." ..."
The Times claims that Trump "had caught the attention of FBI counterintelligence agents when
he called on Russia during a campaign news conference in July 2016 to hack the emails of his
opponent, Hillary Clinton." Given that this was a sarcastic campaign remark directed against
Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, and delivered at a
public news conference, Trump's sally can hardly be construed as evidence of a conspiracy.
The Times article goes on to describe how FBI officials monitored the platform adopted at
the Republican National Convention, reporting that the spy agency "watched with alarm as the
Republican Party softened its convention platform on the Ukraine crisis in a way that seemed to
benefit Russia." That is, the nation's top police agency was concerned that the positions
adopted contravened certain basic tenets of dominant sections of the foreign policy
By what constitutional authority can the FBI, based on political positions adopted by one or
the other of the two main capitalist parties, open up a secret investigation into treason and
conspiracy? Such an operation bespeaks a police state and recalls the methods of the Stalinist
The agency also investigated four of Trump's campaign aides over possible ties to Russia,
and even made use of the notorious Steele dossier, consisting of anti-Trump gossip collated
from Russian sources by a former British intelligence agent on the payroll of the Democratic
After Trump fired Comey, according to the Times , "law enforcement officials became so
concerned by the president's behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working
on behalf of Russia against American interests Counterintelligence investigators had to
consider whether the president's own actions constituted a possible threat to national
security. Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for Russia or
had unwittingly fallen under Moscow's influence."
The operations of the FBI, encouraged, aided and abetted by the Times , recall the paranoid
rantings of the John Birch Society, the ultra-right group formed in the 1950s, whose founder,
Robert Welch, notoriously claimed that President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the former World War II
commander of Allied forces in Europe, was a "a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist
Claims that once were the province of an extremist group, on the fringes of American
politics, are now embraced by the military-intelligence apparatus, appear on the front page of
the most influential American daily newspaper, and dominate the network and cable television
But these allegations have no credibility. Why should anyone believe claims that Trump, at
age 70, after decades as a real estate mogul, con man and media celebrity, with a
billion-dollar fortune, suddenly decided to throw in his lot with Vladimir Putin? Even the
Times report itself concedes, in a single sentence buried in the 2,000-word text, "No evidence
has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly in contact with or took direction from Russian
While there is no evidence of a conspiracy between Trump and Moscow, the Times report itself
is evidence of a conspiracy involving the intelligence agencies and the corporate media to
overturn the 2016 presidential election - which Trump won, albeit within the undemocratic
framework of the Electoral College - and install a government that would differ from Trump's
chiefly in being more committed to military confrontation with Russia in Syria, Ukraine and
A secret security investigation by a powerful police agency directed against an elected
president or prime minister can be described as nothing other than the antechamber to a coup by
the military or intelligence services.
Historically, the FBI has been at the center of such dangers in the United States. Its
founding director, J. Edgar Hoover, was notorious for his unchecked power, particularly during
the period of the McCarthy anticommunist witch hunt, when he accumulated dossiers on virtually
every Democratic and Republican politician and authorized widespread spying on civil rights and
President John F. Kennedy was so concerned that he installed his brother Robert as attorney
general - and nominal superior to Hoover - to keep watch over the bureau. That did not save
Kennedy from assassination in 1963 , an event linked in still undisclosed ways to ultra-right
circles, including Cuban exiles embittered by the Bay of Pigs disaster, Southern
segregationists, and sections of the military-intelligence apparatus up in arms over Kennedy's
signing of a nuclear test ban treaty with Moscow.
The New York Times report - and a companion piece published Sunday in the Washington Post
claiming that Trump has kept secret key details of his private conversations with Putin - serve
to legitimize antidemocratic and unconstitutional conduct by the military-intelligence
These reports shed light on the striking complacency in the "mainstream" media over Trump's
threats to declare a national emergency, using the pretext of his conflict with congressional
Democrats over funding of a border wall, which has led to a three-week-long partial shutdown of
the federal government.
If one takes for good coin the main contention of the reports by the two newspapers, their
acquiescence in a potential Trump declaration of emergency rule is inexplicable. After all, if
Trump is Putin's agent, then a Trump declaration of a state of emergency, giving him sweeping,
near-absolute authority, would put the United States under the control of Moscow.
The explanation is that the Times and the Post welcome the discussion of emergency rule, to
prepare the forces of the state for coming conflicts with the working class. Their only
disagreement with Trump is over which faction of the ruling elite, Trump or his opponents in
the Democratic Party, should direct the repression.
One thing is certain: if Trump declares a national emergency, or if, as the Post suggested
in an editorial, his opponents in the ruling elite declare a national emergency over alleged
Russian "meddling" as part an effort to remove him, it will represent an irrevocable break with
It is impossible to determine which side in this sordid conflict is more reactionary. The
working class is confronted with two alternatives :
either the present political crisis will be resolved by one faction of the ruling elite
moving against the other, using the methods of palace coup and dictatorship, whose essential
target is the working class,
or workers will move en masse against the political establishment as a whole and the
capitalist system that it defends.
The problem is not Russia; the problem is the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA. And related legitimization of neoliberal
elite, which now Deep State is trying ot patch with anti-Russian hysteria
"... That is, in the modern history of US-Russian summits, we are told by a former American ambassador who knows, the "secrecy of presidential private meetings has been the rule, not the exception." He continues, "There's nothing unusual about withholding information from the bureaucracy about the president's private meetings with foreign leaders . Sometimes they would dictate a memo afterward, sometimes not." Indeed, President Richard Nixon, distrustful of the US "bureaucracy," sometimes met privately with Kremlin leader Leonid Brezhnev while only Brezhnev's translator was present. ..."
Baseless Russiagate allegations continue to risk war with Russia.
Anti-Trump Frenzy Threatens to End Superpower Diplomacy | The Nation
The New Year has brought a torrent of ever-more-frenzied allegations that President Donald Trump has long had a conspiratorial relationship
-- why mince words and call it "collusion"? -- with Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin.
Why the frenzy now? Perhaps because Russiagate promoters in high places are concerned that special counsel Robert Mueller will
not produce the hoped-for "bombshell" to end Trump's presidency. Certainly,
New York Times columnist
David Leonhardt seems worried, demanding, "The president must go," his drop line exhorting, "What are we waiting for?" (In some
countries, articles like his, and there are very many, would be read as calling for a coup.) Perhaps to incite Democrats who have
now taken control of House investigative committees. Perhaps simply because Russiagate has become a political-media cult that no
facts, or any lack of evidence, can dissuade or diminish.
And there is no new credible evidence, preposterous claims notwithstanding. One of The New York Times '
own recent "bombshells,"
published on January 12, reported, for example, that in spring 2017, FBI officials "began investigating whether [President Trump]
had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests." None of the three reporters bothered to point out that those "agents
and officials" almost certainly included ones later reprimanded and retired by the FBI itself for their political biases. (As usual,
the Times buried its self-protective disclaimer deep in the story: "No evidence has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly
in contact with or took direction from Russian government officials.")
Whatever the explanation, the heightened frenzy is unmistakable, leading the "news" almost daily in the synergistic print and
cable media outlets that have zealously promoted Russiagate for more than two years, in particular the Times , The Washington
Post , MSNBC, CNN, and their kindred outlets. They have plenty of eager enablers, including the once-distinguished Strobe Talbott,
President Bill Clinton's top adviser on Russia and until recently president of the Brookings Institution.
According to Talbott
, "We already know that the Kremlin helped put Trump into the White House and played him for a sucker . Trump has been colluding
with a hostile Russia throughout his presidency." In fact, we do not "know" any of this. These remain merely widely disseminated
suspicions and allegations.
In this cult-like commentary, the "threat" of "a hostile Russia" must be inflated along with charges against Trump. (In truth,
Russia represents no threat to the United States that Washington itself did not provoke since the end of the Soviet Union in 1991.)
For its own threat inflation, the Times featured not an expert with any plausible credentials but Lisa Page, the former FBI
lawyer with no known Russia expertise, and who was one of those reprimanded by the agency for anti-Trump political bias. Nonetheless,
the Times quotes Page
at length : "In the Russian Federation and in President Putin himself you have an individual whose aim is to disrupt the Western
alliance and whose aim is to make Western democracy more fractious in order to weaken our ability to spread our democratic ideals."
Perhaps we should have guessed that the democracy-promotion genes of J. Edgar Hoover were still alive and breeding in the FBI, though
for the Times , in its exploitation of the hapless and legally endangered Page, it seems not to matter.
Which brings us, or rather Russiagate zealots, to the heightened "threat" represented by "Putin's Russia." If true, we would expect
the US president to negotiate with the Kremlin leader, including at summit meetings, as every president since Dwight Eisenhower has
done. But, we are told, we cannot trust Trump to do so, because,
according to The Washington Post , he has repeatedly met with Putin alone, with only translators present, and concealed
the records of their private talks, sure signs of "treasonous" behavior, as the Russiagate media first insisted following the Trump-Putin
summit in Helsinki in July 2018.
It's hard to know whether this is historical ignorance or Russiagate malice, though it is probably both. In any event, the truth
is very different. In preparing US-Russian (Soviet and post-Soviet) summits since the 1950s, aides on both sides have arranged "private
time" for their bosses for two essential reasons: so they can develop sufficient personal rapport to sustain any policy partnership
they decide on; and so they can alert one another to constraints on their policy powers at home, to foes of such détente policies
often centered in their respective intelligence agencies. (The KGB ran operations against Nikita Khrushchev's détente policies with
Eisenhower, and, as is well established, US intelligence agencies have run operations against Trump's proclaimed goal of "cooperation
That is, in the modern history of US-Russian summits, we are told by a former American ambassador who knows, the "secrecy
of presidential private meetings has been the rule, not the exception." He continues, "There's nothing unusual about withholding
information from the bureaucracy about the president's private meetings with foreign leaders . Sometimes they would dictate a memo
afterward, sometimes not." Indeed, President Richard Nixon, distrustful of the US "bureaucracy," sometimes met privately with Kremlin
leader Leonid Brezhnev while only Brezhnev's translator was present.
Nor should we forget the national-security benefits that have come from private meetings between US and Kremlin leaders. In October
1986, President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev met alone with their translators and an American official who took
notes -- the two leaders, despite their disagreements, agreed in principle that nuclear weapons should be abolished. The result,
in 1987, was the first and still only treaty abolishing an entire category of such weapons, the exceedingly dangerous intermediate-range
ones. (This is the historic treaty Trump has said he may abrogate.)
And yet, congressional zealots are now threatening to subpoena the American translator who was present during Trump's meetings
with Putin. If this recklessness prevails, it will be the end of the nuclear-superpower summit diplomacy that has helped to keep
America and the world safe from catastrophic war for nearly 70 years -- and as a new, more perilous nuclear arms race between the
two countries is unfolding. It will amply confirm a thesis set out in my book
War with Russia? -- that anti-Trump
Russiagate allegations have become the gravest threat to our security.
The following correction and clarification were made to the original version of this article on January 17: Reagan and Gorbachev
met privately with translators during their summit in Reykjavik, Iceland, in October 1986, not February, and Reagan was also accompanied
by an American official who took notes. And it would be more precise to say that the two leaders, despite their disagreements, agreed
in principle that nuclear weapons should be abolished.
Stephen F. Cohen is professor emeritus of politics and Russian studies at Princeton and NYU and author of the new book
War with Russia? From Putin and
Ukraine to Trump and Russiagate . This commentary is based on the most recent of his weekly discussions of the new US-Russian
Cold War with the host of the John Batchelor radio show. (The podcast is
here . Previous installments, now in their fifth year, are at
TheNation.com . )
The books does not answer the key question: if it was not Russian influence, who of forign
powers tried to influence the election: GB, Israel, Saudi, or all three. We have solid evidence
of interference of British intelligence services into the election. Which means May government
Also important to understand that FBI from the very beginning was apolitical tool. Nothing
This dirty political witch hunt has one major goal to cement the cracks in neoliberal society
that appear after 2008 Financial crash. This attempt failed and Pateigenosse Mueller is unable to
change that. Confidence in the ruling neoliberal oligarchy collapsed and problem with the
inequality laid now bare.
My interest in this book occurred by chance. Over the past couple years reading news stories
on sites like Yahoo News I sensed a very overt stance against President Trump. It appeared
very obvious to me, but I wanted some confirmation whether these views may have validity, or
perhaps not. So I started to investigate other opinions via some of the conservative talk
radio shows. Up until this time, I rarely listened to them. One was the Sean Hannity Show and
Gregg Jarrett was sitting in for Sean on one of the shows. He mentioned his book and I
thought it sounded interesting. My basic assumption even prior to reading this book was I
never felt there was any illegal Trump/Russian collusion in our recent election. I couldn't
see how it would ever be done in such a way that would actually affect the voting outcome
(other than if it were some kind of ballot box type fraud). So I had doubts about all the
related investigations. When this book was mentioned I figured it would offer some factual
information to help me understand the investigations better. It did accomplish that. And much
One of the major items about this book is that it is well researched and documented. This
made me feel somewhat comfortable about its content. There is so much misinformation making
its rounds today that knowing what is truthful and what isn't can become a real guessing
game. I could even ask 'Did Mr. Jarrett fabricate his sources'? At this point I will go on
faith that they are real.
Based on that assumption, he presents a very hard case about the Russian collusion
investigation as not being quite what the U.S.A. people are being led to believe by the media
outlets. So much so, I hope this book could be a catalyst for other investigations (assuming
that isn't already being planned). As summarized in this book, a major point is about federal
investigative departments having integrity in performing their duties, and doing so legally
and without prejudice or political partisanship. This book does raise some real concerns.
The author states at the end of the book "The people who should read this book, probably
won't". Unfortunately he is probably correct. As a country we seem so divided today
politically. It is my impression that anti-Trumpers will probably not want to acknowledge any
conflicting thoughts or facts to their beliefs. But this book could be a great exercise in
broadening one's knowledge regarding the investigations on Trump. It would show a different
viewpoint than that being touted by much of the media, and has the facts backing it up. At
the very least, it can provide some food for thought.
As Gregg Jarrett states in the Epilogue of this book, "The people who should read this book,
probably won't... they are intellectually dishonest in believing that the president must have
committed some crime in connection with Russia...There was never any plausible evidence that
Trump or his campaign collaborated with Russia to win the presidency... Comey's scheme to
trigger the appointment of his friend as special counsel was a devious maneuver by an
As many of these events unfolded I have watched closely and performed my own "tests of
reasonableness" from facts presented. Utilizing logic and common sense I often wondered if I
was missing something? What crystal ball would have predicted that Donald Trump would run for
the presidency? One example: The press told us he had been a political asset for many years
and had been exchanging Intel with the Russians...
Then I heard about this book, purchased it and began reading it... I could hardly put it
down... The information in it is astonishing! It is all to clear now...
Jarrett has researched, compiled and formatted an almost air-tight legal case (within this
book) for prosecuting these "weasels." The astonishing levels of corruption and crimes
committed by those in the highest levels of the DOJ and FBI are unprecedented. He has
compiled an extraordinary amount of source information to back up his many claims throughout
the book. I am totally perplexed that our so-called leaders in Congress are allowing this
abuse to go unpunished... baffling? This disgraceful abuse of power documented by Jarrett
will come back to haunt us! A well written expose by Mr. Jarrett!
Gregg Jarrett's research leaves NO DOUBT that drastic action needs to be taken to hold these
people- PRETENDING to represent the law- accountable & end their "assassination" tactics
on our tax dollar.
This is not Halloween, not a play. This is REALITY with our laws running amok!
And our Congress - our elected officials, supposedly servants of We, the People, - is not
How is this possible?
Incredibly well researched and well written book which explains methodically in an easy to
read style the undeniable deep seated bias against President Trump at the highest levels of
the Department of Justice and the FBI. They tried to first prevent him from being elected by
exonerating Hillary Clinton of a long list of crimes committed during her tenure as Secretary
of State and then smearing him with a politically motivated fake "Dossier". When that didn't
work, they have tried to undermine his presidency from the start with an equally politically
motivated Special Prosecutor investigating "Collusion with Russia" in an investigation which
had no crime to investigate from the start. A must read for all Americans.
This author writes with a very smooth, easy, but detailed style. The book brings in much law
for the reader to digest, but, somehow, does not get a reader tangled up in the weeds. As for
the thrust of the book: A detailed 'tick tock' of the day by day events that have taken
America to the point we are today on this entire question of Trump, Russia, and the 2016
This book really is vivid proof that the 'deep state' does emphatically exist. Not as a
structure or organization with secret meetings,rituals or handshakes. But as a mentality, or
common political/social view of government, stemming from the longevity of bureaucracy to
feel invulnerable to popular will because of their simple edict that 'we'll still be here
after you're long gone'. And from this, these bureaucrats build liaisons with favoring
political elites that lead to deep, hidden, obscure --shall we say 'deep state'-- actions to
pervert the popular will for the ends of a few.
This book vividly displays why bureaucrats (whose lifeblood is to promote more government) so
turn their collective hand to supporting Democrats, the party of government. Yates covering
for Comey and the blackmailing of Gen. Flynn, Comey leaking to a friend in Academia that
provokes the appointment of his (Comey's) close associate --indeed, his mentor-- Robert
Mueller. Senior bureaucrats (McCabe, Strzok) playing inside baseball to maneuver themselves
for promotion in the expected new (Democratic) administration that they so much support and
wish for. Indeed friendships with FISA judges to assure bogus warrants can be obtained
against political enemies.
Where money and power are traded as coin of the realm in a way that is so antiseptic and
hidden. Nobody says 'How much money will it take'; instead it's 'I can help you fund raise'.
Rod Blagojevich was foolish enough to call a bribe a bribe...well, he's in jail, but Strzok's
It just goes on and on................it's simple corruption!!! And the band plays
on......the human comedy continues........
Excellent detailed and researched book that simply amazes me. Lynch, Comey, Clinton, Stzrok,
Orr, Rosenstein, McCabe, Reid and Brennen all worked seamlessly to install Hillary and have a
backup plan B to lay the groundwork to impeach Trump in case she doesn't make it. All under
the oversight of Obama. Neat trick, but what follows is even more orchestrated: MEDIA
COMPLICITY! You can't pull this off unless you have the full cooperation willingly or
otherwise of: NBC, CBS, NPR, ABC, MSNBC, and most of all CNN, the New York Times, and
Washington Post! Here's where the real story lies. The media and the Democrat party are
simpatico, joint at the brain and mouth and one other orifice. This is the real story that
Jarrett only pays passing attention to. Sequel maybe, I hope so. Jon Kuhl Papillion, NE &
This book is very thorough and completely exposes the Deep State. If there were any doubts
about the conspiracy to depose President Trump before reading this book, there certainly
aren't any afterwards. After reading the book, I am very disappointed and discouraged to find
that our government has such liars and criminals in the FBI, the DOJ, and the Congress. I
have completely lost any confidence I had in the U.S. government and will never believe in it
again, unless there is a complete house-cleaning in the FBI and the DOJ.
Jarrett pens a comprehensive review of the Deep State's inordinate fraud on our Constitution
-- perhaps the greatest attack on our constitutional republic in the history of our country.
He writes in clear and empathetic style. His narrative evolves in a coherent and logical
progression that details the conspirators' skullduggery in an "ABC" type of progression. He
cites exactly who violated the relevant federal statute and why and how it was violated.
Unfortunately, as of 30 September 2018 -- the date I'm preparing the review -- none of the
miscreants have been indicted even though the documentation of evidence is ponderous.
Gregg Jarrett's study -- and that is what this book is, a study -- covers two main aspects of
recent history. First and foremost it is an in-depth look at the tactics and forces arrayed
against President Trump. Intertwined with this comes by necessity a parallel look at Hillary
Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, her presidential run, as well as a broader look at
the activities of the Clintons with the nearly full support of those same forces that are now
aligned against the presidency of Donald Trump. The nature of the often overlapping issues
and the personnel involved has resulted in a fair amount of repetition of key points. This
was not a lazy attempt to achieve a book-length manuscript, as Jarrett's original copy by his
own admission in the acknowledgments was a hefty 100,000 words before the publisher
encouraged him to trim things down.
It is unfortunate that this book will be dismissed by so many who are unwilling to
understand and accept that the pervasive high-level animosity against President Trump has
evolved into a direct and active threat against our country -- and this threat is compounded
by a complicit media that is eager to pounce. The rule of law has been twisted and contorted
if not completely abandoned. Trump is the primary target, but whether by design or
happenstance it is the U.S. Constitution that is being the most assaulted. The danger of this
cannot be overemphasized -- we are at a critical crossroads. Gregg Jarret understands this
and was motivated to bring this truth to light. He is no sycophant of President Trump. His
loyalty is to the rule of law and to our Constitution rather than to political agendas on
I withheld one star because a great opportunity was lost. This book will never appear in
classrooms, and it will likely be stocked in few law libraries. It most certainly should be,
and it needs to be read and studied. The flagrant abuses of power by the DOJ, the FBI, and
others need to be brought out into a bright light and the corruption purged. As a people we
need to get our head out of the sand and realize what has been going on behind closed doors
-- our future is most definitely at stake. The lost opportunity that I am alluding to comes
down to the expressed (albeit well deserved) disdain and disgust that Gregg Jarrett now has
towards those who are participating in this hoax that he has so thoroughly revealed. I fear
even the preface itself will turn away those who most need to read this book.
What will be perceived as bias before the facts are presented and developed will allow or
even cause those who need to read this book to close their minds, giving them the excuse they
want to dismiss the evidence. If strictly the evidence and history had alone been presented
with Jarrett's (again, well-deserved) animosity being held in check and edited out, then
perhaps this book could have become a classic for later generations to study assuming that we
survive these perilously subversive times. I did the math, and there are 771 supporting
references -- an average of 70 per chapter -- documenting Jarrett's research, plus 12
references even in the epilogue. Obviously, we are not talking about willfully blind opinion
with no basis in fact.
The antagonists who post their 1-star reviews with almost all of them having obviously
never read the book (Re. few verified purchases) reveal a dangerous willful ignorance that
they are happy to embrace. Their mindset should concern us all.
All links are going to Brennan and CIA. Rosenstein was just a tool, necessary to appoint the Special Prosecutor. And launching
the prove was the meaning of "insurance" that Strock mentioned to his mistress. Both Strzok and McCabe have their liasons
(read bosses) at CIA, so in essence they were "CIA infiltration group" within the FBI. And it is also important to understand that Obama was just a CIA snowperson.
There is Stalin's NKVD chief Beria shadow over CIA and FBI now. He famously said "Show me the man and I'll find you the
"... The Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross has made a brilliant observation, noting Peter Strzok - then the FBI's deputy chief of counterintelligence, admitted to his FBI lawyer mistress, Lisa Page, that there was no merit to the investigation. ..."
"... Interestingly, another series of Strzok-Page texts refers to "coordinating investigation" after Strzok apparently met with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who both recommended Comey's firing, then authorized the special counsel probe ..."
"... As Ross notes in The Daily Caller , there were other text messages that between Strzok and Page which raise suspicion over whether the FBI was working on a "gotcha" against Trump. ..."
As FBI Ramped Up "Witch Hunt" When Trump Fired Comey, Strzok Admitted Collusion
Investigation A Joke
A Friday report in the New York Times revealing that the FBI supercharged its Trump-Russia
collusion investigation after President Trump fired FBI director James Comey appears to have
backfired - especially when one reviews internal FBI communications from the time period in
The Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross has made a brilliant observation, noting Peter Strzok - then
the FBI's deputy chief of counterintelligence, admitted to his FBI lawyer mistress, Lisa Page,
that there was no merit to the investigation.
Nine days after Comey was fired and the DOJ "sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was
knowingly working for Russia," Strzok texted Page on May 18, 2017: "You and I both know the
odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely I'd be there no question. I hesitate in part
because of my gut sense and concern there's no big there there. "
It is unclear from The Times report what information was used as a predicate to open the
investigation. The article suggests that the FBI had long considered the move and that
Comey's firing and Trump's subsequent comments marked a tipping point.
A source close to Strzok told The Daily Caller News Foundation on Jan. 26, 2018, shortly
after the text was released, that the message reflected Strzok's concern that the FBI would
not find evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia . - Daily Caller
The Times' explanation for the FBI's rationale that Trump may have been a Russian asset
consists of Trump's call for Moscow to release Hillary Clinton's emails an election debate, and
allegations contained within the unverified Steele Dossier. The Times was also quick to note
that Trump may have "unwittingly fallen under Moscow's influence," to temper the accusation
that he was an agent of a foreign power. In short, weak sauce.
It's no wonder Strzok was hesitant to join Mueller's team.
Interestingly, another series of Strzok-Page texts refers to "coordinating investigation"
after Strzok apparently met with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who both recommended
Comey's firing, then authorized the special counsel probe.
As Ross notes in The Daily Caller , there were other text messages that between Strzok and
Page which raise suspicion over whether the FBI was working on a "gotcha" against Trump.
" And we need to open the case we've been waiting on now while Andy is acting ," Strzok
texted Page the day Comey was fired, referring to then-deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe.
Meanwhile, Page - who served as McCabe's deputy, provided some additional color on the text
messages during her July 2018 congressional testimony, suggesting that the "case we've been
waiting on" text referred to an investigation separate of the obstruction probe we already knew
"Well, other than obstruction, what could it have been?" one lawmaker asked Page in her
interview, details of which were published by The Epoch Times on Friday.
" I can't answer that, sir. I'm sorry ," she replied.
"If I was able to explain in more depth why the Director firing precipitated this text, I
would," she continued while declining to say if the text message referred to an obstruction
of justice investigation or something more. - Daily Caller
That said, Page admitted that Comey's firing prompted the text exchange.
"So the firing of Jim Comey was the precipitating event as opposed to the occupant of the
Director's office?" asked one lawmaker.
"Yes, that's correct," replied Page.
Meanwhile, The Times went to great lengths to imply that the FBI was justified in their
ratcheted-up collusion investigation - failing to mention who started the probe, who led it,
and more importantly - waiting until the 9th paragraph to mention the fact that it turned up
"No evidence has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly in contact with or took
direction from Russian government officials. An F.B.I. spokeswoman and a spokesman for the
special counsel's office both declined to comment."
"It is unclear from The Times report what information was used as a predicate to open the investigation."
Should be pretty simple with one question. "Was it Hillary who was the responsible party to open an investigation on Trump?".
About as direct as it gets & we already know the answer.
TDS sufferers hate Trump so bad that they have become (at 70%) pro-warmonger. Pathetic. I guess that I shouldn't be
surprised. They were fine with Black Jesus starting wars, overthrowing governments and bombing brown people for 8 years.
McCabe initiated the investigation. Nobody likes McCabe, so he is likely to be the one guy that gets thrown under the bus.
Of course what he knows may protect him to some extent... they won't want a trial.
7 Days in May.... except for current version we use the DOJ and FBI! Interesting times.
"... What Are the Democrats Hiding?" http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/07/what-are-the-democrats-hiding-by-publius-tacitus.html "Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) demanded that Capitol Police Chief Matthew Verderosa return equipment belonging to her office that was seized as part of the investigation -- or face "consequences." ..."
"... "FBI agents seized smashed computer hard drives from the home of Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's information technology (IT) administrator, according to two sources with knowledge of the investigation. Pakistani-born Imran Awan, long-time right-hand IT aide to the former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman, has since desperately tried to get the hard drives back." ..."
"... This is not your phony Russia-gate or McCain-commissioned funny dossier on Trump. This is the documented "serious, potentially illegal, violations of the House IT network," which is a case of a free access to classified information by a group of the proven blackmailers. Would this matter be treated with the same urgency of "patriotism" as the cases of Manning and Assange? ..."
Virtually no one [from MSM] is paying attention to the fact that a group of Pakistani
Muslims, working for a Jewish Congresswoman from Florida, had full computer access to a large
number of Democrat Representatives. Most of the press is disinterested in pursuing this
"FBI agents seized smashed computer hard drives from the home of Florida Democratic
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's information technology (IT) administrator, according to two
sources with knowledge of the investigation. Pakistani-born Imran Awan, long-time right-hand
IT aide to the former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman, has since desperately
tried to get the hard drives back."
This is not your phony Russia-gate or McCain-commissioned funny dossier on Trump. This
is the documented "serious, potentially illegal, violations of the House IT network," which
is a case of a free access to classified information by a group of the proven blackmailers.
Would this matter be treated with the same urgency of "patriotism" as the cases of Manning
Former FBI Director James Comey appeared December 17th, 2018, for a
second round of questions by a joint House committee oversight probe into the DOJ and FBI
conduct during the 2016 presidential election and incoming Trump administration.
The Joint House Committee just released the transcript online (full pdf below).
Trey Gowdy grilled Comey on his vastly different handling of comments by Trump and Obama.
When Trump asked Comey whether he could see his way clear to easing up on Flynn, Comey
memorialized the conversation in a memo and distributed it to his leadership team, including
Andrew McCabe and James Baker.
However, when President Obama on 60 Minutes publicly exonerated Hillary Clinton's
mishandling of classified information -- setting the stage for true obstruction of justice --
Comey did nothing. He never talked to the president about potential obstruction, he never
memorialized his observations, and he didn't leak anything to the press. These were all things
he did with Trump.
He might call it a "higher loyalty", but it looks to us peons like a true double-standard.
Democrats get Wall Street Bankster treatment, while the rabble get tossed in the
2. According to Comey, Flynn had no right to counsel
This is interesting:
Mr. Gowdy. Did Mr. Flynn have the right to have counsel present during that interview?
Mr. Comey. No.
3. Comey confirmed McCabe called Flynn to initiate "entrapment";
contradicts himself on counsel
Mr. Gowdy. Why not advise General Flynn of the consequences of making false statements to
Mr. Comey. ...the Deputy Director [McCabe] called him, told him what the subject matter
was, told him he was welcome to have a representative from White House Counsel there...
So Comey is saying that Flynn didn't have the right to counsel (item 2), and then states
that he does have the right to a White House counsel attending the meeting.
The lies are getting harder and harder to keep straight with this egregious
4. Comey lied about McCabe's conversation with Flynn
When asked whether McCabe was trying to set Flynn up by asserting no counsel was needed in
the interview, Comey claimed he was unaware of that critical fact. But McCabe, in a written
memo, asserted that he told Flynn, "[i]f you have a lawyer present, we'll need to involve the
Department of Justice".
In other words, McCabe was trying to ensure Flynn had no counsel present during the
5. Comey still falls back on the Logan Act scam to justify his actions
Yes, the Logan Act. When former secretary of state John Kerry meets with various Mullahs
while President Trump is unwinding the disastrous Iran deal, there's no crime there !
But let Flynn, a member of the Trump transition team, have a perfectly legitimate
conversation with a Russian diplomat, we get:
Mr. Comey. And I hesitate only with "wrong." I think a Department of Justice prosecutor
might say, on its face, it was problematic under the Logan Act because of private citizens
negotiating and all that business.
What a lying sack of gumbo. At the time, Flynn was not a private citizen. He was a member of
the incoming administration, and had anyone bothered to prosecute prior transitions for similar
"crimes", the entire Obama and Clinton posses would be breaking rocks at Leavenworth.
Comey Throws James Clapper Under the Bus
When asked by Jim Jordan about his private meeting with the President to brief him on a very
tiny portion of the "salacious and unverified" (Comey's words under oath) dossier, Comey
claimed ODNI James Clapper had orchestrated the entire fiasco.
Mr. Comey. ...ultimately, it was Clapper's call. I agreed -- we agreed that it made sense
for me to do it and to do it privately, separately. So I don't want to make it sound like I
was ordered to do it.
He wasn't ordered to do it, but it was Clapper's call.
7. Jordan Torches Comey Over His Dossier Comments
I'll just leave this here. Comey may need to put some ice on that.
Mr. Jordan. So that's what I'm not understanding, is you felt this was so important that
it required a private session with you and the President-elect, you only spoke of the
salacious part of the dossier, but yet you also say there's no way any good reporter would
print this. But you felt it was still critical that you had to talk to the President-elect
about it. And I would argue you created the very news hook that you said you were concerned
...it's so inflammatory that reporters would 'get killed' for reporting it, why was it so
important to tell the President? Particularly when you weren't going to tell him the rest of
the dossier -- about the rest of the dossier?
8. Comey Concealed Critical National Security Concerns About Flynn From the
This is quite unbelievable: in a private dinner with the president, Comey neglected to
mention that just three days earlier he had directed the interview of Trump's ostensible
National Security Advisor.
Mr. Comey. ...at no time during the dinner was there a reference, allusion, mention by
us about the FBI having contact with General Flynn or being interested in General Flynn
Mr. Jordan. That was what I wanted to know. So this is not just referring to the President
didn't bring it up. You didn't bring it up either.
Mr. Comey. Correct, neither of us brought it up or alluded to it.
Mr. Jordan. Why not? He's talking about General Flynn. You had just interviewed him 3 days
earlier and discovered that he was lying to the Vice President, knew he was lying to the Vice
President, and, based on what we've heard of late, that he lied tyour agents. Why not tell
his boss, why not tell the head of the executive branch, why not tell the President of the
United States, "Hey, your National Security Advisor just lied to us 3 days ago"?
Mr. Comey. Because we had an open investigation, and there would be no reason or a need to
tell the President about it.
Mr. Jordan. Really?
Mr. Comey. Really.
Mr. Jordan. You wouldn't tell the President of the United States that his National
Security Advisor wasn't being square with the FBI? ... I mean, but this is not just any
investigation, it seems to me, Director. This is a top advisor to the Commander in Chief. And
you guys, based on what we've heard, felt that he wasn't being honest with the Vice President
and wasn't honest with two of your agents. And just 3 days later, you're meeting with the
President, and, oh, by the way, the conversation is about General Flynn. And you don't tell
the President anything?
Mr. Comey. I did not.
Mr. Meadows. So, Director Comey, let me make sure I understand this. You were so concerned
that Michael Flynn may have lied or did lie to the Vice President of the United States, but
that once you got that confirmed, that he had told a falsehood, you didn't believe that it
was appropriate to tell the President of the United States that there was no national
security risk where you would actually convey that to the President of the United States? Is
that your testimony?
Mr. Comey. That is correct. We had an --
The more we learn, the dirtier a cop Comey ends up appearing.
9. Gowdy Destroys the
Double Standard of Clinton vs. Flynn
Check this out:
Mr. Gowdy. ...we are going to contrast the decision to not allow Michael Flynn to have an
attorney, or discourage him from having one, with allowing some other folks the Bureau
interviewed to have multiple attorneys in the room, including fact witnesses. Can you see the
dichotomy there, or is that an unreasonable comparison?
Mr. Comey. I'm not going to comment on that. I remember you asking me questions about that
last week. I'm happy to answer them again.
Mr. Gowdy. You will not say whether or not it is an unreasonable comparison to compare
allowing multiple attorneys, who are also fact witnesses, to be present during an interview
but discouraging another person from having counsel present?
Mr. Comey. I'm not going to answer that in a vacuum...
10. Comey May Have Been Involved With the Infamous Tarmac Meeting
Another interesting vignette, this time from John Ratcliffe :
Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So it would appear from this that there had been some type of
briefing the day before, with reference to yesterday, June 27, 2016, where you had requested
a copy of emails between President Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Mr. Comey. I see that it says that.
Mr. Ratcliffe. ...The significance of that is, as we talked about last time, June 27th of
2016 was also the date that Attorney General Lynch and former President Bill Clinton met on a
tarmac in Phoenix, Arizona. Do you recall whether or not this briefing was held at the FBI
because of that tarmac meeting, or was it just happened to be a coincidence that it was held
on that day? Mr. Comey. It would have to have been a coincidence. I don't remember a meeting
in response to the tarmac meeting.
Muh don't know!
11. Comey confirms Obama knew Hillary Clinton was using a compromised,
insecure email server
Well, spank me on the fanny and call me Nancy!
Mr. Ratcliffe. ...Hillary Rodham Clinton and President Obama were communicating via email
through an unsecure, unclassified server?
Mr. Comey. Yes, they were between her Clinton email.com account and his -- I don't know
where his account, his unclassified account, was maintained. So I'm sorry. So, yes, here were
communications unclassified between two accounts, hers and then his cover account.
Mr. Ratcliffe. ...Did your review of these emails or the content of these emails impact
your decision to edit out a reference to President Obama in your July 5th, 2016, press
If Trump had done 1/1,000,000th of this crap, he'd be -- yes -- breaking rocks in
Leavenworth right now.
But there's no double-standard, rabble! Just keep buying iPhones and playing Call of Duty
...Aaaaaaaaand I'm spent.
Okay, done for now.
But let's recap the activities of Dr. "Higher Loyalty" Comey:
Did not investigate the felony leak to the press of the conversation between the Russian
Ambassador and Flynn.
Did not advise Congress of the "investigation" into Trump-Russia collusion as required by
Lied to the FISA court -- another felony -- about Carter Page being "an agent of a
Wrote an exoneration memo for Hillary Clinton before more than a dozen witnesses,
including Clinton herself, had been interviewed.
But, no, there's no double-standard for the aggressiveness of law enforcement when it comes
to Democrats like Clinton and Obama.
The decision to indict Flynn ruins " esprit de corps " in the USA intelligence community. So
Partaigenosser Mulkler trying to depose Trump oversteped the "norms" of intelligence community.
And if CIA allied with FBI against DIA that's a bad sign. It looks like the US elite was split
into two warring camps that will fight for power absolutely ruthlessly.
As for "In the report, the two agents describe Flynn as being very open and noted said Flynn 'clearly saw the FBI agents
as allies.' " the question arise how he got the to position of the head of DIA with such astounding level of naivety.
If anyone from FBI does not want your lawyer to be present you should probably have a lawyer present.
"... "The agents did not provide Gen. Flynn with a warning of the penalties for making a false statement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 before, during, or after the interview," the Flynn memo says. ..."
"... According to the 302, before the interview, McCabe and other FBI officials "decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed , and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport." ..."
"... McCabe, who has since been fired for lying to the DOJ's Office of Inspector General about leaking information to the media, also asked Flynn not to have his lawyer present during the initial meeting with the FBI agents. ..."
"... On Thursday, FBI Supervisory Agent Jeff Danik told SaraACarter.com that Sullivan must also request all the communications between the two agents, as well as their supervisors around the August 2017 time-frame in order to get a complete and accurate picture of what transpired. Danik, who is an expert in FBI policy, says it is imperative that Sullivan also request "the workflow chart, which would show one-hundred percent, when the 302s were created when they were sent to a supervisor and who approved them." ..."
"... Flynn was found guilty by Mueller on one count of lying to the FBI. Supporters of Flynn have questioned Mueller's tactics in getting the retired three-star general to plead guilty to this one count of lying. ..."
"... In the report, the two agents describe Flynn as being very open and noted said Flynn "clearly saw the FBI agents as allies." Flynn is described as discussing a variety of "subjects." The report includes his openness regarding Trump's "knack for interior design," the hotels he stayed at during his campaign, as well as other issues. ..."
"... It would appear that the branch of government that may be out of control (by the Supreme Court) is the judiciary. It is the court rules and failure of the Supreme Court to act and weed its subordinate courts, that allowed much of this to happen. The FISA Court has been a rubber stamp. No judge is held accountable for failure to obtain justice in their court. ..."
"... Could Mueller's whole appointment be meant to protect the Clinton empire? ..."
The Special Counsel's Office released key documents related to former National Security
Advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn Friday. Robert Mueller's office had until 3 p.m. to get the
documents to Judge Emmet Sullivan, who demanded information Wednesday after
bombshell information surfaced in a memorandum submitted by Flynn's attorney's that led to
serious concerns regarding the FBI's initial questioning of the retired three-star general.
The highly redacted documents included notes from former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe
regarding his conversation with Flynn about arranging the interview with the FBI. The initial
interview took place at the White House on Jan. 24, 2017.
The documents also include the FBI's "302" report regarding Flynn's interview with
anti-Trump former FBI Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Agent Joe Pientka when they met with him at
the White House. It is not, however, the 302 document from the actual January, 2017 interview
but an August, 2017 report of Strzok's recollections of the interview.
Flynn's attorney's had noted in their memorandum to the courts that the documents revealed
that FBI officials made the decision not to provide Flynn with his Miranda Rights, which
would've have warned him of penalties for making false statements.
"The agents did not provide Gen. Flynn with a warning of the penalties for making a false
statement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 before, during, or after the interview," the Flynn memo
According to the 302, before the interview, McCabe and other FBI officials "decided the
agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they
wanted Flynn to be relaxed , and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely
affect the rapport."
McCabe, who has since been fired for lying to the DOJ's Office of Inspector General about
leaking information to the media, also asked Flynn not to have his lawyer present during the
initial meeting with the FBI agents.
The July 2017 report, however, was the interview with Strzok. It described his interview
with Flynn but was not the original Flynn interview.
Apparent discrepancies within the 302 documents are being questioned by may former senior
FBI officials, who state that there are stringent policies in place to ensure that the
documents are guarded against tampering.
On Thursday, FBI Supervisory Agent Jeff Danik told SaraACarter.com that Sullivan must also request all the
communications between the two agents, as well as their supervisors around the August 2017
time-frame in order to get a complete and accurate picture of what transpired. Danik, who is an
expert in FBI policy, says it is imperative that Sullivan also request "the workflow chart,
which would show one-hundred percent, when the 302s were created when they were sent to a
supervisor and who approved them."
He stressed, "the bureau policy – the absolute FBI policy – is that the notes
must be placed in the system in a 1-A file within five days of the interview." Danik said that
the handwritten notes get placed into the FBI Sentinel System, which is the FBI's main record
keeping system. "Anything beyond five business days is a problem, eight months is a disaster,"
In the redacted 302 report Strzok and Pientka said they "both had the impression at the time
that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying." Information that Flynn was not lying
was first published
and reported by SaraACarter.com.
Flynn was found guilty by Mueller on one count of lying to the FBI. Supporters of Flynn have
questioned Mueller's tactics in getting the retired three-star general to plead guilty to this
one count of lying.
In the report, the two agents describe Flynn as being very open and noted said Flynn
"clearly saw the FBI agents as allies." Flynn is described as discussing a variety of
"subjects." The report includes his openness regarding Trump's "knack for interior design," the
hotels he stayed at during his campaign, as well as other issues.
"Flynn was so talkative, and had so much time for them, that Strzok wondered if the
national security adviser did not have more important things to do than have a such a
relaxed, non-pertinent discussion with them," it said.
The documents turned over by Mueller also reveal that other FBI personnel "later argued
about the FBI's decision to interview Flynn." Tags Law Crime
Why didn't Flynn demand his day in court? He would have won. I am not buying the ********
argument about him being run into bankruptcy. Hell, he could have represented himself and
still won the case at trial. In addition, I am not buying this ******** argument that he
agreed to plead guilty because he was afraid the Mueller would go after his son. Does anyone
know what Flynn's son does for a living? Why would he be afraid?
Flynn was found guilty by Mueller on one count of lying to the FBI.
No! Flynn was not f ound guilty by Mueller on one count of lying. The FBI is an
investigative body (at best) not a judicial body. Only a jury or a judge acting in lieu of a
jury can find someone guilty of anything.
Flynn plead guilty to one count of lying because to have plead innocent would have
bankrupted him in legal fees. However, it's interesting that this ZH article stated that
Mueller found Flynn guilty. In federal courts these days, once you're charged with a crime
you will be found guilty. FBI, DEA, BATF, IRS...whoever, you do not get a fair trial. Federal
judges are hard-wired to find guilt. Vicious and ambitious federal prosecutors have only one
interest, to rack up successful prosecutions. Federal juries are intimidated by the brute
force of the federal system and, I suspect, fear that if they don't bring in a verdict
satisfactory to the prosecutor, they may be investigated themselves. "Investigation" in the
federal sense means that they will be relentlessly harassed forever by the federal
My small experience as a juror is that state prosecutors and judges are no different than
what you describe for the federal system. We found a guy non-guilty (not a close call either)
that the judge wanted convicted, and he came back and questioned us about our logic. Casually
of course. I just said the guy was innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Judge wasn't
Flynn is an idiot.... why agree to talk to the FBI at all.... as Martha Stewart found
out.... if they can't make the case for what they're investigating... they'll just find some
statement in your "interview" that they claim was not true.... no matter if it was your
intention to lie or just a recollection that was wrong... and charge you with that!
Simple answer is that if law enforcement wants to "talk" to you they're looking to get
information to charge you.... simple reply.... FU... I want a lawyer!
The compromise of classified docs was really sort of candy-assed, everybody knew it . .
Rewind the tape, and you will find the contrite Petreaus in front of any and all
microphones confessing to his affair with Broadwell, which he repeatedly stated began on some
certain date . . .conveniently AFTER his confirmation as CIA director . . .
. . .certainly Petreaus was asked in his FBI background interview if he was involved in
any affairs. And he certainly said no.
So, Paula, since I'm on all the networks at the moment, I know you can hear me, our affair
started on X date, in case the FBI gets a notion to ask you (which they did not.)
See, the FBI takes lying seriously. But somebody must have said something along the lines
of: hey, Petreaus is a good guy, I hope you can find a way to let him off easy.
The military is realizing they are not on the same team with FBI, CIA, DOJ.
Why do you think they have tried so hard to keep NSA under military leadership? Wink,
It would appear that the branch of government that may be out of control (by the Supreme Court) is the judiciary. It
is the court rules and failure of the Supreme Court to act and weed its subordinate courts, that allowed much of this to
happen. The FISA Court has been a rubber stamp. No judge is held accountable for failure to obtain justice in their court.
The Chief Justice has refused to accept that judges can employ personal poliltical beliefs in court. All courts are
subordinate to the US Supreme Court and therefore the Supreme Court has a duty to ensure justice not just to decide whether
cases are 'sufficiently mature' to come before the Supreme Court. In other words, the Judiciary needs to be disturbed from
their lifetime appointments and made conditional appointments. The Supreme Court needs to deal with incapacity within its own
ranks. All told, this shocking miscarriage of justice came about because the Judicial Branch of government allowed it to
happen. The Judicial Branch has run amok.
IMO, Judge Emmet Sullivan needs to demand and receive the original UNREDACTED 302 about the Strzok/Pientka interview with
General Flynn. But, really, just by reading the pre-interview discussions of the FBI members involved, the whole thing sounds
Could Mueller's whole appointment be meant to protect the Clinton empire?
Like Trump or not, there are serious cracks appearing in the Clintons foundation.
"... For decades, it has been rumored that the Clintons have FBI files on most members of Congress and use these files for blackmail purposes. Given the events of the past few years, I actually believe this rumor to be grounded in truth. ..."
"... For decades, it has been rumored that the Clintons have FBI files on most members of Congress and use these files for blackmail purposes. Given the events of the past few years, I actually believe this rumor to be grounded in truth. ..."
Somehow I doubt that this Christmas will win the Bing Crosby star of approval. Rather, we
see the financial markets breaking under the strain of sustained institutionalized fraud, and
the social fabric tearing from persistent systemic political dishonesty. It adds up to a nation
that can't navigate through reality, a nation too dependent on sure things, safe spaces, and
happy outcomes. Every few decades a message comes from the Universe that faking it is not good
The main message from the financials is that the global debt barge has run aground, and with
it, the global economy. That mighty engine has been chugging along on promises-to-pay and now
the faith that sustained those promises is dissolving. China, Euroland, and the USA can't
possibly meet their tangled obligations, and are running out of tricks for rigging, gaming, and
jacking the bond markets, where all those promises are vested. It boils down to a whole lot of
people not getting paid, one way or the other -- and it's really bad for business.
Our President has taken full credit for the bubblicious markets, of course, and will be
Hooverized as they gurgle around the drain. Given his chimerical personality, he may try to put
on an FDR mask -- perhaps even sit in a wheelchair -- and try a few grand-scale policy tricks
to escape the vortex. But the net effect will surely be to make matters worse -- for instance,
if he can hector the Federal Reserve to buy every bond that isn't nailed to some deadly
derivative booby-trap. But then he'll only succeed in crashing the dollar. Remember, there are
two main ways you can go broke: You can run out of money; or you can have plenty of worthless
On the social and political scene, I sense that some things have run their course. Is a
critical mass of supposedly educated people not fatigued and nauseated by the regime of "social
justice" good-think, and the massive mendacity it stands for , starting with the idea that
"diversity and inclusion" require the shut-down of free speech. The obvious hypocrisies and
violations of reason emanating from the campuses -- a lot, but not all of it, in response to
the Golden Golem of Greatness -- have made enough smart people stupid to endanger the country's
political future. A lot of these formerly-non-stupid people work in the news media. It's not
too late for some institutions like The New York Times and CNN to change out their editors and
producers, and go back to reporting the reality-du-jour instead of functioning as agit-prop
mills for every unsound idea ginned through the Yale humanities departments.
Shoehorned into the festivity of the season is the lame-duck session in congress, and one of
the main events it portends is the end of Robert Mueller's Russia investigation. The
Sphinx-like Mueller has maintained supernatural silence about his tendings and intentions. But
if he'd uncovered anything substantial in the way of "collusion" between Mr. Trump and Russia,
the public would know by now, since it would represent a signal threat to national security. So
it's hard not to conclude that he has nothing except a few Mickey Mouse "process" convictions
for lying to the FBI. On the other hand, it's quite impossible to imagine him ignoring the
well-documented evidence trail of Hillary Clinton colluding with Russians to influence the 2016
contest against Mr. Trump -- and to defame him after he won. There's also the Hieronymus Bosch
panorama of criminal mischief around the racketeering scheme known as the Clinton Foundation to
consider. Do these venal characters get a pass on all that?
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) has announced plans to call Federal Attorney John Huber (Utah
District) to testify about his assignment to look into these Clinton matters. It's a little
hard to see how that might produce any enlightenment, since prosecutors are bound by law to not
blab about currently open cases. The committee has also subpoenaed former Attorney General
Loretta Lynch, former FBI Director James Comey, and others who have some serious 'splainin' to
do. But if both Huber and Mueller come up empty-handed on the Clintons it will be one of the
epic marvels of official bad faith in US history.
There is a core truth to the 2016 Russia collusion story, and the Clintons are at the heart
of it. Failure to even look will have very dark consequences for the public interest.
It ought to be obvious to just about everyone who is paying attention and not a
Corporate-Whore Democrat that the "The Russians Did It" delusion and the accompanying Mueller
"investigation" is only a distraction to draw attention away from the obvious and numerous
crimeS of H. Clinton, including running an electronic drop-box for U.S. state secrets using a
server in her basement, charity fraud, pay-to-play bribe-taking, the uranium to Russia case,
etc. And, that's not counting the inexcusable Unprovoked War of Aggression WAR CRIME against
Libya. (Of course, she had an excuse: "Destroy a country in order to save a few
Mueller is the Deep State (Corporations [especially Military Industrial Complex
Death-Merchants, who direct the politicians and foreign policy actions (continual
War-For-Humongous-Profits that has taken and takes multiple trillions of dollars away from
potential domestic programs & Wall Street bankster-fraudsters who bankrupted the country
with the lead-up to and aftermath of the 2008-2009 financial fiasco and who sent U.S.
industrial production jobs to other countries] and Oligarchs who reap the profits of such
crimes and their results) operative who apparently was brought in the head the FBI to fail to
prevent and to coverup the real actors and actions that occurred in association with the
downing of buildings at the New York City World Trade center on 9/11.
Sorry, nobodies going to jail and all will be swept under the rug. We will have war to
cover their tracks along with all the other frauds. The political buddy buddy system at the
upper levels is set up to protect the guilty, and nobody has to pay the price lest the whole
thing crumble. It's built that way.
Our only way out is a crash and a reset, with no guarantee what happens on the other
I used to be optimistic, but the level of lies, double speak and university factories
pumping out marxist leftists portends a bleak future. How anyone thinks we can reason our way
out of this situation is fooling themselves about human nature.
Nice to see Kunstler focusing on some serious issues like the Uranium One scandal for a
change. He seems to be on the concluding end of a cold-turkey or other rehab from some
long-term unholy influence. As a result, he has been producing increasingly readable articles
for the past several months. Congratulations are due him but with the warning that recovery
is always one day at a time.
" Remember, there are two main ways you can go broke: You can run out of money; or you can
have plenty of worthless money". Both pretty much sums up America's predicament. Americans
are deep in debt, and their money is worthless.
Mueller isn't going to touch the Clintons - they have way too much criminal dirt on him.
And Huber is an unknown lightweight with no Malicious Seditious Media support.
Sooooo . . . there is only one thing to do once the new Congress takes its oath: Trump
gets DOJ Acting AG to appoint the long-awaited Special Prosecutor.
There are more than enough recognized felonies to go after - unlike the Mueller fishing
expedition. That will put the Democrat investigation on ice - mainly because lots of Demo
chairs and members will be part of the investigation.
Any serious investigation of the Clinton Foundation would reveal that "Russian Collusion"
has everything to do with distraction from the crimes of the Clinton family. The fact that
Bill and Hillary have escaped accountability for their heinous crimes is one of the greatest
miscarriages of justice in US history. It is truly quite frightening.
There is a reason why the DOJ, Congress (both parties), MSM, the MIC, the Deep State don't
want ANYONE to look into corruption ... because they are ALL ******* guilty as sin and buried
neck deep in ****. Its long past time for the whole ******* thing to come down. We're all
Weiner laptop For The Win. Give us that hard drive, Mr. President! We'll have it all
analyzed in one weekend.
Meanwhile, Seth Rich awaits Mueller's OH SO DILIGENT investigation.
Can you believe that the 'core' of Mueller's 'case' ends up being about WIKILEAKS?
What the serious ****.
If he's done zero serious looks at Seth Rich all Mueller's work will just be thrown out
of court anyway.
Ham sandwich my fat turkey-enriched ***.
For decades, it has been rumored that the Clintons have FBI files on most members of
Congress and use these files for blackmail purposes. Given the events of the past few years,
I actually believe this rumor to be grounded in truth.
This guy is dreaming if he thinks anything is going to happen to the clintons, the MSM/DOJ
is protected those 2 scumbags with the line that if they are investigated trump is going
after his political opponents, just like a banana republic. But truthfully nothing reaks more
of banana repubicism more then letting the high and mighty of on crimes.
If they weren't all on the same side, that of the international bankster cabal, Trump
would order his justice department to prosecute those people you mentioned.
The purpose of the Russia investigation is to fool you into thinking there are two sides,
and to demonized Russia to create public opinion in favor of attacking Russia because it is
not on board with the jwo totalitarian world government. WTFU.
For decades, it has been rumored that the Clintons have FBI files on most members of
Congress and use these files for blackmail purposes. Given the events of the past few years,
I actually believe this rumor to be grounded in truth.
Mueller long ago gave up the fruitless hunt for Russian collusion involving President
Trump and is now desperately seeking overdue library books or unpaid parking tickets on
anyone remotely connected to President Trump to justify his mooching taxpayer dollars.
"... The move means that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will no longer oversee the federal Russia investigation, which he has looked over since Sessions recused himself early last year due to his work on Trump's campaign. ..."
President Trump's pick to replace ousted Attorney General Jeff Sessions plans to take over
oversight of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, the Department of Justice (DOJ)
confirmed Wednesday. "The Acting Attorney General is in charge of all matters under the purview
of the Department of Justice," DOJ spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said in a statement to The
The move means that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will no longer oversee the
federal Russia investigation, which he has looked over since Sessions recused himself early
last year due to his work on Trump's campaign.
Trump on Wednesday afternoon announced Matthew
Whitaker, who served as Sessions's chief of staff at the DOJ, as his temporary replacement atop
the department after ousting Sessions.
So intelligence agencies are now charged with protection of elections from undesirable candidates; looks like a feature of neofascism...
"... The Department of Justice admitted in a Friday court filing that the FBI used more than one "Confidential Human Source," (also known as informants, or spies ) to infiltrate the Trump campaign through former adviser Carter Page, reports the Daily Caller ..."
"... Included in Hardy's declaration is an acknowledgement that the FBI's spies were in addition to the UK's Christopher Steele - a former MI6 operative who assembled the controversial and largely unproven "Steel Dossier" which the DOJ/FBI used to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Page. ..."
"... In addition to Steele, the FBI also employed 73-year-old University of Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, a US citizen, political veteran and longtime US Intelligence asset enlisted by the FBI to befriend and spy on three members of the Trump campaign during the 2016 US election . Halper received over $1 million in contracts from the Pentagon during the Obama years, however nearly half of that coincided with the 2016 US election. ..."
"... In short, the FBI's acknowledgement that they used multiple spies reinforces Stone's assertion that he was targeted by one. ..."
"... Stefan Halper's infiltration of the Trump campaign corresponds with the two of the four targets of the FBI's Operation Crossfire Hurricane - in which the agency sent former counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and others to a London meeting in the Summer of 2016 with former Australian diplomat Alexander Downer - who says Papadopoulos drunkenly admitted to knowing that the Russians had Hillary Clinton's emails. ..."
"... Interestingly Downer - the source of the Papadopoulos intel, and Halper - who conned Papadopoulos months later, are linked through UK-based Haklyut & Co. an opposition research and intelligence firm similar to Fusion GPS - founded by three former British intelligence operatives in 1995 to provide the kind of otherwise inaccessible research for which select governments and Fortune 500 corporations pay huge sums ..."
"... Downer - a good friend of the Clintons, has been on their advisory board for a decade, while Halper is connected to Hakluyt through Director of U.S. operations Jonathan Clarke, with whom he has co-authored two books. (h/t themarketswork.com ) ..."
The Department of Justice admitted in a
Friday court filing that the FBI used
more than one "Confidential Human Source," (also known as informants, or spies ) to infiltrate the Trump campaign through former
adviser Carter Page, reports the Daily Caller
"The FBI has protected information that would identify the identities of other confidential sources who provided information or
intelligence to the FBI" as well as "information provided by those sources," wrote David M. Hardy, the head of the FBI's Record/Information
Dissemination Section (RIDS), in court
papers submitted Friday.
Hardy and Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys submitted the filings in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit
for the FBI's four applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against Page. The DOJ released heavily
redacted copies of the four FISA warrant applications on June 20, but USA Today reporter Brad Heath has sued for full copies of
the documents. - Daily Caller
Included in Hardy's declaration is an acknowledgement that the FBI's spies were in addition to the UK's Christopher Steele
- a former MI6 operative who assembled the controversial and largely unproven "Steel Dossier" which the DOJ/FBI used to obtain a
FISA warrant to spy on Page.
The DOJ says it redacted information in order to protect the identity of their confidential sources, which "includes nonpublic
information about and provided by Christopher Steele," reads the filing, " as well as information about and provided by other confidential
sources , all of whom were provided express assurances of confidentiality."
Government lawyers said the payment information is being withheld because disclosing specific payment amounts and dates could
"suggest the relative volume of information provided by a particular CHS. " That disclosure could potentially tip the source's
targets off and allow them to "take countermeasures, destroy or fabricate evidence, or otherwise act in a way to thwart the FBI's
activities." - Daily Caller
Steele, referred to as Source #1, met with several DOJ / FBI officials during the 2016 campaign, including husband and wife team
Bruce and Nellie Ohr. Bruce was the #4 official at the DOJ, while his CIA-linked wife Nellie was hired by Fusion GPS - who also employed
Steele, in the anti-Trump opposition research / counterintelligence effort funded by Trump's opponents, Hillary Clinton and the DNC.
In addition to Steele, the FBI also employed 73-year-old University of Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, a US citizen, political
veteran and longtime US Intelligence asset enlisted by the FBI to befriend and spy on three members of the Trump campaign during
the 2016 US election . Halper received over $1 million in contracts from the Pentagon during the Obama years, however nearly half
of that coincided with the 2016 US election.
Halper's involvement first came to light after the Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross reported on his involvement with Carter Page and
George Papadopoulos, another Trump campaign aide. Ross's reporting was confirmed by the NYT and WaPo .
In June, Trump campaign aides Roger Stone and Michael Caputo claimed that a meeting Stone took in late May, 2016 with a Russian
appears to have been an " FBI sting operation " in hindsight, following
bombshell reports in May
that the DOJ/FBI used a longtime FBI/CIA asset, Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, to perform espionage on the Trump campaign.
When Stone arrived at the restaurant in Sunny Isles, he said, Greenberg was wearing a Make America Great Again T-shirt and
hat. On his phone, Greenberg pulled up a photo of himself with Trump at a rally, Stone said. -
The meeting went nowhere - ending after Stone told Greenberg " You don't understand Donald Trump... He doesn't pay for anything
." The Post independently confirmed this account with Greenberg.
After the meeting, Stone received a text message from Caputo - a Trump campaign communications official who arranged the meeting
after Greenberg approached Caputo's Russian-immigrant business partner.
" How crazy is the Russian? " Caputo wrote according to a text message reviewed by The Post. Noting that Greenberg wanted "big"
money, Stone replied: "waste of time." -
In short, the FBI's acknowledgement that they used multiple spies reinforces Stone's assertion that he was targeted by one.
Further down the rabbit hole
Stefan Halper's infiltration of the Trump campaign corresponds with the two of the four targets of the FBI's Operation Crossfire
Hurricane - in which the agency sent former counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and others to a London meeting in the Summer of
2016 with former Australian diplomat Alexander Downer - who says Papadopoulos drunkenly admitted to knowing that the Russians had
Hillary Clinton's emails.
Interestingly Downer - the source of the Papadopoulos intel, and Halper - who conned Papadopoulos months later, are linked
UK-based Haklyut & Co. an opposition research and intelligence firm similar to Fusion GPS - founded by three former British intelligence
operatives in 1995 to provide the kind of otherwise inaccessible research for which select governments and Fortune 500 corporations
pay huge sums .
Downer - a good friend of the Clintons, has been on their advisory board for a decade, while Halper is connected to Hakluyt
through Director of U.S. operations Jonathan Clarke, with whom he has
co-authored two books. (h/t
Alexander Downer, the Australian High Commissioner to the U.K. Downer said that in May 2016, Papadopoulos told him during a
conversation in London about Russians having Clinton emails.
That information was passed to other Australian government officials before making its way to U.S. officials. FBI agents flew
to London a day after "Crossfire Hurricane" started in order to interview Downer.
It is still not known what Downer says about his interaction with Papadopoulos, which TheDCNF is told occurred around May 10,
Also interesting via
Lifezette - " Downer is not the only Clinton fan in Hakluyt. Federal contribution records show several of the firm's U.S. representatives
made large contributions to two of Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign organizations ."
Halper contacted Papadopoulos on September 2, 2016 according to The Caller - flying him out to London to work on a policy paper
on energy issues in Turkey, Cyprus and Israel - for which he was ultimately paid $3,000. Papadopoulos met Halper several times during
his stay, "having dinner one night at the Travellers Club, and Old London gentleman's club frequented by international diplomats."
They were accompanied by Halper's assistant, a Turkish woman named Azra Turk. Sources familiar with Papadopoulos's claims about
his trip say Turk flirted with him during their encounters and later on in email exchanges .
Emails were also brought up during Papadopoulos's meetings with Halper , though not by the Trump associate, according to sources
familiar with his version of events. T he sources say that during conversation, Halper randomly brought up Russians and emails.
Papadopoulos has told people close to him that he grew suspicious of Halper because of the remark. -
Meanwhile, Halper targeted Carter Page two days after Page returned from a trip to Moscow.
Page's visit to Moscow, where he spoke at the New Economic School on July 8, 2016, is said to have piqued the FBI's interest
even further . Page and Halper spoke on the sidelines of an election-themed symposium held at Cambridge days later. Former Secretary
of State Madeleine Albright and Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6 and a close colleague of Halper's, spoke at the event.
Page would enter the media spotlight in September 2016 after Yahoo! News reported that the FBI was investigating whether he
met with two Kremlin insiders during that Moscow trip.
It would later be revealed that the Yahoo! article was based on unverified information from Christopher Steele, the former
British spy who wrote the dossier regarding the Trump campaign . Steele's report, which was funded by Democrats, also claimed
Page worked with Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort on the collusion conspiracy. -
A third target of Halper's was Trump campaign co-chairman Sam Clovis, whose name was revealed by the Washington Post on Friday.
In late August 2016, the professor reached out to Clovis, asking if they could meet somewhere in the Washington area, according
to Clovis's attorney, Victoria Toensing.
"He said he wanted to be helpful to the campaign" and lend the Trump team his foreign-policy experience, Toensing said.
Clovis, an Iowa political figure and former Air Force officer, met the source and chatted briefly with him over coffee, on
either Aug. 31 or Sept. 1, at a hotel cafe in Crystal City, she said. Most of the discussion involved him asking Clovis his views
"It was two academics discussing China," Toensing said. " Russia never came up. " -
Meanwhile, Bruce Ohr is still employed by the Department of Justice, and Fusion GPS continues its hunt for Trump dirt after having
partnered with former Feinstein aide and ex-FBI counterintelligence agent, Dan Jones.
It's been nearly three years since an army of professional spies was unleashed on Trump - and he's still the President, Steele
and Downer notwithstanding.
"... James Baker, a former top FBI lawyer, told congressional investigators on Wednesday that the Russia probe was handled in an "abnormal fashion" and was rife with "political bias" according to Fox News , citing two Republican lawmakers present for the closed-door deposition. ..."
"... Lawmakers did not provide any specifics about the interview, citing a confidentiality agreement signed with Baker and his attorneys, however they said that he was cooperative and forthcoming about the beginnings of the Russia probe in 2016, as well as the FISA surveillance warrant application to spy on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page. ..."
"... According to Fox , Baker "is at the heart of surveillance abuse allegations, and his deposition lays the groundwork for next week's planned closed-door interview with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein." ..."
James Baker, a former top FBI lawyer, told congressional investigators on Wednesday that the
Russia probe was handled in an "abnormal fashion" and was rife with "political bias" according
Fox News , citing two Republican lawmakers present for the closed-door deposition.
"Some of the things that were shared were explosive in nature," Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C.,
told Fox News. "This witness confirmed that things were done in an abnormal fashion. That's
Meadows claimed the "abnormal" handling of the probe into alleged coordination between
Russian officials and the Trump presidential campaign was "a reflection of inherent bias that
seems to be evident in certain circles." The FBI agent who opened the Russia case, Peter
Strzok, FBI lawyer Lisa Page and others sent politically charged texts, and have since left
the bureau. -
Baker, who worked closely with former FBI Director James Comey, left the bureau earlier this
Lawmakers did not provide any specifics about the interview, citing a confidentiality
agreement signed with Baker and his attorneys, however they said that he was cooperative and
forthcoming about the beginnings of the Russia probe in 2016, as well as the FISA surveillance
warrant application to spy on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.
"During the time that the FBI was putting -- that DOJ and FBI were putting together the
FISA (surveillance warrant) during the time prior to the election -- there was another source
giving information directly to the FBI, which we found the source to be pretty explosive,"
said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.
Meadows and Jordan would not elaborate on the source, or answer questions about whether
the source was a reporter. They did stress that the source who provided information to the
FBI's Russia case was not previously known to congressional investigators. -
According to Fox , Baker "is at the heart of surveillance abuse allegations, and his
deposition lays the groundwork for next week's planned closed-door interview with Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein."
As the FBI's top lawyer, baker helped secure the FISA warrant on Page, along with three
subsequent renewals .
Rosenstein is scheduled to appear on Capitol Hill on October 11 for a closed-door interview,
according to Republican House sources, "not a briefing to leadership," and comes on the heels
of a New York Times report that said Rosenstein had discussed secretly recording President
Trump and removing him from office using the 25th Amendment.
Rosenstein and Trump pushed off a scheduled meeting into limbo amid speculation of his
White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters Wednesday the meeting remains in
But in blaming "revenge on behalf of the Clintons" for the sexual misconduct allegations
against him, the Supreme Court nominee is drawing new attention to his time on the Kenneth
Starr team investigating Bill Clinton. And in doing so, he's shown he can deliver a Trump-like
broadside against detractors even if it casts him in a potentially partisan light.
As a young lawyer, Kavanaugh played a key role on Starr's team investigating sexual
misconduct by then-President Bill Clinton, helping to shape one of the most salacious chapters
in modern political history.
Kavanaugh spent a good part of the mid-1990s jetting back and forth to Little Rock,
Arkansas, digging into the Clintons' background, according to documents that were made public
as part of his nomination to the Supreme Court
The letter from the Democrats on the Gang of 8 to Coats, Rosenstein and Wray is
something. Asking them to be insubordinate by refusing the order of the President to
release unredacted documents & communications. What were the verbal assurances these
apparatchiks gave the Democrats? Did they agree to withhold information from their boss?
As Col. Lang has stated numerous times the President is the ultimate classification
authority except for atomic secrets. Coats, Rosenstein & Wray I'm sure know that. If
they disagree with his declassification order they can always resign. Insubordination is
a fireable offense.
Journalist Sara Carter told Sean Hannity during his Wednesday radio show that the FBI has
two sets of records in the Russia investigation, and that "certain people above Peter Strzok
and above Lisa Page" were aware of it - implicating former FBI Director James Comey and his #2,
Hannity : Sara, I'm hearing it gets worse than this–that there is potentially out
there–if you will, two sets of record among the upper echelon of the FBI–one that
was real one that was made for appearances . Is there any truth to this?
Carter : Absolutely, Sean . With the number of sources that I have been speaking with as
well as some others that there is evidence indicating that the FBI had separate sets of
I will not name names until all of the evidence is out there, but there were certain
people above Peter Strzok and above Lisa Page that were aware of this . I also believe that
there are people within the FBI that have actually turned on their former employers and are
possibly even testifying and reporting what happened inside the FBI to both the Inspector
General and possibly even a Grand Jury.
That's a bold statement but cancerous growth is typical of any intelligence agency, especially CIA: all of them want more and more
budget money and try to influence both domestic and foreign policy. That's signs of cancel.
FBI actually has dual mandate: suppressing political dissent (STASI functions) and fight with criminals and organized crime.
The fact the President does not control his own administration, especially State Department isclearly visible now. He is more like
a ceremonial figura that is allowed to rant on Twitter, but can't change any thing of substance in forign policy. and Is a typucal Repiblican
in domenstic policy, betraying the electorate like Obama did
"... Sessions recused himself from the "Russia Collusion" investigation. Now that it is known to have been an extension of Democratic election rigging, and DC bureaucratic "Resistance," he could be initiate a broad sweep investigation into Washington, DC based bureaucratic bias and corruption. ..."
Shifting from Sessions to the much-maligned FBI, Trump said the agency was "a cancer" and that uncovering deep-seated corruption
in the FBI may be remembered as the "crowning achievement" of his administration, per
the Hill .
"What we've done is a great service to the country, really," Trump said in a 45-minute, wide-ranging interview in the Oval
"I hope to be able put this up as one of my crowning achievements that I was able to ... expose something that is truly a cancer
in our country."
Moreover, Trump insisted that he never trusted former FBI Director James Comey, and that he had initially planned to fire Comey
shortly after the inauguration, but had been talked out of it by his aides.
Trump also said he regretted not firing former FBI Director James Comey immediately instead of waiting until May 2017, confirming
an account his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, gave Hill.TV earlier in the day that Trump was dismayed in 2016 by the way Comey handled
the Hillary Clinton email case and began discussing firing him well before he became president.
"If I did one mistake with Comey, I should have fired him before I got here. I should have fired him the day I won the primaries,"
Trump said. "I should have fired him right after the convention, say I don't want that guy. Or at least fired him the first day
on the job. ... I would have been better off firing him or putting out a statement that I don't want him there when I get there."
The FISA Court judges who approved the initial requests allowing the FBI to surveil employees of the Trump Campaign also came
in for some criticism, with Trump claiming they used "poor Carter Page, who nobody even knew, and who I feel very badly for...as
a foil...to surveil a candidate or the presidency of the United States." Trump added that he felt the judges had been "misled" by
He criticizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court's approval of the warrant that authorized surveillance
of Carter Page, a low-level Trump campaign aide, toward the end of the 2016 election, suggesting the FBI misled the court.
"They know this is one of the great scandals in the history of our country because basically what they did is, they used Carter
Page, who nobody even knew, who I feel very badly for, I think he's been treated very badly. They used Carter Page as a foil in
order to surveil a candidate for the presidency of the United States."
As for the judges on the secret intelligence court: "It looks to me just based on your reporting, that they have been misled,"
the president said, citing a series of columns in The Hill newspaper identifying shortcomings in the FBI investigation. "I mean
I don't think we have to go much further than to say that they've been misled."
"One of the things I'm disappointed in is that the judges in FISA didn't, don't seem to have done anything about it. I'm very
disappointed in that Now, I may be wrong because, maybe as we sit here and talk, maybe they're well into it. We just don't know
that because I purposely have not chosen to get involved," Trump said.
Trump continued the assault on Sessions during a brief conference with reporters Wednesday morning. When asked whether he was
planning to fire Sessions, Trump replied that "we're looking into lots of different things."
To be sure, Sessions has managed to hang on thus far. And if he can somehow manage to survive past Nov. 6, his fate will perversely
rest on the Democrats' success. Basically, if they wrest back control of the Senate (which, to be sure, is unlikely), Sessions chances
of staying on would rise dramatically. But then again, how much abuse can a man realistically endure before he decides that the costs
of staying outweigh the benefits of leaving?
DingleBarryObummer , 19 minutes ago
Sessions works for Trump, because Trump is running the uniparty russia-gate stormy-gate anti-trump show. Sessions was intentionally
placed there to stonewall and make sure the kabuki goes on. Rosenstein is a Trump appointee. This **** garners sympathy for him
as the persecuted underdog, rallies his base; and distracts from the obvious zio-bankster influence over his admin and his many
unfulfilled campaign promises. He's deceiving you. Why do you think Giuliani acts like such a buffoon? It's because that's what
he was hired for. All distractions and bullshit. He will not get impeached, Hillary is not going to jail, nothing will happen.
The zio-Banksters will continue to stay at the top of the pyramid, because that's who trump works for, NOT you and me.
"While Trump's fascination with the White House still burned within him [re: 2011], he also had The Apprentice to deal with--and
it wasn't as easy as you might think. He loved doing the show and was reluctant to give it up. At one point, he was actually thinking
of hosting it from the oval office if he made it all the way to the White House. He even discussed it with Stephen Burke, the
CEO at NBCUniversal, telling Burke he would reconsider running if the network was concerned about his candidacy." -Roger Stone
"To some people the notion of consciously playing power games-no matter how indirect-seems evil, asocial, a relic of the past.
They believe they can opt out of the game by behaving in ways that have nothing to do with power. You must beware of such people,
for while they express such opinions outwardly, they are often among the most adept players at power. They utilize strategies
that cleverly disguise the nature of the manipulation involved. These types, for example, will often display their weakness and
lack of power as a kind of moral virtue. But true powerlessness, without any motive of self-interest, would not publicize its
weakness to gain sympathy or respect. Making a show of one's weakness is actually a very effective strategy, subtle and deceptive,
in the game of power." -Robert Greene
Sparkey , 31 minutes ago
This is why the 'little' people love President 'The Donald' Trump, he says the things they would like to say, but have no platform
to speak from, Mushroom man The Donald has no fear he has got Mushroom power, and he has my support in what ever he does!
Secret Weapon , 43 minutes ago
Is Sessions a Deep State firewall? Starting to look that way.
TrustbutVerify , 48 minutes ago
Sessions recused himself from the "Russia Collusion" investigation. Now that it is known to have been an extension of Democratic
election rigging, and DC bureaucratic "Resistance," he could be initiate a broad sweep investigation into Washington, DC based
bureaucratic bias and corruption.
I suspect Sessions will last until after the mid-term elections. Then Trump will fire him and bring someone like Gowdy in to
head the DOJ and to bring about investigations.
And, my gosh, there seems to be so much to investigate. And to my mind prosecute.
loop, 49 minutes ago
"I've never seen a President - I don't care who he is - stand up to them (Israel). It just boggles the mind. They always
get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down.
If the American people understood what a grip these people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms.
Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on."
- U.S. Navy Admiral and former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Thomas Moorer
mendigo, 59 minutes ago
Cool stuff. But really the cancer goes much deeper. That is the scary part. Trump is now largely controlled by the Borg.
Government employees and elected officials have a choice: can either play along and become wealthy and powerful or have
their careers destroyed, or worse.
Federal prosecutors have been using a grand jury over the last several months to investigate
former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, reports the
Washington Post , citing two people familiar with the matter.
What's more, the grand
jury has summoned at least two witnesses, and the case is ongoing according to WaPo 's sources.
The presence of the grand jury shows prosecutors are treating the matter seriously,
locking in the accounts of witnesses who might later have to testify at a trial. But such
panels are sometimes used only as investigative tools, and it remains unclear if McCabe will
ultimately be charged. -
McCabe was fired on March 16 after Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz
issued a criminal referral following a months-long probe, which found that McCabe lied four
times, including twice under oath, about authorizing a self-serving leak to the press. Horowitz
found that McCabe " had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor -
including under oath - on multiple occasions. "
Specifically, McCabe was fired for lying about authorizing an F.B.I. spokesman and attorney
to tell Devlin Barrett of the Wall St.
Journal - just days before the 2016 election, that the FBI had not put the brakes on a
separate investigation into the Clinton Foundation, at a time in which McCabe was coming under
fire for his wife taking a $467,500 campaign contribution from Clinton proxy pal, Terry
In order to deal with his legal woes, McCabe set up a GoFundMe "legal defense fund" which
stopped accepting donations, after support for the fired bureaucrat took in over half a million
dollars - roughly $100,000 more than his wife's campaign took from McAuliffe as McCabe's office
was investigating Clinton and her infamous charities. Who's lying?
In May , federal investigators from the D.C. U.S. Attorney's office interviewed former FBI
director James Comey as part of an ongoing probe into whether McCabe broke the law when he lied
to federal agents, reports the
Washington Post .
Investigators from the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office recently interviewed former FBI
director James B. Comey as part of a probe into whether his deputy, Andrew McCabe, broke the
law by lying to federal agents -- an indication the office is seriously considering whether
McCabe should be charged with a crime, a person familiar with the matter said. -
Washington Po st
Of particular interest is that Comey and McCabe have given conflicting reports over the
events leading up to McCabe's firing, with
Comey calling his former deputy a liar in an April appearance on The View, where he claimed
to have actually "ordered the [IG] report" which found McCabe guilty.
Comey was asked by host Megan McCain how he thought the public was supposed to have
"confidence" in the FBI amid revelations that McCabe lied about the leak.
" It's not okay. The McCabe case illustrates what an organization committed to the truth
looks like ," Comey said. " I ordered that investigation. "
Comey then appeared to try and frame McCabe as a "good person" despite all the lying.
"Good people lie. I think I'm a good person, where I have lied," Comey said. " I still
believe Andrew McCabe is a good person but the inspector general found he lied , " noting that
there are "severe consequences" within the DOJ for doing so.
"... For the first 15 months of his presidency, Donald Trump saw no need to appoint members to the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a group of outside advisors who have historically served as watchdogs over the official intelligence community on behalf of the Chief Executive. ..."
"... There's a power struggle between trump and the IC which wants to vet US. presidents like a modern praetorian guard; I don't know who is going to win, but the IC is on the side of pushing policies that risk war with Russia, so I support Trump there. ..."
For the first 15 months of his presidency, Donald Trump saw no need to appoint members to
the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a group of outside advisors who have historically
served as watchdogs over the official intelligence community on behalf of the Chief
Executive. It fit Trump's profile and his skepticism about the USIC that he felt no need
to have more quasi-official advisors peering over his shoulder. And a year-and-a-half into the
first term, the Trump Administration is still suffering from scores of vacancies in important
posts in all the executive branch departments.
Now, lo and behold, some appointments have been made to PFIAB, and it don't look good. The
only two names I have been able to locate as appointees to the PFIAB are: Steve Feinberg, who
was named on May 11, 2018 as the PFIAB chairman, and Samantha Ravich was named more recently as
the Board's vice chairman. To date, there are no indications there are any other members. Back
in January, Peter Thiel, the Silicon Valley billionaire who founded PayPal and was one of the
only Valley big wigs to back Trump for President, rejected the offer to head PFIAB. Thiel's
data mining firm Palantir has extensive contracts with the USIC and he may have felt he'd be
caught up in conflict of interest allegations. He has also expressed concerns to friends that
the Trump Presidency may be headed for oblivion.
So who are the new PFIAB chair and vice chair? Steve Feinberg is a vulture fund magnate,
whose Cerberus Capital Management has wrought havoc across the US economy. The firm, founded in
1992 and named after the mythical three-headed dog that guarded the gates of Hades, Apropos.
After looting GMAC, the financial arm of General Motors, Feinberg bought up a number of arms
manufacturers and defense contractors, including DynCorp. According to his bio on AllGov,
Feinberg was trained by ex-Army snipers and set up his own private "military base" outside of
Ever the hedger, Feinberg backed Jeb Bush for president, then switched to Donald Trump in
the final months of the 2016 campaign, while also bankrolling Chuck Schumer in his Senate
Samantha Ravich is pure neocon. She was a national security aide to Vice President Dick
Cheney and was one of the biggest promoters of the "Saddam WMD" hoax, leading to the Iraq
invasion of March 2003. She runs the Foundation for Defense of Democracies' Transformative
Cyber Innovation Lab, is listed on the FDD site as "principal investigator on FDD's
Cyber-Enabled Economic Warfare project" and Board Advisor on FDD's Center on Sanctions and
Illicit Finance. She is an advisor to the Chertoff Group.
You can't get more neocon than Samantha Ravich.
Question: Has President Trump finally caved in to the neocon long march through the
institutions? Is PFIAB another romper room for son-in-law and Netanyahu captive and love slave
Jared Kushner? Will PFIAB actually have a role or simply be a window dressing that Trump
ignores as he relies on a handful of cabinet and White House advisors and his rolodex of
billionaire friends who he chats up most evenings from the East Wing?
What I don't understand is after Iraq, who in the world with any brains would listen to
the Neo-cons again? As a veteran of the NY real estate wars, Trump has run into tons of snake
oil salesmen in his life and survived because he did not listen to them. What arguments are
neo-cons now advancing that would overcome all our previous mistakes and cause Trump to not
boot them out of the room. In my previous job as interim CFO of Prudential I was involved
with the negotiations with Trump and his Japanese partner over selling the ground under the
Empire State Building in 1991. At least back then, Trump did not listen to anyone except what
his gut told him. His mannerisms and personality have not changed one iota from those days to
his Presidency so why would Trump be susceptible to the nwo-cons when it goes against the
grain of everything he has espoused in the past.
Sad, but Trump doesn't pay any attention to groups like that. For him anything like that
is just PR and shareholder relations. He is much more interested in what the true loudmouths
on the boob tube have to say.
It's amazing to me that somebody who has engaged in NYC business and politics for so long
is so oblivious of how and when the strings are pulled when something needs to get done. Is
it even humanly possible that the same person that got himself into the WH can be so
oblivious. It's really an enigma. But then again, you kindly like to point out that sometimes
the most obvious explanations are the ones staring you right in the face
Donald Trump doesn't have an ideology or think tanks backing him; only his family. He is
in his 70s. He will appoint GOP flacks who didn't diss him in the past notwithstanding if
they are neocons or not. What he has done is jump in front of the parade. The FBI ran a sting
on Mayor of Tallahassee who is now the Democrat's Florida candidate for governor. The power
class is trying to contain the parade and direct it in the direction that they want. If it
goes wild, they will jail it.
More on Stephen Feinberg and his military connections:
"Through DynCorp, Feinberg already controls one of the largest military
contractors in the U.S., one which trains Afghanistan's police force and
assists in their narcotics-trafficking countermeasures. According to the
Times, Feinberg proposed an expanded role for such contractors, and
also recommended transferring the command of paramilitary operations in
the country to the C.I.A., increasing their operating footprint while
decreasing both transparency and accountability. He reportedly discussed
Afghanistan with President Trump in person."
same bullshit from the MIC, promoting war in Syria, in the bottles of the democrats and
the republicans. both parties are supporting the Russia bullshit -- look at the politics
swirling around McCain's funeral for example.
Both parties interfere in the middle east, paying off different sides, fighting al Qaida
one place, supporting them in Syria.
Both parties promote people like Bolton, with Bolton's agenda. Trump's main value is as a
destabilizer, which is why the established republicans and the democrats hate him, but the
people he surrounds himself with are very telling.
There's a power struggle between trump and the IC which wants to vet US. presidents
like a modern praetorian guard; I don't know who is going to win, but the IC is on the side
of pushing policies that risk war with Russia, so I support Trump there.
Ok, no insights or insides to offer, Harper, but from my own reading of Trump's Foreign
Policy Speech, scripted it was, I seem to recall I was told then vs earlier ad lib
approaches, I somewhat assumed this more general road into the future under Trump.
Strictly I dislike it deeply to approach anything resembling the, I" told you so" pattern.
It could suggest I only search for bits and pieces that fit in.
Irony/sarcasm alert: How well did the respectively selected PFIAB experts conform under
Bush, Obama? And who but a master in business would fit into let's say Trump's larger
meme-strategy: we have been exploited as a nation by close to everyone for ages?
At last – a paterfamiliar earful by none other than James Howard Kunstler, on the state
of the "Three Headed Monster" that is the Democratic Party.
This is an important tipping point, because the country is waiting for nobles of the left
to lead their children from the deep dark woods.
Every day, we ask, "Where are the adults? Who will call this madness for what it is?" I'll
provide the link to this masterful analysis of the "illness" – but first let me tempt
readers with a brief synopsis of the "first head".
" one infected with the toxic shock of losing the 2016 election. The illness took hold
during the campaign that year when the bureaucracy under President Obama sent its lymphocytes
and microphages in the "intel community" to attack the perceived disease that the election of
Donald Trump represented.
The "doctors" of this Deep State diagnosed the condition as "Russian collusion." An
overdue second opinion by doctors outside the Deep State adduced later that the malady was
actually an auto-immune disease.
The agents actually threatening the health of the state came from the intel community
itself . who colluded with pathogens in the DNC, the Hillary campaign, and the British intel
service to chew up and spit out Mr. Trump as expeditiously as possible.
With the disease now revealed by hard evidence, the chief surgeon called into the case,
Robert Mueller, is left looking ridiculous -- and perhaps subject to malpractice charges --
for trying to remove an appendix-like organ called the Manifort from the body politic instead
of attending to the cancerous mess all around him. Meanwhile, the Deep State can't stop
running its mouth -- "
This was published on his blog yesterday..... this is monumental, if only because the
masks are coming off.
Read his description of the other 2 heads.... it's wonderful.
But always remember, the FBI/DOJ is "honorable". Yeah, that's the term
they use to refer to the scumbags that "represent" us in congress. In
reality, "there is no honor amongst thieves", and government is full of
them because sociopaths gravitate to positions of power.
This is an interesting analysis shedding some light on how the US intelligence services have gone rogue...
"... Most recently, British "special services," which are a sort of Mini-Me to the to the Dr. Evil that is the US intelligence apparatus, saw it fit to interfere with one of their own spies, Sergei Skripal, a double agent whom they sprung from a Russian jail in a spy swap. They poisoned him using an exotic chemical and then tried to pin the blame on Russia based on no evidence. ..."
"... the Americans are doing their best to break the unwritten rule against dragging spies through the courts, but their best is nowhere near good enough. ..."
"... That said, there is no reason to believe that the Russian spies couldn't have hacked into the DNC mail server. It was probably running Microsoft Windows, and that operating system has more holes in it than a building in downtown Raqqa, Syria after the Americans got done bombing that city to rubble, lots of civilians included. When questioned about this alleged hacking by Fox News, Putin (who had worked as a spy in his previous career) had trouble keeping a straight face and clearly enjoyed the moment. ..."
"... He pointed out that the hacked/leaked emails showed a clear pattern of wrongdoing: DNC officials conspired to steal the electoral victory in the Democratic Primary from Bernie Sanders, and after this information had been leaked they were forced to resign. If the Russian hack did happen, then it was the Russians working to save American democracy from itself. So, where's the gratitude? Where's the love? Oh, and why are the DNC perps not in jail? ..."
"... The logic of US officials may be hard to follow, but only if we adhere to the traditional definitions of espionage and counterespionage -- "intelligence" in US parlance -- which is to provide validated information for the purpose of making informed decisions on best ways of defending the country. But it all makes perfect sense if we disabuse ourselves of such quaint notions and accept the reality of what we can actually observe: the purpose of US "intelligence" is not to come up with or to work with facts but to simply "make shit up." ..."
"... The objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its allies and pocket as much of it as possible while pretending to defend it from phantom aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on ineffective and overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they are specially organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and so on. ..."
"... "What sort of idiot are you to ask me such a stupid question? Of course they are lying! They were caught lying more than once, and therefore they can never be trusted again. In order to claim that they are not currently lying, you have to determine when it was that they stopped lying, and that they haven't lied since. And that, based on the information that is available, is an impossible task." ..."
"... "The US intelligence agencies made an outrageous claim: that I colluded with Russia to rig the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. The burden of proof is on them. They are yet to prove their case in a court of law, which is the only place where the matter can legitimately be settled, if it can be settled at all. Until that happens, we must treat their claim as conspiracy theory, not as fact." ..."
"... But no such reality-based, down-to-earth dialogue seems possible. All that we hear are fake answers to fake questions, and the outcome is a series of faulty decisions. Based on fake intelligence, the US has spent almost all of this century embroiled in very expensive and ultimately futile conflicts. ..."
"... Thanks to their efforts, Iran, Iraq and Syria have now formed a continuous crescent of religiously and geopolitically aligned states friendly toward Russia while in Afghanistan the Taliban is resurgent and battling ISIS -- an organization that came together thanks to American efforts in Iraq and Syria. ..."
"... Another hypothesis, and a far more plausible one, is that the US intelligence community has been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial, economic and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile conflicts -- the largest single continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known. How that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your own country, for any conceivable definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself. While you are at it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better than "a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be perpetual liars. ..."
In today's United States, the term "espionage" doesn't get too much
use outside of some specific contexts. There is still sporadic talk of industrial espionage,
but with regard to Americans' own efforts to understand the world beyond their borders, they
prefer the term "intelligence." This may be an intelligent choice, or not, depending on how you
look at things.
First of all, US "intelligence" is only vaguely related to the game of espionage as it has
been traditionally played, and as it is still being played by countries such as Russia and
China. Espionage involves collecting and validating strategically vital information and
conveying it to just the pertinent decision-makers on your side while keeping the fact that you
are collecting and validating it hidden from everyone else.
In eras past, a spy, if discovered, would try to bite down on a cyanide capsule; these days
torture is considered ungentlemanly, and spies that get caught patiently wait to be exchanged
in a spy swap. An unwritten, commonsense rule about spy swaps is that they are done quietly and
that those released are never interfered with again because doing so would complicate
negotiating future spy swaps.
In recent years, the US intelligence agencies have decided that torturing prisoners is a
good idea, but they have mostly been torturing innocent bystanders, not professional spies,
sometimes forcing them to invent things, such as "Al Qaeda." There was no such thing before US
intelligence popularized it as a brand among Islamic terrorists.
Most recently, British "special services," which are a sort of Mini-Me to the to the Dr.
Evil that is the US intelligence apparatus, saw it fit to interfere with one of their own
spies, Sergei Skripal, a double agent whom they sprung from a Russian jail in a spy swap. They
poisoned him using an exotic chemical and then tried to pin the blame on Russia based on no
There are unlikely to be any more British spy swaps with Russia, and British spies working
in Russia should probably be issued good old-fashioned cyanide capsules (since that supposedly
super-powerful Novichok stuff the British keep at their "secret" lab in Porton Down doesn't
work right and is only fatal 20% of the time).
There is another unwritten, commonsense rule about spying in general: whatever happens, it
needs to be kept out of the courts, because the discovery process of any trial would force the
prosecution to divulge sources and methods, making them part of the public record. An
alternative is to hold secret tribunals, but since these cannot be independently verified to be
following due process and rules of evidence, they don't add much value.
A different standard applies to traitors; here, sending them through the courts is
acceptable and serves a high moral purpose, since here the source is the person on trial and
the method -- treason -- can be divulged without harm. But this logic does not apply to proper,
professional spies who are simply doing their jobs, even if they turn out to be double agents.
In fact, when counterintelligence discovers a spy, the professional thing to do is to try to
recruit him as a double agent or, failing that, to try to use the spy as a channel for
Americans have been doing their best to break this rule. Recently, special counsel Robert
Mueller indicted a dozen Russian operatives working in Russia for hacking into the DNC mail
server and sending the emails to Wikileaks. Meanwhile, said server is nowhere to be found (it's
been misplaced) while the time stamps on the files that were published on Wikileaks show that
they were obtained by copying to a thumb drive rather than sending them over the internet.
Thus, this was a leak, not a hack, and couldn't have been done by anyone working remotely from
Furthermore, it is an exercise in futility for a US official to indict Russian citizens in
Russia. They will never stand trial in a US court because of the following clause in the
Russian Constitution: "61.1 A citizen of the Russian Federation may not be deported out of
Russia or extradited to another state."
Mueller may summon a panel of constitutional scholars to interpret this sentence, or he can
just read it and weep. Yes, the Americans are doing their best to break the unwritten rule
against dragging spies through the courts, but their best is nowhere near good enough.
That said, there is no reason to believe that the Russian spies couldn't have hacked
into the DNC mail server. It was probably running Microsoft Windows, and that operating system
has more holes in it than a building in downtown Raqqa, Syria after the Americans got done
bombing that city to rubble, lots of civilians included. When questioned about this alleged
hacking by Fox News, Putin (who had worked as a spy in his previous career) had trouble keeping
a straight face and clearly enjoyed the moment.
He pointed out that the hacked/leaked emails showed a clear pattern of wrongdoing: DNC
officials conspired to steal the electoral victory in the Democratic Primary from Bernie
Sanders, and after this information had been leaked they were forced to resign. If the Russian
hack did happen, then it was the Russians working to save American democracy from itself. So,
where's the gratitude? Where's the love? Oh, and why are the DNC perps not in jail?
Since there exists an agreement between the US and Russia to cooperate on criminal
investigations, Putin offered to question the spies indicted by Mueller. He even offered to
have Mueller sit in on the proceedings. But in return he wanted to question US officials who
may have aided and abetted a convicted felon by the name of William Browder, who is due to
begin serving a nine-year sentence in Russia any time now and who, by the way, donated copious
amounts of his ill-gotten money to the Hillary Clinton election campaign.
In response, the US Senate passed a resolution to forbid Russians from questioning US
officials. And instead of issuing a valid request to have the twelve Russian spies interviewed,
at least one US official made the startlingly inane request to have them come to the US
instead. Again, which part of 61.1 don't they understand?
The logic of US officials may be hard to follow, but only if we adhere to the
traditional definitions of espionage and counterespionage -- "intelligence" in US parlance --
which is to provide validated information for the purpose of making informed decisions on best
ways of defending the country. But it all makes perfect sense if we disabuse ourselves of such
quaint notions and accept the reality of what we can actually observe: the purpose of US
"intelligence" is not to come up with or to work with facts but to simply "make shit
The "intelligence" the US intelligence agencies provide can be anything but; in fact, the
stupider it is the better, because its purpose is allow unintelligent people to make
unintelligent decisions. In fact, they consider facts harmful -- be they about Syrian chemical
weapons, or conspiring to steal the primary from Bernie Sanders, or Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction, or the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden -- because facts require accuracy and rigor
while they prefer to dwell in the realm of pure fantasy and whimsy. In this, their actual
objective is easily discernible.
The objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its
allies and pocket as much of it as possible while pretending to defend it from phantom
aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on ineffective and
overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they
are specially organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and
One major advancement in their state of the art has been in moving from real false flag
operations, à la 9/11, to fake false flag operations, à la fake East Gouta
chemical attack in Syria (since fully discredited). The Russian election meddling story is
perhaps the final step in this evolution: no New York skyscrapers or Syrian children were
harmed in the process of concocting this fake narrative, and it can be kept alive seemingly
forever purely through the furious effort of numerous flapping lips. It is now a pure
confidence scam. If you are less then impressed with their invented narratives, then you are a
conspiracy theorist or, in the latest revision, a traitor.
Trump was recently questioned as to whether he trusted US intelligence. He waffled. A
light-hearted answer would have been:
"What sort of idiot are you to ask me such a stupid question? Of course they are lying! They
were caught lying more than once, and therefore they can never be trusted again. In order to
claim that they are not currently lying, you have to determine when it was that they stopped
lying, and that they haven't lied since. And that, based on the information that is available,
is an impossible task."
A more serious, matter-of-fact answer would have been:
"The US intelligence agencies made an outrageous claim: that I colluded with Russia to rig
the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. The burden of proof is on them. They are yet to
prove their case in a court of law, which is the only place where the matter can legitimately
be settled, if it can be settled at all. Until that happens, we must treat their claim as
conspiracy theory, not as fact."
And a hardcore, deadpan answer would have been:
"The US intelligence services swore an oath to uphold the US Constitution, according to
which I am their Commander in Chief. They report to me, not I to them. They must be loyal to
me, not I to them. If they are disloyal to me, then that is sufficient reason for their
But no such reality-based, down-to-earth dialogue seems possible. All that we hear are fake
answers to fake questions, and the outcome is a series of faulty decisions. Based on fake
intelligence, the US has spent almost all of this century embroiled in very expensive and
ultimately futile conflicts.
Thanks to their efforts, Iran, Iraq and Syria have now formed a continuous crescent of
religiously and geopolitically aligned states friendly toward Russia while in Afghanistan the
Taliban is resurgent and battling ISIS -- an organization that came together thanks to American
efforts in Iraq and Syria.
The total cost of wars so far this century for the US is reported to be $4,575,610,429,593.
Divided by the 138,313,155 Americans who file tax returns (whether they actually pay any tax is
too subtle a question), it works out to just over $33,000 per taxpayer. If you pay taxes in the
US, that's your bill so far for the various US intelligence "oopsies."
The 16 US intelligence agencies have a combined budget of $66.8 billion, and that seems like
a lot until you realize how supremely efficient they are: their "mistakes" have cost the
country close to 70 times their budget. At a staffing level of over 200,000 employees, each of
them has cost the US taxpayer close to $23 million, on average. That number is totally out of
the ballpark! The energy sector has the highest earnings per employee, at around $1.8 million
per. Valero Energy stands out at $7.6 million per. At $23 million per, the US intelligence
community has been doing three times better than Valero. Hats off! This makes the US
intelligence community by far the best, most efficient collapse driver imaginable.
There are two possible hypotheses for why this is so.
First, we might venture to guess that these 200,000 people are grossly incompetent and that
the fiascos they precipitate are accidental. But it is hard to imagine a situation where
grossly incompetent people nevertheless manage to funnel $23 million apiece, on average, toward
an assortment of futile undertakings of their choosing. It is even harder to imagine that such
incompetents would be allowed to blunder along decade after decade without being called out for
Another hypothesis, and a far more plausible one, is that the US intelligence community has
been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial, economic
and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile
conflicts -- the largest single continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known. How
that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your own country, for any conceivable
definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself. While you are at
it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better
than "a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be
Chittum's work makes more sense than either of the books reviewed here. The two books
discussed above are good for the Harry Potter set but in no way conform to 2018 reality.
I frequently reread Chittum's work and am amazed at how he correctly analyzed the future into
what is contemporary USSA.
LOOK NO further, than the incipient election of a reparation Democrat governor in Georgia and
a like minded legislature,come November, for validation of Chittum's hypotheses. The one
weakness in his predictions is the belief that there will be a patriotic core in the local
police and national military that could be relied on to protect the lives and property of
traditional Americans. This just won't happen. The FBI, CIA, ATFE, Homeland Security Police
and like activities set the pace, call the shots and control the funds and the locals provide
a conditioned response.
Chittum writing 20 years back could not see the rise of the mass surveillance and correct
thought propagation that we increasingly welcome or endure today.
My bet is Unz Review will totally access denied after the massive Democrat election gains in
"... Chart: Demonization of Russia centers on competition for oil and gas revenues. Pipelines to deliver oil and gas from the Middle East to Europe run through North Africa (Libya) and Syria and / or Turkey. These pipelines are substantially controlled by Western interests with imperial / colonial ties to the U.S., Britain and 'developed' Europe. Russian oil and gas did run through Ukraine, which is now negotiating to join NATO, or otherwise hits a NATO wall before entering Europe. ..."
The indictments are a major political story, but not for the reasons given in
mainstream press coverage. Once Mr. Mueller's indictment is understood to charge the
exploitation of existing social tensions (read it and decide for yourself), the FBI, which Mr.
Mueller directed from 2001 – 2013, is precisely the wrong entity to be rendering
judgment. The FBI has been America's political police since its founding in 1908. Early on
former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover led legally dubious mass
arrests of American dissidents. He practically invented the slander of conflating
legitimate dissent with foreign agency. This is the institutional backdrop from which Mr.
In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s the FBI's targets included the civil rights movement, the
antiwar movement, the American Indian Movement (AIM), the Black Panther Party and any other
political organization Mr. Hoover deemed a threat. The secret (hidden) FBI program COINTELPRO was intended to
subvert political outcomes outside of allegations of criminal wrongdoing and with no regard for the lives of its
targets . Throughout its history the FBI has sided with the powerful against the powerless
to maintain an unjust social order.
Robert Mueller became FBI Director only days before the attacks of September 11, 2001. One
of his first acts as Director was to arrest 1,000 persons without any evidence of criminal
wrongdoing. None of those arrested were ever charged in association with the attacks. The frame
in which the FBI acted -- to maintain political stability threatened by 'external' forces, was
ultimately chosen by the George W. Bush administration to justify its aggressive war against
It is the FBI's legacy of conflating dissent with being an agent of a foreign power that Mr.
Mueller's indictment most insidiously perpetuates. Russians are 'sowing discord,' and they are
using Americans to do so, goes the allegation. Black Lives Matter and Bernie Sanders are listed
in the indictment as roadblocks to the unfettered ascension of Hillary Clinton to the
presidency. Russians are sowing discord, therefore discord is both suspect in itself and
evidence of being a foreign agent.
The posture of simple reporting at work in the indictment -- that it isn't the FBI's fault
that the Russians (allegedly) inserted themselves into the electoral process, runs against the
history of the FBI's political role, the tilt used to craft criminal charges and the facts put
forward versus those put to the side. Given the political agendas of the other agencies that
the FBI joined through the charges, they are most certainly but a small piece of a larger
In the aftermath of the indictments it's easy to forget that the Pentagon created the internet ,
that the NSA
has its tentacles in all of its major chokepoints, that the CIA has been heavily
involved in funding and 'using' social media toward its own ends and that the FBI is only
reputable in the present because of Americans' near-heroic ignorance of history. The claim that
the Russian operation was sophisticated because it had corporate form and function is countered
by the fact that it was, by the various agencies' own claims, ineffectual in changing the
outcome of the election.
I Have a List
While Robert Mueller was busy charging never-to-be-tried Russians with past crimes, Dan
Coats, the Director of National Intelligence,
declared that future Russian meddling has already cast a shadow over the integrity of the
2018 election. Why the Pentagon that created the internet, the NSA that has its tentacles in
all of its major chokepoints, the CIA that has been heavily involved in funding and 'using'
social media toward its own ends and the FBI that just landed such a glorious victory of good
over evil would be quivering puddles when it comes to precluding said meddling is a question
that needs to be asked.
The political frame being put forward is that only these agencies know if particular
elections and candidates have been tainted by meddling, therefore we need to trust them to tell
us which candidates were legitimately elected and which weren't. As generous as this offer
seems, wouldn't the creation of free and fair elections be a more direct route to achieving
this end? Put differently, who among those making the offer, whether personally or as
functionaries of their respective agencies, has a demonstrated history of supporting democratic
The 2016 election was apparently a test case for posing these agencies as the meddling
police. By getting the bourgeois electocracy -- liberal Democrats, to agree that the loathsome
Trump is illegitimate, future candidates will be vetted by the CIA, NSA and FBI with impunity.
It's apparently only the pre-'discord, ' the social angst that the decade of the Great
Recession left as its residual, that shifts this generous offer from the deterministic to the
realm of the probable. The social conditions that led to the Great Recession and its aftermath
are entirely home grown.
More broadly, how do the government agencies and people that spent the better part of the
last century undermining democracy at home and abroad intend to stop 'Russian meddling?' If the
FBI couldn't disentangle home grown 'discord' from that allegedly exploited and exacerbated by
the Russians, isn't the likely intention to edit out all discord? And if fake news is a problem
in need of addressing, wouldn't the
New York Times and the Washington Post have
been shut down years ago?
The Great Satin (sic)
While Russia is the villain of the day, week and year due to alleged election 'meddling,'
the process of demonization that Russia has undergone has shown little variation from (alleged)
villain to villain. It is thanks to cable news and the 'newspaper of record' that the true
villainy of Vladimir Putin, Muammar Gadhafi, Saddam Hussein, Nicolas Maduro and the political
leadership of Iran has been revealed. In the face of such monsters, questions of motivation are
moot. Why wouldn't Mr. Putin 'sow discord?'
The question as yet unasked, and therefore unanswered is: is there something besides base
villainy that brought these national leaders, and the nations they lead, into the crosshairs of
America's fair and wise leadership? This question might forever go unanswered were it not for
the secret list from which their names were apparently drawn. No, not that secret list. This one is publicly available -- hiding in plain sight, as it
were. It is the list of proven oil reserves by country (below). This is no doubt unduly
reductive -- evil is as evil does, but read on.
The question of how such a list could divide so evenly between heroes and villains I leave
to the philosophers. On second thought, no I won't. The heroes are allies of a small cadre of
America's political and economic elite who have made themselves fabulously rich through the
alliances. The villains have oil, gas, pipelines and other resources that this elite wants.
Reductive, yes. But this simple list certainly appears to explain American foreign policy over
the last half-century quite well.
It's almost as if America's love for humanity, as demonstrated through humanitarian
interventions, is determined by imperial competition for natural resources -- in this case oil
and gas. Amongst these countries, only one (Canada) is 'democratic' in the American sense of
being run by a small cadre of plutocrats who use the state to further their own interests. Two
-- Iraq and Libya, were recently reduced to rubble (for the sake of humanity) by the U.S.
Nigeria is being 'brought' under the control of AFRICOM. What remains are various and sundry
petro-states plus Venezuela and Russia.
Following the untimely death of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, the horrible tyrant kept in office
and fair elections , who used Venezuela's petro-dollars to feed, clothe and educate his
people and was in the process of creating a regional Left alliance to counter American abuse of
power, the CIA joined with local
plutocrats to overthrow his successor, Nicolas Maduro. The goal: to 'liberate' Venezuela's oil
revenues in their own pockets. At the moment Mr. Maduro is down the list of villains, not
nearly the stature of a 'new Hitler' like Vladimir Putin. But where he ends up will depend on
how successfully the CIA (with Robert Mueller's help) can drum up a war against nuclear armed
What separates Russia from the other heroes and villains on the list is its history as a
competing empire as well as the manner in which Russian oil and gas is distributed. Geography
placed it closer to the population centers of Europe than to Southeastern China where Chinese
economic development has been concentrated. This makes Europe a 'natural' market for Russian
oil and gas.
The former Soviet state of Ukraine did stand between, or rather under, Russian pipelines and
Europe until Hillary Clinton had her lieutenants engineer a coup there in 2014. In contrast to
the 'new Hitler' of Mr. Putin (or was that Trump?) Mrs. Clinton and her comrades demonstrated a
preference for the old Hitler in the form of Ukrainian fascists who were the ideological
descendants of 'authentic' WWII Nazis. But rest assured, not all of the U.S.'s allies in this
were ideological Nazis .
Chart: Demonization of Russia centers on competition for oil and gas revenues. Pipelines
to deliver oil and gas from the Middle East to Europe run through North Africa (Libya) and
Syria and / or Turkey. These pipelines are substantially controlled by Western interests with
imperial / colonial ties to the U.S., Britain and 'developed' Europe. Russian oil and gas did
run through Ukraine, which is now negotiating to join NATO, or otherwise hits a NATO wall
before entering Europe.
In contrast to the alternative hypotheses given
in the American press, NATO, the geopolitical extension of the U.S. military in Europe,
admits that the U.S.
engineered coup in Ukraine was 'about' oil geopolitics with Russia. The American storyline
that Crimea was seized by Russia ignores that the Russian navy has had a Black Sea port in Crimea for decades. How
amenable, precisely, might Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and his friends be if
Russia seized a major U.S. naval port given their generous offer to take over the U.S.
electoral system because of a few Russian trolls?
Although Russia is toward the bottom of the top ten countries in terms of oil reserves, it
faces a problem of distribution that the others don't. Imperial ties and recent military
incursions have left the distribution of oil and gas from the Middle East to Europe largely
under Western control. Syria, Turkey and North Africa are necessary to moving this oil and gas
through pipelines to Europe. That Syria, Libya and Turkey are now, or recently have been,
militarily contested adds credence to the contention that the 'international community's'
heroes and villains are largely determined by whose hands their oil and gas resources are
Democratic Party loyalists who see Putin, Maduro et al as the problem first need to
answer for the candidate they put forward in 2016. Hillary Clinton led the carnage in Libya
30,000 – 50,000 innocents for Western oil and gas interests. Russia didn't force the
U.S. into its calamitous invasion of Iraq. Russia didn't take Americans' jobs, houses and
pensions in the Great Recession. Russia didn't reward Wall Street for causing it. Democrats
need to take responsibility for their failed candidates and their failed Party.
Part of the point in relating oil reserves to American foreign entanglements is that the
countries and leaders involved are incidental. Vladimir Putin certainly seems smarter than the
American leadership. But this has no bearing on whether or not his leadership of Russia is
broadly socially beneficial. The only possible resolution of climate crisis requires both
Russia and the U.S. to greatly reduce their use of fossil fuels. Reports have it that Mr. Putin
has no interest in doing so. And once the marketing chatter is set to the side, neither do the
By placing themselves as arbiters of the electoral process, the Director of National
Intelligence and the heads of the CIA, NSA and FBI can effectively control it. Is it accidental
that the candidate of liberal Democrats in the 2016 election was the insiders' -- the
intelligence agencies' and military contractors,' candidate as well? Implied is that these
agencies and contractors are now 'liberal.' Good luck with that program if you value peace and
There are lots of ways to create free and fair elections if that is the goal. Use
paper ballots that are counted in public, automatically register all eligible voters, make
election days national holidays and eliminate 'private' funding of electoral campaigns. But why
make elections free and fair when fanciful nonsense about 'meddling' will convince the liberal
class to deliver power to grey corpses in the CIA, NSA and FBI for the benefit of a tiny cabal
of stupendously rich plutocrats. Who says America isn't already great?
Putin handed Trump a means of openly investigating Killary's/CIA's manipulation of US politics via the Browder investigation,
the crime of manipulating the DNC to remove Bernie can also loop into the mix.
Let's hope Trump follows through and exposes the nest of vipers. The majority of people are now seeing the light, only the
people with skin the game or those far too controlled through an excellent propaganda/mass mind control experiment do not.
Edward Bernays and Joseph Goebels could only dream that their methods would go this far.
"But being dependent, every day of the year and for year after year, upon certain politicians for news, the newspaper reporters
are obliged to work in harmony with their news sources."
― Edward L. Bernays ,
I think there is much more to the comment made by Putin regarding Bill Browder and his money flows into the DNC and Clinton
campaign. That would explain why the DNC didn't hand the servers over to the FBI after being hacked. If you follow the money a
lot of what happened during the election and afterwards in regards to Russia and Trump start to make sense. Could it be that we
are finally witnessing the removal the last layers of the center of the onion?
"... For instance, we can bring up Mr. Browder, in this particular case. Business associates of Mr. Browder have earned over $1.5 billion in Russia and never paid any taxes neither in Russia or the United States and yet the money escaped the country. They were transferred to the United States. They sent [a] huge amount of money, $400,000,000, as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton. Well that's their personal case. ..."
"... we have solid reason to believe that some [US] intelligence officers accompanied and guided these transactions. So we have an interest in questioning them. ..."
"... Browder is notoriously the man behind the 2012 Magnitsky Act, which exploited Congressional willingness to demonize Russia and has done so much to poison relations between Washington and Moscow. ..."
"... Browder, a media favorite who self-promotes as "Putin's enemy #1," portrays himself as a selfless human rights advocate, but is he? He has used his fortune to threaten lawsuits for anyone who challenges his version of events, effectively silencing many critics. He claims that his accountant Sergei Magnitsky was a crusading "lawyer" who discovered a $230 million tax-fraud scheme that involved the Browder business interest Hermitage Capital but was, in fact, engineered by corrupt Russian police officers who arrested Magnitsky and enabled his death in a Russian jail. ..."
"... William Browder is again in the news recently in connection with testimony related to Russiagate. On December 16th Senator Diane Feinstein of the Senate Judiciary Committee released the transcript of the testimony provided by Glenn Simpson, founder of Fusion GPS. According to James Carden, Browder was mentioned 50 times, but the repeated citations apparently did not merit inclusion in media coverage of the story by the New York Times, Washington Post and Politico. ..."
Vladimir Putin made a bombshell claim during Monday's joint press conference with President
Trump in Helsinki, Finland, when the Russian President said some $400 million )should be $400K) in illegally
earned profits was funneled to the Clinton campaign by associates of American-born British
financier Bill Browder - at one time the largest foreign portfolio investors in Russia. The
scheme involved members of the U.S. intelligence community, said Putin, who he said
"accompanied and guided these transactions."
Browder made billions in Russia during the 90's. In December, a Moscow court sentenced
Browder in absentia to nine years in prison for tax fraud, while he was also found guilty of
tax evasion in a separate 2013 case. Putin accused Browder's associates of illegally earning
over than $1.5 billion without paying Russian taxes, before sending $400 million to Clinton.
After offering to allow special counsel Robert Mueller's team to come to Russia for their
investigation - as long as there was a reciprocal arrangement for Russian intelligence to
investigate in the U.S., Putin said this:
For instance, we can bring up Mr. Browder, in this particular case. Business associates of
Mr. Browder have earned over $1.5 billion in Russia and never paid any taxes neither in
Russia or the United States and yet the money escaped the country. They were transferred to
the United States. They sent [a] huge amount of money, $400,000,000, as a contribution to the
campaign of Hillary Clinton. Well that's their personal case.
It might have been legal, the contribution itself but the way the money was earned was
illegal. So we have solid reason to believe that some [US] intelligence officers accompanied
and guided these transactions. So we have an interest in questioning them.
Israel Shamir, a keen observer of the
American-Russian relationship, and celebrated American journalist Robert
that one man deserves much of the credit for the new Cold War and that man is William Browder,
a hedge fund operator who made his fortune in the corrupt 1990s world of Russian commodities
Browder is also symptomatic of why the United States government is so poorly informed about
international developments as he is the source of much of the Congressional "expert testimony"
contributing to the current impasse. He has somehow emerged as a trusted source in spite of the
fact that he has self-interest in cultivating a certain outcome. Also ignored is his
renunciation of American citizenship in 1998, reportedly to avoid taxes. He is now a British
Browder is notoriously the man behind the 2012 Magnitsky Act, which exploited Congressional
willingness to demonize Russia and has done so much to poison relations between Washington and
Moscow. The Act sanctioned individual Russian officials, which Moscow has rightly seen as
unwarranted interference in the operation of its judicial system.
Browder, a media favorite who self-promotes as "Putin's enemy #1," portrays himself as a
selfless human rights advocate, but is he? He has used his fortune to threaten lawsuits for
anyone who challenges his version of events, effectively silencing many critics. He claims that
his accountant Sergei Magnitsky was a crusading "lawyer" who discovered a $230 million
tax-fraud scheme that involved the Browder business interest Hermitage Capital but was, in
fact, engineered by corrupt Russian police officers who arrested Magnitsky and enabled his
death in a Russian jail.
Many have been skeptical of the Browder narrative, suspecting that the fraud was in fact
concocted by Browder and his accountant Magnitsky. A Russian court recently
supported that alternative narrative, ruling in late December that Browder had deliberately
bankrupted his company and engaged in tax evasion. He was sentenced to nine years prison in
William Browder is again in the news recently in connection with testimony related to
Russiagate. On December 16th Senator Diane Feinstein of the Senate Judiciary Committee released
the transcript of the testimony provided by Glenn Simpson, founder of Fusion GPS.
According to James Carden, Browder was mentioned 50 times, but the repeated citations
apparently did not merit inclusion in media coverage of the story by the New York Times,
Washington Post and Politico.
Fusion GPS, which was involved in the research producing the Steele Dossier used to
discredit Donald Trump, was also retained to provide investigative services relating to a
lawsuit in New York City involving a Russian company called Prevezon. As information provided
by Browder was the basis of the lawsuit, his company and business practices while in Russia
became part of the investigation. Simmons maintained that Browder proved to be somewhat evasive
and his accounts of his activities were inconsistent. He claimed never to visit the United
States and not own property or do business there, all of which were untrue, to include his
ownership through a shell company of a $10 million house in Aspen Colorado. He repeatedly
ran away , literally, from attempts to subpoena him so he would have to testify under
Per Simmons, in Russia, Browder used shell companies locally and also worldwide to avoid
taxes and conceal ownership, suggesting that he was likely one of many corrupt businessmen
operating in what was a wild west business environment.
My question is, "Why was such a man granted credibility and allowed a free run to poison the
vitally important US-Russia relationship?" The answer might be follow the money. Israel Shamir
that Browder was a major contributor to Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, who was the major
force behind the Magnitsky Act.
Why I am all for wire tapping and all other spying by the CIA and FBI ..get all the uber Jews
and all the politicians and make it public.
Would be delighted if all the news channels did nothing but play the tapes on the daily news.
Following is a transcript of the Oct. 22, 1992 conversation with President David Steiner
of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) recorded without his knowledge by New
York businessman Haim (Harry) Katz. Its existence was first revealed to the Washington Times
and its release triggered Steiner's resignation.
HK: Let me tell you, I was planning, I was planning to, to . . . Inouye, by the way, is in
real trouble? He's been there forever. . .
DS: Yeah! Well, we might lose him. There's been such a sea change, such trouble this year, I
can't believe all our friends that are in trouble. Because there's an anti-incumbency mood,
and foreign aid has not been popular. You know what I got for, I met with [U.S. Secretary
of State] Jim Baker and I cut a deal with him. I got, besides the $3 billion, you know
they're looking for the Jewish votes, and I'll tell him whatever he wants to hear . .
DS: Besides the $10 billion in loan guarantees which was a fabulous thing, $3 billion in
foreign, in military aid, and I got almost a billion dollars in other goodies that people
don't even know about .
HK: Such as?
DS: $700 million in military draw-down, from equipment that the United States Army's going
to give to Israel; $200 million the U.S. government is going to preposition materials in
Israel, which Israel can draw upon; put them in the global warning protection system; so when
if there's a missile fired, they'll get the same advanced notification that the U.S., is
notified, joint military exercises -- I've got a whole shopping list of things .
HK: So this is from Baker?
DS: From Baker and from the Pentagon.
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed publicly Monday that his
office is investigating James Comey for his handling of classified information as part of memos
he shared documenting discussions with President Trump.
The inspector general's comments confirmed reports dating back to April that the ex-FBI
director was facing scrutiny, amid revelations that at least two of the memos he shared with
his friend, Columbia University Professor Daniel Richman, contained information now deemed
The confirmation came during Monday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, where Horowitz and
FBI Director Christopher Wray testified on the findings in the IG's report on the handling of
the Hillary Clinton email probe.
"We received a referral on that from the FBI," Horowitz said, in response to questioning
from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, about the Comey memos. "We are
handling that referral and we will issue a report when the matter is complete and consistent
with the law and rules." Comey, back in April, confirmed to Fox News' Bret Baier that the IG's
office had interviewed him with regard to the memos, but downplayed the questions over
classified information as "frivolous" -- saying the real issue was whether he complied with
Grassley, though, told Horowitz on Monday, "I don't happen to think that is frivolous."
Comey, in testimony before Congress last year, acknowledged he shared the memos with the
intention of leaking to the press and spurring the appointment of a special counsel.
In April, Fox News initially learned that Horowitz was looking into whether classified
information was given to unauthorized sources as part of a broader review of Comey's
communications outside the bureau -- including media contact.
Comey, whom Trump fired in May 2017, denied that sharing the memos with his legal team
constituted a leak of classified information. Instead, he compared the process to keeping "a
"I didn't consider it part of an FBI file," Comey said. "It was my personal aide-memoire I
always thought of it as mine."
In his testimony last year before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Comey said he made the
decision to document the interactions in a way that would not trigger security
But in seven Comey memos handed over to Congress in April, eight of the 15 pages had
redactions under classified exceptions.
"... "The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally feared" -Well, obviously; or Hillary would be President NOW ..."
"... The Deep State may not have been very competent ( Gee,whudda surprise!)) but– it's still in place. And that fact alone should make all of us uneasy. ..."
"... I'm satisfied that we have the final word on Clinton's guilt and the special treatment she and her staff were given by criminal investigators who believed she was going to win the election. ..."
"... I think a good book to explain what we are seeing is The Fiefdom Syndrome by Robert Herbold. That highlights how various managers set up their own sub organizations in a groups. It focuses on the corporate model yet it can equally apply to any other human organization. ..."
"... Comey took Lynch completely off the hook. She had not recused herself from the case. Prosecution or not was her decision, not Comey's. And even if she had recused herself, the decision would have gone to Yates. Lynch had no good options. If she had said there were no grounds for prosecution, she would have been crucified for partisanship. If she had decided that Clinton should be prosecuted, all hell would have broken loose. Well, there is no way she would have ever made the decision to prosecute, but point is, Comey took her completely off the hook. No wonder Lynch made no big deal about his "insubordination". ..."
"... there were NO pro-Trump factions inside the Bureau. ..."
"... What anti-Clinton faction? Every one of the five agents identified as sending politically biased communications was anti-Trump. As best I can determine every decision by biased decision makers that Horowitz is baffled by, or reports himself "unpersuaded" by the explanations advanced, was anti-Trump. Even when Strzok writes a text message that Horowitz admits is a smoking gun (~"We'll stop Trump") Horowitz says it's no biggie because other decision-makers were involved, "unbiased" ones like, explicitly, Bill Priestap, he of the procedures-violating spy launch against Trump BEFORE any investigation was opened! ..."
"... The real take away is that the Deep State is a reality, far more entrenched than anyone of us knows. Whether it is particularly competent or not ( compared to what? Government in general? ) is irrelevant. No one of any stature in any part of the government bureaucracy will be held accountable ever. They never are. As soon as the media circus moves on, it will be back to business as usual in DC. ..."
"... Speaking of idiocracy, some personal emails between FBI agents were made public this week with the release of the IG report. They give a glimpse into the infantilisation of our ruling "class". It is clear that fatherlessness and the replacement of education with indoctrination have produced a generation of child-men and child-women who view the State as parent, provider, deity (even as lover – supplier of ideologically acceptable bed-mates). ..."
"... jp: "Hard to see how the FBI's mistakes didn't benefit one candidate over the other." That's the standard line from the Clinton campaign. They believe everything begins and ends with Comey causing her to lose. Of course, they never mention why the FBI was investigating her, personally, and key members of her State Dept. staff, not her campaign by the way. ..."
"... The FBI may have hurt her campaign, but only because they were doing their job, albiet badly. She hurt her campaign infinitely by breaking the law and compromising national security, which required a criminal probe into her lawbreaking. ..."
"... Dave: "Peter and Lisa were 2 cops talking about a criminal." Well, that's one more reason not to trust federal law enforcement. I can cite the criminal statutes Hillary Clinton was being personally investigated for. Can anyone cite any criminal statute that Donald Trump was being personally investigated for at the same time? Was he even being personally investigated? A counterintelligence investigation is not a criminal investigation. ..."
This report merely provides more talking points for politicians. And, talk they will.
IG Michael Horowitz had a specific mandate. It was to investigate "violations of criminal
and civil law." It was not to investigate breaches of protocol and bureaucratic
This report makes no allegations of criminal activity. As such, it can only be read as
exonerating those under investigation, of same. The ultimate remedy for "breaches of protocol and bureaucratic regulations" is termination
of employment. And, Comey has already been fired. The rest is irrelevant and/or superfluous.
Agreed. the report sheds light on some truly incompetent (and unprofessional, inappropriate
behavior). Disagree – the 'deep state' is behind this. perhaps the most depressing
aspect of this circus is the realization there was incompetence and malfeasance in the Obama
administration. there was incompetence and malfeasance in the Clinton campaign.
There was incompetence and malfeasance in the DoJ, there was incompetence and malfeasance
in the Trump campaign, and there is a whole lot of incompetence and malfeasance in the
current administration. see where this is going? "malfeasance" recognized and leveraged by
"foreign actors" (some other 'deep state' as it were) demonstrates competence in terms of
I am reminded of the Seinfeld episode in which "Puddy" and "Elaine" meet with a priest to
discuss their relationship and its impact on their eternal lives – with Puddy being
Christian and Elaine not. the priest says, "oh that's easy, you're both going to hell "
"It will be too easy, however, to miss the most important conclusion of the report: there is
no longer a way to claim America's internal intelligence agency, the FBI, did not play a role
in the 2016 election."
SO we are expected to believe the FBI, et. al; never played a role before? Spare me
"The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally feared" -Well, obviously; or Hillary would be President NOW
Way funny, this! And all the time we've been looking for enemies abroad-in this case the
Rooshians-the real enemy was right in our own backyard. The Deep State may not have been very
competent ( Gee,whudda surprise!)) but– it's still in place. And that fact alone should
make all of us uneasy.
If you are going to have a deep state, and in a large nation, it does seem necessary, then it
should be a meritocracy. Clearly the system of recruiting high level officials from certain
Ivy League schools does not result in a meritocracy.
Erik: "It was not to investigate breaches of protocol and bureaucratic regulations."
Well, he did, and thank goodness. I'm satisfied that we have the final word on Clinton's guilt and the special treatment she
and her staff were given by criminal investigators who believed she was going to win the
If that's not political bias, then we need another word for it. Political consideration in
the outcome of a criminal probe.
Think about that if it had been a GOP candidate, what would the progressives be saying
about the same behavior?
I think a good book to explain what we are seeing is The Fiefdom Syndrome by Robert Herbold. That highlights how various managers set up
their own sub organizations in a groups. It focuses on the corporate model yet it can equally
apply to any other human organization.
What I find amusing is the emphasis on texts between Strzok and Page. They sure were sloppy
in using govt cell phones for their texting. However, at the end of the day, their texts were
the equivalent of pillow talk. What's the remedy? Everybody wear a wire to bed to trap people
in the act of gossiping? Does anybody think that these casual conversations go on all the
time. There is no group of people more cynical that law enforcement people.
At the end of the day, people did their jobs and prevented their opinions from the proper
execution of their jobs.
Comey took Lynch completely off the hook. She had not recused herself from the case.
Prosecution or not was her decision, not Comey's. And even if she had recused herself, the
decision would have gone to Yates. Lynch had no good options. If she had said there were no
grounds for prosecution, she would have been crucified for partisanship. If she had decided
that Clinton should be prosecuted, all hell would have broken loose. Well, there is no way
she would have ever made the decision to prosecute, but point is, Comey took her completely
off the hook. No wonder Lynch made no big deal about his "insubordination".
H. Clinton squirreled away over 30 thousand emails into a private server. I am reliably
informed that if any other federal employee pulled a move like that they would have been
fired, with loss of pension and possible jail time in as much as this is grand jury fodder.
Not ol' Hillary though.
"There is only to argue which side they favored and whether they meddled via clumsiness, as a
coordinated action, or as a chaotic cluster of competing pro- and anti- Clinton/Trump
factions inside the Bureau. "
More fake news – there were NO pro-Trump factions inside the Bureau.
June 15, 2018 at 11:29 am
The important point is that Trump has no need to worry about any of this if he really is as
innocent as he claims. In fact, infiltrated informers, wiretaps etc. are a godsend to Trump
if he's innocent because they prove that innocence. Thus, Trump's making such a fuss about
these things is a tacit admission of guilt.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
Yes, of course. Because if someone spied on you looking for a crime of which you were
innocent, you'd be totally ok with it and would keep quiet. Only someone who's guilty of a
crime would speak up being spied upon.
"There is only to argue whether they meddled via clumsiness, as a coordinated action, or as a
chaotic cluster of competing pro- and anti- Clinton/Trump factions inside the Bureau."
What anti-Clinton faction? Every one of the five agents identified as sending politically
biased communications was anti-Trump. As best I can determine every decision by biased
decision makers that Horowitz is baffled by, or reports himself "unpersuaded" by the
explanations advanced, was anti-Trump. Even when Strzok writes a text message that Horowitz
admits is a smoking gun (~"We'll stop Trump") Horowitz says it's no biggie because other
decision-makers were involved, "unbiased" ones like, explicitly, Bill Priestap, he of the
procedures-violating spy launch against Trump BEFORE any investigation was opened!
To believe Horowitz' conclusions about lack of bias in decision making you have to be as
willfully reluctant to connect the dots as he is. And I'm not, nor should you be.
The real take away is that the Deep State is a reality, far more entrenched than anyone of us
knows. Whether it is particularly competent or not ( compared to what? Government in general?
) is irrelevant. No one of any stature in any part of the government bureaucracy will be held
accountable ever. They never are. As soon as the media circus moves on, it will be back to
business as usual in DC.
Those Russians are so clever. They trained agents for a lifetime to master accents of rural
Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin then duped the bible thumping gun lovers into rejecting her
highness Hillary. The immense Russian powers are extraordinary when one considers the Russian
economy is smaller than Texas.
But seriously, we had eight years of a Democratic president and people had enough and
chose a Republican even though he was outspent. That is the consistent pattern. After Trump
another Democrat will move into the White House.
Speaking of idiocracy, some personal emails between FBI agents were made public this week
with the release of the IG report.
They give a glimpse into the infantilisation of our ruling "class". It is clear that
fatherlessness and the replacement of education with indoctrination have produced a
generation of child-men and child-women who view the State as parent, provider, deity (even
as lover – supplier of ideologically acceptable bed-mates).
A cosmic ignorance radiates from these email exchanges. These agents appear to have been
dropped here from another planet. They not only seem to have been disconnected from or to
have forgotten the Civilisation that gave birth to the society in which they live, but they
seem never to have had any knowledge or awareness of it in the first place.
(Reading between the lines, deducing their "principles" from their mentality, one could
confidently conclude that these adolescents truly believe that State is God and Marx is His
They're going to get away with it with no adequately serious repercussions meaning they're
competent enough, aren't they? That also means they won't be properly deterred and will
simply do it better next time.
jp: "Hard to see how the FBI's mistakes didn't benefit one candidate over the other." That's the standard line from the Clinton campaign. They believe everything begins and
ends with Comey causing her to lose. Of course, they never mention why the FBI was investigating her, personally, and key
members of her State Dept. staff, not her campaign by the way.
The FBI may have hurt her campaign, but only because they were doing their job, albiet
badly. She hurt her campaign infinitely by breaking the law and compromising national security,
which required a criminal probe into her lawbreaking.
If you're going to fault the FBI, you can't then not fault Secretary Clinton. The two go
hand-in-hand, and she comes first in the chain of event.
Case closed. Though she didn't get her just desserts in court, at least she received
political justice. 🙂
Dave: "Peter and Lisa were 2 cops talking about a criminal." Well, that's one more reason not to trust federal law enforcement. I can cite the criminal statutes Hillary Clinton was being personally investigated
for. Can anyone cite any criminal statute that Donald Trump was being personally investigated
for at the same time? Was he even being personally investigated? A counterintelligence investigation is not a criminal investigation.
In a way we now can talk about Intelligence Industrial complex
"... The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally feared. ..."
"... In a damning passage , the 568 page report found it "extraordinary and insubordinate for Comey to conceal his intentions from his superiors for the admitted purpose of preventing them from telling him not to make the statement, and to instruct his subordinates in the FBI to do the same. By departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the department as fair administrators of justice." Comey's drafting of a press release announcing no prosecution for Clinton, written before the full investigation was even completed, is given a light touch though in the report, along the lines of roughly preparing for the conclusion based on early indications. ..."
"... Enough: The DOJ Must Show Its Cards to the American Public A Higher Loyalty is Jim Comey's Revenge, Served Lukewarm ..."
"... Attorney General Loretta Lynch is criticized for not being more sensitive to public perceptions when she agreed to meet privately with Bill Clinton aboard an airplane as the FBI investigation into Hillary unfolded. "Lynch's failure to recognize the appearance problem and to take action to cut the visit short was an error in judgment." Her statements later about her decision not to recuse further "created public confusion and didn't adequately address the situation." ..."
"... Page and Strzok also discussed cutting back the number of investigators present for Clinton's in-person interview in light of the fact she might soon be president, and thus their new boss. Someone identified only as Agent One went on to refer to Clinton as "the President" and in a message told a friend "I'm with her." The FBI also allowed Clinton's lawyers to attend her interview, even though they were also witnesses to a possible crimes committed by Clinton. ..."
"... Page and Strzok were among five FBI officials the report found expressed hostility toward Trump and have been referred to the FBI's internal disciple system. The report otherwise makes only wishy-washy recommendations about things every agent should already know, like "adopting a policy addressing the appropriateness of department employees discussing the conduct of uncharged individuals in public statements." ..."
"... In that sense, the IG just poured a can of jet fuel onto the fires of the 2016 election and walked away to watch it burn. ..."
"... One concrete outcome, however, is to weaken a line of prosecution for Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The chief Russiagate investigator has just seen a key witness degraded -- any defense lawyer will characterize Comey's testimony as tainted now -- and a possible example of obstruction weakened. ..."
"... The report thus underscores one of the stated reasons for Comey's dismissal. Firing someone for incompetence isn't obstructing justice; it's the boss' job. ..."
"... the most important conclusion of the report: there is no longer a way to claim America's internal intelligence agency, the FBI, did not play a role in the 2016 election. There is only to argue which side they favored and whether they meddled via clumsiness, as a coordinated action, or as a chaotic cluster of competing pro- and anti- Clinton/Trump factions inside the Bureau. And that's the tally before anyone brings up the FBI's use of a human informant inside the Trump campaign, the FBI's use of both FISA warrants and pseudo-legal warrantless surveillance against key members of the Trump team, the FBI's use of opposition research from the Steele Dossier , and so on. ..."
15, 2018The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally
It will be easy to miss the most important point amid the partisan bleating over what the
Department of Justice Office of Inspector General report on the FBI's Clinton email
investigation really means.
While each side will find the evidence they want to find proving the FBI, with James Comey
as director, helped/hurt Hillary Clinton and/or maybe Donald Trump, the real takeaway is this:
the FBI influenced the election of a president.
In January 2017 the Inspector General for the Department of Justice, Michael Horowitz (who
previously worked on the 2012 study of "Fast and Furious"), opened his probe into the FBI's
Clinton email investigation, including public statements Comey made at critical moments in the
presidential campaign. Horowitz's focus was always to be on how the FBI did its work, not to
re-litigate the case against Clinton. Nor did the IG plan to look into anything regarding
In a damning
passage , the 568 page report found it "extraordinary and
insubordinate for Comey to conceal his intentions from his superiors for the admitted purpose
of preventing them from telling him not to make the statement, and to instruct his subordinates
in the FBI to do the same. By departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and department
norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the department as fair
administrators of justice." Comey's drafting of a press release announcing no prosecution for
Clinton, written before the full investigation was even completed, is given a light touch
though in the report, along the lines of roughly preparing for the conclusion based on early
Attorney General Loretta Lynch is criticized for not being more sensitive to public
perceptions when she agreed to meet privately with Bill Clinton aboard an airplane as the FBI
investigation into Hillary unfolded. "Lynch's failure to recognize the appearance problem and
to take action to cut the visit short was an error in judgment." Her statements later about her
decision not to recuse further "created public confusion and didn't adequately address the
The report also
criticizes in depth FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who exchanged texts disparaging
Trump before moving from the Clinton email to the Russiagate investigation. Those texts
"brought discredit" to the FBI and sowed public doubt about the investigation, including one
exchange that read, "Page: "[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Strzok: "No.
No he's not. We'll stop it." Another Strzok document
stated "we know foreign actors obtained access to some Clinton emails, including at least
one secret message."
Page and Strzok also discussed cutting back the number of investigators present for
Clinton's in-person interview in light of the fact she might soon be president, and thus their
new boss. Someone identified only as Agent One went on to refer to Clinton as "the President"
and in a message told a friend "I'm with her." The FBI also allowed Clinton's lawyers to attend
her interview, even though they were also witnesses to a possible crimes committed by
Page and Strzok were among five FBI officials the report found expressed hostility
toward Trump and have been referred to the FBI's internal disciple system. The report otherwise
makes only wishy-washy recommendations about things every agent should already know, like
"adopting a policy addressing the appropriateness of department employees discussing the
conduct of uncharged individuals in public statements."
But at the end of it all, the details really don't matter, because the report broadly found
no political bias, no purposeful efforts or strategy to sway the election. In aviation disaster
terms, it was all pilot error. Like an accident of sorts, as opposed to the pilot boarding
drunk, but the plane crashed and killed 300 people either way.
The report is already being welcomed by Democrats -- who feel Comey
shattered Clinton's chances of winning the election by reopening the email probe just days
before the election -- and by Republicans, who feel Comey let Clinton off easy. Many are now
celebrating it was only gross incompetence, unethical behavior, serial bad judgment, and
insubordination that led the FBI to help determine the election. No Constitutional crisis.
A lot of details in those 568 pages to yet fully parse, but at first glance there is not
much worthy of prosecution (though Attorney General Jeff Sessions says he will review the
report for possible
prosecutions and IG Horowitz will testify in front of Congress on Monday and may reveal
more information.) Each side will point to the IG's conclusion of "no bias" to shut down calls
for this or that in a tsunami of blaming each other. In that sense, the IG just poured a
can of jet fuel onto the fires of the 2016 election and walked away to watch it burn.
One concrete outcome, however, is to weaken a line of
prosecution for Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The chief Russiagate investigator has just
seen a key witness degraded -- any defense lawyer will characterize Comey's testimony as
tainted now -- and a possible example of obstruction weakened. As justification for firing
Comey, the White House initially pointed to an earlier Justice Department memo criticizing
Comey for many of the same actions now highlighted by the IG (Trump later added concerns about
the handling of Russiagate.) The report thus underscores one of the stated reasons for
Comey's dismissal. Firing someone for incompetence isn't obstructing justice; it's the boss'
It will be too easy, however, to miss the most important conclusion of the report: there
is no longer a way to claim America's internal intelligence agency, the FBI, did not play a
role in the 2016 election. There is only to argue which side they favored and whether they
meddled via clumsiness, as a coordinated action, or as a chaotic cluster of competing pro- and
anti- Clinton/Trump factions inside the Bureau. And that's the tally before anyone brings up
the FBI's use of a human informant inside the Trump campaign, the FBI's use of both FISA
warrants and pseudo-legal
warrantless surveillance against key members of the Trump team, the FBI's use of opposition
research from the
Steele Dossier , and so on.
The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally feared. But even if
one fully accepts the IG report's conclusion that all this -- and there's a lot -- was not
intentional, at a minimum it makes clear to those watching ahead of 2020 what tools are
available and the impact they can have. While we continue to look for the bad guy abroad, we
have already met the enemy and he is us.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the
Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People and Hooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. Follow him on Twitter
Famous story in the FBI. Young Special Agent selected to drive Mr Hoover
from the office to the airport. As the SA opens the door for the Director
he overhears a fragment of the Director and SAC's farewell conversation...
".............I am very angry about too many Left turns in this country".
Later in the day, "standing tall" in front of the SAC's desk he explains
why a normal 45 minute drive turned into a 3 hour fiasco. Not wishing to anger
the Director any further he explained, he plotted a course to the airport which involved only "Right" turns.
All this is an interesting information. But Trump folded long ago. So why they continues so relentlessly pursue him.
Some of the statements are iether naive, or incorrect, or both. For example: ""The Anglo-American response to this development can
be seen in the events in Ukraine, where Obama, the British, and the National Endowment for Democracy staged a coup in February 2014,
overthrowing the government of the duly elected President, Victor Yanukovych, because he refused to turn his country into a western
satrapy to be wielded against Putin's Russia. " also " We know that Paul Manafort was considered practically an enemy combatant in Anglo-American
swamp circles by 2014, because of his Ukraine work with Yanukovych and the Party of the Regions. He apparently chose the wrong side
by fighting against a Nazi coup. The same was true even of Democratic consultants such as Tony Podesta, who worked with Manafort on
Ukraine and were subject to the same reported 2014 FISA surveillance warrant"
"... Victoria Nuland, who helped oversee the coup from her perch at Hillary Clinton's State Department, was famously caught on tape dictating the Ukraine succession, after bands of murderous neo-Nazis did the scut-work for the coup. According to Nuland, the price for this handiwork was some $5 billion. ..."
"... The actual "swamp" of the British and their accomplices in the U.S. intelligence community and aligned trans-Atlantic institutions, like NATO, have viewed themselves as being in a state of war against Russia and China since the 2013-2014 events. ..."
"... Flynn had already driven Obama crazy by proposing a determined U.S.-Russian collaboration in the war on terror, and going after the Administration's policy aimed at dismembering Syria. Obama had fired him. ..."
"... Page had already functioned as an FBI informant in a major 2013 New York City FBI case against Russian organized crime figures, and stated on CNN that he briefed both the CIA and FBI regularly on these business dealings in Russia. ..."
"... Was he used as a front to get a FISA warrant directed at the Trump campaign? Was he a spy sent by the FBI both to Russia and into the Trump campaign? The targeting of the alleged activities of the St.Petersburg Internet Research Agency (IRA) in DNI Clapper's January report, again points to the heavy British hand in the coup against the President. ..."
"... Crowdstrike's Dimitri Alperovitch -- the person with sole access to the DNC's allegedly "hacked" computers, whose forensic analysis was adopted wholesale by James Comey's FBI and the U.S. intelligence community -- is a senior fellow in the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Service. ..."
"... What exactly was the relationship of the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and the other black propagandists operating against the President, together with their reporters, with the NED, the Information Warfare Initiative, NATO's Strategic Communications Service, and The Institute for Modern Russia in New York City, or other British or U.S. intelligence agencies during the Obama Administration and subsequently? ..."
"... Steele and Orbis claim that the 17th memo, produced in December 2016, which referenced the salacious and disgusting claim that Trump engaged in perverse sexual activities at a Russian hotel, was solely produced to one David Kramer as a representative of John McCain, Senator John McCain himself, and a representative of the British security services. ..."
"... It has been widely reported that James Comey's FBI was also offering Steele and Orbis $50,000 or more at this point to corroborate aspects of the dodgy dossier smearing the President-elect. ..."
"... David Kramer is the former President of the CIA and NED quango, Freedom House, was a fellow of the neo-conservative Project for a New American Century, held State Department positions dedicated to Project Democracy and soft power coups in Russia and the former East Bloc, and presently serves as Senior Director for Human Rights and Human Freedoms at Senator McCain's Institute for International Leadership in Arizona. ..."
"... Department of Justice concerning four participants in the Trump Tower meeting and others for failure to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Browder's complaint claimed that these people were engaged in unregistered Russian lobbying activities, namely, attempting to overturn the Magnitsky Act. Browder renounced his American citizenship in 1989 to become a British subject and has operated at the highest levels of British finance and intelligence. ..."
The Real Story: Issues of War, Peace, and the Future
Beginning with an announcement of President Xi Jinping, at a conference in Kazakhstan in July of 2013, China has set into motion
an entirely new dynamic in the world, a new paradigm of cooperation between nation states, to build vital modern infrastructure allowing
nations in the former "developing sector" to reach their full economic potentials.
Xi Jinping's vision of the New Silk Road or "One Belt, One Road" project has been endorsed by Russia's Vladimir Putin.
Russia and China are joining in projects which will fully develop the Eurasian landmass, creating a "new financial architecture"
in the Asia-Pacific region.
On July 16, 2014, the BRICS group of nations meeting in Fortaleza, Brazil, joined by the Latin American heads of state, agreed
with Xi Jinping's proposal on the creation of an entirely new economic and financial system, representing a fundamental alternative
to the casino economy of the present system of globalization.
The Anglo-American globalist system is based on maximized profit of the few, and the impoverishment of billions of people.
In the new paradigm, financing for joint great projects is to come from development banks, such as the newly created Asian Infrastructure
Investment Bank, ending dependence on such globalist institutions as the IMF or World Bank.
Globalization as administered by the IMF and World Bank is effectively a system of imperial debt slavery, keeping the nations
dependent on their loans in primitive economic conditions, while their raw materials are looted.
As Prime Minister Narenda Modi from India remarked,
"The BRICS is unique as an international institution.
In this first instance, it unifies a group of nations, not on the basis of their existing prosperity or common identities, but
rather their future potentials.
The idea of the BRICS itself is thus aligned with the future.
It is not incidental to this remark that Russia, China, and India have set future goals for space exploration, including most
specifically exploration of the Moon and possible exploitation of Helium 3 on the Moon, which has the potential of finally realizing
nuclear fusion power as a primary energy source powering the world.
China has made clear that no small part of this initiative is inspired by the work of Lyndon and Helga LaRouche.
The methods employed echo the ideas of political economy first developed by Alexander Hamilton, and deployed by Abraham Lincoln
and Franklin Roosevelt -- ideas uniquely developed and expanded by Lyndon LaRouche.
Xi Jinping has asked the United States to join this great venture, which could produce thousands of productive jobs and jump-start
infrastructure projects in this country.
Obama adamantly refused Xi's offer, and did everything in his power to block and defeat the Chinese initiative.
President Trump has indicated an openness to the proposition.
These 2013-2014 events were and are a direct challenge to the British imperial system.
They directly challenge the monetary system which is the source of Anglo-American domination of the world.
They directly challenge fundamental British strategic policy extant since the days of Halford Mackinder.
Under the "One Belt, One Road" initiative, joined with Russia's Eurasian Union, Mackinder's "world island" of Eurasia and Africa
will be developed, crisscrossed with new high-speed rail links, new cities, and vital modern infrastructure, based on the mutual
benefit of all of the nation states existing there.
Under the British geopolitical model, this area of the world has been subjected to endless instability, war, and raw materials
Xi Jinping has also attacked the geopolitical axioms by which the United States and the British have operated.
He proposes instead a model of "win-win" cooperation in which nation states collaborate for development based on the common aims
The Anglo-American response to this development can be seen in the events in Ukraine, where Obama, the British, and the National
Endowment for Democracy staged a coup in February 2014, overthrowing the government of the duly elected President, Victor Yanukovych,
because he refused to turn his country into a western satrapy to be wielded against Putin's Russia.
Victoria Nuland, who helped oversee the coup from her perch at Hillary Clinton's State Department, was famously caught on tape
dictating the Ukraine succession, after bands of murderous neo-Nazis did the scut-work for the coup. According to Nuland, the price for this handiwork was some $5 billion.
The actual "swamp" of the British and their accomplices in the U.S. intelligence community and aligned trans-Atlantic institutions, like NATO, have viewed themselves as being in a state of war against
Russia and China since the 2013-2014 events.
Think about former DNI Clapper's unhinged speech in Australia of June 7, 2017. Clapper ranted that it was in Putin's and Russia's "genes" to attack the United States. Since Trump pursues better relations and shared intelligence with Russia on terrorism, Clapper ranted, Watergate (where Richard
Nixon committed proven crimes) paled in comparison to Russiagate (where both Clapper and Comey have testified that to date the President
has committed no crimes). Clapper told the Aussies also to target China, accusing the Chinese, without any offer of proof, of meddling in Australia's elections.
Former FBI Director James Comey backed Clapper in his testimony on June 8, 2017, attempting to wax eloquent in response to Senator
Joe Manchin, about how Putin exists with one purpose in mind -- to shred and dismember the United States. But China and Russia have completely outflanked these cretins, and the new paradigm is rapidly coming to life with "shovels in
the ground" everywhere.
In response, the Anglo-American elites have absolutely nothing to offer the world except the same dying, decadent globalist "order."
This explains why many in official Washington let loose their inner alien monster every time the President mentions a desire for
better relations with Russia, or evinces his friendship with President Xi Jinping of China.
This is why Hillary Clinton has literally gone insane, raving like Lady Macbeth, and obsessing about Putin's "man-spreading."
That is why, also, they would risk World War III rather than see the "Belt and Road," the New Silk Road, go forward with its "community
of principle" idea of relations among nations.
What Did Trump Do?
Like LaRouche, Trump represents an existential challenge to the post-War British-dictated monetarist and imperial order.
In his campaign platform he called for the reinstitution of Glass-Steagall banking separation.
This would end the casino economy which is about to blow up again -- the real economy never having recovered from the collapse
He wants to build huge modern infrastructure and revitalize the manufacturing sector of the economy with modern manufacturing
He wants to return the United States to space exploration and the funding of fundamental science, recognizing the optimistic national
morale which will result from that.
In his public speeches, Trump has repeatedly invoked what he understands as "The American System" of political economy, a concept
developed and elaborated in recent history by only one man, Lyndon LaRouche.
This centers economic systems in nation states, rather than global institutions, and calls for harnessing the resources of the
nation state to develop the economy to higher and higher levels of physical productivity and human culture.
While Trump has features in his version of the American System which LaRouche would not endorse as historically accurate or politically
wise, even the use of the term, invoking Alexander Hamilton and Lincoln's economist Henry Carey, is a direct challenge to the free
trade, small-government nostrums foisted on the United States by a parade of British agents during the Twentieth Century.
The British, up to this point, have been largely successful in burying the actual ideas of Alexander Hamilton and Franklin Roosevelt,
and burying the fundamental advances in these ideas resulting from original discoveries by LaRouche.
Through deliberate miseducation of Americans, the British have made their economic theories and systems, against which Americans
explicitly fought in our Revolution, appear to be universal laws of human behavior.
As his recent speech to the United Nations emphasized, Trump envisions a system of sovereign nations, each striving to develop
and enrich their populations, engaged in cooperative trade relationships, reciprocal in nature and targeted for the benefit of each
speech echoed the foreign policy of John Quincy Adams, a policy which forbade our nation from "going abroad, seeking monsters
to destroy." This is the very opposite of the imperial-gendarme, perpetual-war policy long favored by the British for the United
Trump's positive vision, under present circumstances, requires active collaboration with Russia and China.
To stop the coup, the President's team and his supporters must stop reacting defensively.
He must act on the aspects of his program -- Glass-Steagall, large scale infrastructure development funded by national banking
mechanism devoted to that purpose, space exploration, fusion power development, and joining the "One Belt, One Road" program with
China, which can actually save the economy and produce high paying jobs.
At the same time, they should look at the actual crimes involved in the coup which are already on the public record, investigate
them -- including in the Congress -- and prosecute them.
With respect to Mueller, they should investigate his obstruction of the investigation into the crimes committed on 9/11, together
with a full public unveiling of the Saudi and British role in international terrorism.
In aid of such an effort we present seven crimes implicated in the events in the coup against the President to date.
Seven Actual Crimes
The crimes outlined below make clear that a Special Counsel, not Robert Mueller, should be investigating the U.S.-British response
to China's Belt and Road Initiative, beginning with the illegal coup in Ukraine which has resulted in the targeting of Paul Manafort.
In the British account of the American election, largely published in pieces in the Guardian, they began warning their American
counterparts about the dangers of Donald Trump's accommodating views toward Putin and Russia in 2015.
These warnings were followed by the specific claim that the Democratic National Committee's servers had been hacked by the Russians
as of July of 2015.
According to the British account, their American counterparts were slow to respond, although the FBI says it notified the DNC,
which did nothing about the alleged Russian hack until June of 2016.
The obvious should be stated here.
If the British were developing dossiers on Trump and his associates as early as 2015, Trump and his associates were under surveillance
as of that date or sooner by British GCHQ and/or the NSA.
We know that Paul Manafort was considered practically an enemy combatant in Anglo-American swamp circles by 2014, because of his
Ukraine work with Yanukovych and the Party of the Regions.
He apparently chose the wrong side by fighting against a Nazi coup.
The same was true even of Democratic consultants such as Tony Podesta, who worked with Manafort on Ukraine and were subject to
the same reported 2014 FISA surveillance warrant.
What was the FBI affidavit which justified the 2014 Manafort, Podesta FISA court surveillance warrant, and what was the British
role in obtaining it? What role did the British play, including GCHQ and MI6, in the Manafort counterintelligence investigation?
What were the British "concerns" about Trump communicated to U.S.
intelligence as early as 2015? What was the specific British warning about hacks of the DNC computer in July 2015? By December
of 2015, according to James Clapper's dodgy January, 2017 report on alleged Russian meddling in the election, hundreds of paid Russian
trolls associated with the St.
Petersburg, Russia, Internet Research Agency had begun to advocate for Trump's election.
At the same time, Michael Flynn attended a dinner at RT in Russia, sitting across the table from Putin.
Flynn had already driven Obama crazy by proposing a determined U.S.-Russian collaboration in the war on terror, and going
after the Administration's policy aimed at dismembering Syria. Obama had fired him.
Is this the date when surveillance on Flynn actually began, or did it begin sooner? What was the British role in this surveillance?
Carter Page has also been a subject in Mueller's Russiagate hysteria.
He apparently walked in to volunteer for the Trump campaign without any prior association with the President, and was disavowed
by the campaign soon after.
He went to school in London, had a variety of business dealings in Russia, and had volunteered for the Trump campaign as a foreign
policy advisor by simply walking in the door.
Page had already functioned as an FBI informant in a major 2013 New York City FBI case against Russian organized crime figures,
and stated on CNN that he briefed both the CIA and FBI regularly on these business dealings in Russia.
Was he used as a front to get a FISA warrant directed at the Trump campaign? Was he a spy sent by the FBI both to Russia and
into the Trump campaign? The targeting of the alleged activities of the St.Petersburg Internet Research Agency (IRA) in DNI Clapper's
January report, again points to the heavy British hand in the coup against the President.
According to French journalist Thierry Meyssan, in September 2014, the British government created the 77th Brigade, a unit tasked
with countering foreign propaganda, which worked with the U.S. military in Europe to interfere with websites considered to be distributing
Russian propaganda. This project ultimately morphed into NATO's Strategic Communications Service, tasked with suppressing any news
or person favorable to the Russian position concerning strategic topics, but particularly Ukraine. From its inception, the NATO Strategic
Communications Service incorporated a service of the Atlantic Council, the Digital Forensics Service.
Crowdstrike's Dimitri Alperovitch -- the person with sole access to the DNC's allegedly "hacked" computers, whose forensic
analysis was adopted wholesale by James Comey's FBI and the U.S. intelligence community -- is a senior fellow in the Atlantic Council's
Digital Forensic Service.
News about Russian trolls operating out of the IRA and poisoning the Western mind filled the British press in 2015. In line with
this NATO project is the Information Warfare Initiative in the U.S., centered at the Washington Center for European Policy Analysis
and founded by Washington Post neo-con Anne Applebaum. It is a pseudopod of the National Endowment for Democracy and the U.S. intelligence
community, and has concentrated its attacks on the Russian broadcasters RT and Sputnik.
(2) Russian trolls and IRA became a hot topic in Washington for the first time as a result of Clapper's reference
to them in his January 2017 Assessment of Russian meddling and a nationally embarrassing Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
hearing in March, 2017. There, full grown U.S. Senators listened in seemingly amazed wonder and without any challenge, as Thomas
Rid, of King's College, London and NATO, Roy Godson, and other British schooled intelligence experts wove a fantastic fairy tale.
They told the Senators that thousands of paid Russian trolls using sophisticated bots had infiltrated the American mind with Russian
generated conspiracy theories and swung the election to Donald Trump. Godson repeatedly had to correct himself, substituting the
current "Russia" for his constant reference to the Soviet Union. According to the same dubious sources, a second evil front opened
by the crafty Russians consisted of purchase of Facebook ads met to sow discord throughout our land.
What exactly was the relationship of the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and the other black propagandists operating
against the President, together with their reporters, with the NED, the Information Warfare Initiative, NATO's Strategic Communications
Service, and The Institute for Modern Russia in New York City, or other British or U.S. intelligence agencies during the Obama Administration
and subsequently? Like the Train meetings targeting LaRouche, the media attacks on the President are not organic. They are organized,
and on a much larger scale than anything ever experienced in this country.
What is the relationship of various Washington D.C. lobby shops, such as Orion Strategies, long associated with John McCain, to
the organized media campaign against Donald Trump? Have our intelligence agencies, actually instigated an Active Measures counterintelligence
program illegally and against a sitting President? What is the overlap of offices, personnel, and entities assigned by Obama to Russian,
Chinese, and Eurasian intelligence functions, including the coup activities in Ukraine, with the illegal leaks of classified information
to the news media?
The Cardinal Events of June-July 2016
(1). The Conspiracy Against the President Takes Off Sometime in June, 2016, Hillary Clinton's campaign took over an opposition
research project on Donald Trump which had previously been funded by Trump's Republican opponents. The contract was with a D.C.firm
called Fusion GPS, who, in turn, employed a British firm, Orbis, and Orbis' founder Christopher Steele.
Steele ran the Russia desk for MI6 until 2009; Sir Andrew Wood, an "associate" at Steele's company, was the British Ambassador
to Moscow between 1995 and 2000, a "Russia" adviser to Tony Blair, and is an associate fellow of the Russia and Eurasia program at
the Royal Institute for International Affairs at Chatham House.
Christopher Burrows, Steele's partner in Orbis, lists himself as a long-time high-ranking British foreign service officer, although
news accounts also place him in British intelligence.
Christopher Steele has also acknowledged a longstanding relationship to the FBI, centered in the FBI's Eurasian Organized Crime
Strike Force in New York City, which media reports date to 2010, the same time the relationship to Fusion GPS went into effect.
Andrew McCabe, the ethically challenged FBI Assistant Director now being investigated for Hatch Act and other violations concerning
the Clinton sponsorship of his wife's campaign against Virginia Senator Richard Black, led the Eurasian task force early in his career,
and has maintained contacts ever since.
Many believe that McCabe was Steele's FBI handler and contact.
In court filings in a London libel suit against them, Steele and Orbis state that they briefed reporters from the New York Times,
the Washington Post, the New Yorker, Yahoo News, and CNN about Christopher Steele's reports on Trump and Russia in September 2016,
and participated in further briefings with the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Yahoo News in October 2016.
In late October, Steele briefed a reporter from Mother Jones by Skype.
Senator John McCain and David Kramer, who was McCain's agent, were briefed on the pre-election Steele memoranda in December of
Sixteen memoranda smearing Trump, based on paid and anonymous Russian sources, were produced prior to the election.
It is clear that the FBI was also a recipient of all of these memoranda dating back to June of 2016, if not earlier. Steele
and Orbis claim that the 17th memo, produced in December 2016, which referenced the salacious and disgusting claim that Trump engaged
in perverse sexual activities at a Russian hotel, was solely produced to one David Kramer as a representative of John McCain, Senator
John McCain himself, and a representative of the British security services.
The December memo was the product of a collaboration between Steele, Sir Andrew Wood, Kramer, and a representative of the British
security services, which began on November 18, 2016, that is, almost immediately following Trump's election as President.
It has been widely reported that James Comey's FBI was also offering Steele and Orbis $50,000 or more at this point to corroborate
aspects of the dodgy dossier smearing the President-elect.
David Kramer is the former President of the CIA and NED quango, Freedom House, was a fellow of the neo-conservative Project
for a New American Century, held State Department positions dedicated to Project Democracy and soft power coups in Russia and the
former East Bloc, and presently serves as Senior Director for Human Rights and Human Freedoms at Senator McCain's Institute for International
Leadership in Arizona. Hillary Clinton used the Steele Dossier to paint Trump as a Russian dupe throughout her general election
campaign against him.
James Comey used it to justify his FBI counterintelligence probe of the Trump campaign which began in July of 2016, and has continued.
Thus, we have the British government and, in all probability, NATO, intervening in an election in the United States to sway the
Most certainly this raises questions about the applicability of election laws which bar foreign funding for exactly the reason
that United States elections should be decided by United States citizens.
Most certainly, once this sequence of events is fully investigated, it will become clear that all government participants intended
to sway the election unlawfully, using the powers of a state to vanquish the will of the voters.
(2).The Russian Hack That Wasn't -- False Reporting of a Crime
On June 12, 2016, WikiLeaks announced that it was in possession of emails damaging to Hillary Clinton, and would soon be publishing
June, 14, 2016 marks the announcement by the Democratic National Committee that its computers had been hacked by the Russians,
the subject apparently of the initial Christopher Steele memorandum prepared for the Clinton campaign.
The purloined DNC emails showed, definitively, that the DNC, which should have been neutral in the primaries, was trying to destroy
the rising campaign of Bernie Sanders.
The emails were published by WikiLeaks on the eve of the Democratic National Convention.
The claim that the WikiLeaks emails were the result of a Russian hack of DNC servers was authored by Dmitri Alperovitch of the
security firm, Crowd Strike.
Alperovitch, a Russian-American who demonizes Putin, is, as previously referenced, a fellow at the Atlantic Council's Digital
Forensics Project, deeply involved in NATO's Strategic Communications Service.
The FBI's James Comey accepted Alperowitz's forensic analysis without ever accessing the DNC computers in question.
It is probable that Comey was already operating on the basis of the British Christopher Steele Memoranda asserting that the Russians
were responsible for the DNC hack.
On July 24, 2017, the Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity released a Memo to the President demonstrating that there
was no Russian hack of the DNC.
Rather, the WikiLeaks document trove was produced by a leak from inside the DNC, not a hack.
According to this memorandum, the leaked treasure trove from the DNC was altered in a "cut and paste" job to make it look like
it was the product of a very crude Russian hack. The VIPS are veterans of U.S. intelligence agencies, and include William Binney,
the former technical director of the NSA. Their group first formed to oppose the fabricated reasons for the Iraq War.
William Binney has insisted from the first reference to Russian hacking as the source of the WikiLeaks Podesta/DNC documents,
that if such an event had occurred, the NSA would have traced it and could say so with certainty. In their report, the VIPS point
out that the CIA's "Marble Framework" program allows for obfuscation of cyberattacks and false flag attribution to other state actors.
WikiLeaks has consistently claimed that the source of its dossier was an inside leak from the DNC, implying that Seth Rich, a DNC
data management staffer who supported Bernie Sanders, was one of its sources.
Rich was murdered in July of 2016 in Washington, D.C., in a crime which remains unsolved at this date.
Congressman Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA) recently met with Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, and states that he has evidence confirming that
the WikiLeaks DNC/John Podesta email trove was the result of a leak, not a Russian hack.
(3). The Trump Tower Meeting -- Entrapping a Presidential Campaign
On June 9, 2016, a meeting took place in Trump Tower involving Donald Trump, Jr., Paul Manafort, at the time the campaign manager
for the Trump Presidential campaign, Jared Kushner, the President's son-in-law, and five other people. As opposed to media accounts,
only one of the participants in the Trump Tower meeting was a Russian, the lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. By all accounts provided
by participants, the meeting was very short, and involved the Magnitsky Act sanctions imposed by the U.S. Congress on certain Russians.
Many consider these 2012 sanctions to be the opening shot of the New Cold War. This meeting has attracted extensive attention
from Special Counsel Mueller, as the media has painted it as a "smoking gun." The emails setting up the meeting do not reflect
what actually happened at the meeting.
Instead, they bear all the marks of an intelligence-agency entrapment attempt against Donald Trump, Jr., designed to fix the "Manchurian
candidate" label on Trump early in the general election campaign. The emails setting up the meeting specifically offered "dirt" on
Hillary Clinton to be provided by the Russian government itself.
On July 15, 2016, at the same time as the FBI was opening an investigation of the Russians for interfering in the U.S.election
and of the Trump campaign for colluding with them, another British intelligence operative, Bill Browder, was filing a complaint with
Department of Justice concerning four participants in the Trump Tower meeting and others for failure to register under the
Foreign Agents Registration Act. Browder's complaint claimed that these people were engaged in unregistered Russian lobbying activities,
namely, attempting to overturn the Magnitsky Act. Browder renounced his American citizenship in 1989 to become a British subject
and has operated at the highest levels of British finance and intelligence.
Undoubtedly, by the time of the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting, the British government's Trump file already included a full
history of Donald Trump's sponsorship of the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow and its players, Trump's real estate dealings with
Russians anywhere in the world, all of candidate Trump's conciliatory statements toward Russia, and complaints that campaign advisor
Michael Flynn was soft on Russia, and a rebel against the U.S. intelligence establishment from within that establishment.
The file also included surveillance of Trump's campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who was considered an outright enemy of Anglo-American
interests given his political work for the former President of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovych and his Party of the Regions, and Trump's
relationship with Felix Sater, a Russian-American and high level FBI informant.
3 The official British government file also probably included surveillance of apartments at Trump Tower associated with a then
ongoing investigation of a Russian organized crime ring said to operate there and figures involved in the FIFA corruption investigation
who also lived there. The FIFA investigation was worked by the FBI Eurasian Organized Crime Strike Force and Christopher Steele.
So, even before the Trump Tower meeting, we find following intelligence services in motion and attempting to concoct illicit dirt
about Trump and Putin: British intelligence, Ukrainian intelligence, the DNI and the CIA in the United States, the FBI, and NATO's
Strategic Communications Service and its U.S. offshoots.
But wait, as they say in infomercial sales, that's not even close to all involved. According to Foreign Policy Magazine
and others, on July 11, 2017, a hacker going by the name of "Johnnie Walker" published a trove of emails from the private account
of Lieutenant Robert J.Otto, who is tasked to a secretive unit in the U.S.State Department focused on Russia. Newsweek magazine states
that Otto is the nation's "foremost" intelligence guy concerning Russia. The emails have not been authenticated. However, they contain
an email purported to be on the day of the Trump Tower meeting between Otto and Kyle Parker, of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs,
featuring a picture of Russian attorney Natalia Velselnitskaya's house in Russia.
Parker credits himself as the actual author of the Magnitsky Act sanctions against Russia, and a close friend of Bill Browder.
Velselnitskaya claims that her children have been threatened as a result of her participation in a legal case questioning the bona
fides of Bill Browder and the factual foundations of the Magnitsky Act. The picture of her house in this context suggests another
level of intense surveillance directed at Trump Tower on the day of the meeting, and the possibility that threats to her family were
actually governing Veselnitskaya's behavior.
On June 3rd, Trump Jr.was emailed by publicist Ron Goldstone, a British national who operates out of the U.S., whose first career
was as a British tabloid journalist. Goldstone's Facebook account appears to indicate that he is presently on a break from his businesses
and on a world tour of gay bathhouses in which the proudly obese Goldstone takes pictures of himself wearing various strange hats
and shirts in the company of young men.
Who is financing this tour apparently outside the reach of Grand Jury subpoenas? Goldstone has also been photographed with Kathy
Griffin, who famously posted a picture of herself with President Trump's severed head. Goldstone emailed Donald Trump, Jr.
that Aras Agalarov wanted Goldstone to set up a meeting with Trump, Jr. in which sensitive Russian government files about Hillary
Clinton's dealings with Russia would be provided to the Trump campaign as a gesture of official Russian government support of the
campaign. Trump Jr. agreed to the meeting. Goldstone is the publicist for Emin Agalarov, an Azerbarjani pop star. Aras Agalarov
and his son Emin partnered with Trump for the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow. The base of operations for the Agalarov family
is the Moscow regional government, not Putin's Kremlin.
The actual twenty-minute meeting involved Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya, who did most of the speaking by all accounts;
Rinat Akhmetshin, a well-known Washington D.C.-based lobbyist and American citizen; Ike Kaveladze, a U.S. citizen and vice-president
at one of the Agalarov's companies; Ron Goldstone; and the translator for Natalia Veselnitskaya, Anatoli Samochornov. Samochornov
is also an American citizen who worked with Veselnitskaya frequently, since she does not speak English. He has also worked extensively
for the FBI and the U.S. State Department.
Although Akhmetshin has been linked to Russian counterintelligence repeatedly in the news media, that all appears to be based
on his bragging about his two-year stint in the Russian military as a young man.
The topic addressed by Veselnitskaya was the Magnitsky Act sanctions against Russia, which resulted from a campaign conducted
by violently anti-Putin British operative William Browder, allied with Senator John McCain and the D.C. public relations firm Ashcroft
Any sound investigation about this meeting would focus on who, out of the small army of intelligence operatives watching this
meeting, designed and implemented the clear entrapment attempt against Donald Trump, Jr. for later use.
Since it was surveilled and recorded by multiple intelligence agencies tripping all over one another at the time, (you get the
image of Keystone cops), why was it only surfaced as the "smoking gun" recently? Natalia Veselnitskaya had been paroled into the
United States to serve as the Russian lawyer in a legal case in the Southern District of New York based solely on money-laundering
allegations made by Bill Browder against her Russian clients.
At the time of the Trump Tower meeting, however, Veselnitskaya was traveling on a business visa issued by the U.S. Department
of State after having been previously denied such a visa, and after efforts by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New
York to prevent any free travel by her in the U.S. at all. Immigration attorneys I have spoken to describe this situation as extremely
(4). Obama's Final Days In Office -- Insurrection Against the President-Elect, Felonious Leaks
In an apparent effort to influence the Electoral College vote following the election, the Obama Administration leaked a preliminary
intelligence community "assessment" that the Russians had hacked the Democrats' computers and otherwise intervened to swing the election
to Donald Trump.
According to the New York Times of March 1, 2017, Obama and his national security colleagues additionally spent the months after
the election and prior to President Trump's inauguration dropping a trail of "leads" in official documents and leaking information,
in the effort to delegitimize Trump and to continue their policies against Russia and China.
Certainly, there is a document trail on this process which appears to be confined to a period of a little over two months.
Evelyn Farkas, formerly of the Defense Department's Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia Desk and the Atlantic Council, virtually admitted
to MSNBC in March that she had participated in this process. This is where the illegal unmasking of names in FISA and E.O. 12333
surveillance occurred, when these crimes were committed. Samantha Power, the U.N. Ambassador, was reportedly involved in 260 unmasking
requests bearing little relationship to her function. Other targets of the House Intelligence Committee concerning illegal unmasking
and leaks include Susan Rice, John Brennan, and Ben Rhodes.
On December 15, 2016, DNI James Clapper signed new procedures allowing the NSA to distribute raw intercept data throughout the
entire intelligence community. These procedures became official on January 3, 2017 when Attorney General Loretta Lynch signed off
At issue is modification of secret procedures under E.O. 12333, deemed by Edward Snowden and others as the most significant authority
for our present, completely unconstitutional surveillance state. Previously, the NSA was required to filter and redact information
regarding U.S. citizens monitored in foreign counterintelligence activities. DNI Clapper had also implemented a cloud intelligence
data platform accessible by all intelligence agencies, and obliterating many paper and digital access trails and safeguards.
Were these new procedures implemented in any way based on a desire to facilitate leaks and obscure their origin to future investigators?
(5). The January Blackmail/Extortion Attempt
On January 6, 2017, according to James Comey's June 8th Congressional testimony, the intelligence chiefs went to Trump Tower to
present the Obama Administration's report on Russian hacking, hoping to convince the skeptical President-elect to abandon his campaign
promise for better relations with Putin and Russia.
Following that briefing, in a pre-arranged move with the rest of Obama's intelligence directors, Comey cleared the room of everyone
but himself and Trump.
He presented Trump with the Steele dossier's most salacious allegations, namely that Trump had engaged in sexually perverse acts
with Russian prostitutes while visiting Moscow, and Putin had taped it. This is exactly what the infamous J.Edgar Hoover did -- blackmail
Washington politicians with FBI dossiers, assuring them that he could protect them so long as they did as Hoover wished.
In fact, Comey described this as a "J.Edgar Hoover moment" in answers to questions by Senator Susan Collins on June 8th. Dick
Morris describes the entire affair as "just about as close as you can get to a political assassination without holding a gun to the
President's head." Trump appears to have demanded that the entirely fake dossier be investigated, and refused to back down
in efforts to achieve better relations with Russia. In fact, Trump denounced the intelligence community publicly as acting like Nazis.
He also denounced the McCarthyite hysteria they were generating.
While Comey recorded the President-elect's responses on a classified computer moments after leaving him, Buzzfeed, which had frequently
published raw Clinton/Obama "oppo" stories, published the December 2016 British/Clinton dodgy dossier in full.
intelligence community, particularly Obama's ghoulish grand inquisitor, CIA head John Brennan, proceeded to give it credibility
by leaking that both President-elect Trump and President Obama had been briefed on its contents.
Publication of the Trump Russian sex allegations accompanied James Clapper's factless "official intelligence community assessment"
that the Russians hacked the DNC and Podesta, and that they did so to influence the election in favor of Donald Trump.
Put together by analysts "hand-picked" by the CIA's John Brennan, that assessment was backed by no actual evidence.
It has now been thoroughly debunked as "the hack that wasn't" by the analysis presented by the Veteran's Intelligence Professionals
John Brennan subsequently explained to Congress and the public that he does not "do evidence."
The Democrats, the news media, and their Republican allies led by John McCain and Lindsay Graham, went berserk over the factless
Obama Administration "assessment," demanding special prosecutors and Congressional investigations, and sneering that "other shoes"
were about to drop.
The New York Times' Thomas Friedman, having clearly lost it, claimed that Russia had committed an "act of war," presumably seeking
to invoke Article 5 of the NATO treaty.
The President Calls Out Comey, Brennan et al.
for Wiretapping Him, They Lie About It To Congress
On March 4, 2017, after General Flynn was fired, and after a deluge of leaks of classified surveillance of members of Trump's
transition and national defense teams, President Trump interrupted the entire fake media narrative by tweeting what had become obvious:
that Obama had him "wiretapped" in Trump Tower prior to the election, and that what was happening to him reeked of McCarthyism.
The media, which had been publishing allegations about FISA warrants and intercepts of Trump or his associates for months, erupted
in what has to be one the most shameless demonstrations of the Big Lie ever known.
They declared that Trump was offering wild claims with no evidence, essentially circling back on their very own reporting and
labeling it, "fake news."
Now it has been revealed that FISA warrants existed on Paul Manafort from 2014 through some period in 2016, and from some period
in 2016 through this year, conveniently omitting the period when he was Trump's campaign manager.
Manafort lives in Trump Tower, and was originally investigated under the Foreign Agents Registration Act for his Ukraine activities.
It is fairly obvious that the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower was the subject of massive surveillance.
It is also abundantly clear from the leaks which occurred concerning contacts with the Russians by Trump's campaign officials
and supporters, that the Trump Tower offices of his transition were subject to massive surveillance, either as the result of extant
FISA warrants or under E.O.
James Comey and James Clapper were both asked directly in their appearances before Congressional Committees whether there was
any evidence at all to substantiate the President's wiretapping claims.
Both of them gave emphatic answers that there was not, and went out of their respective ways to paint the President as a paranoid
So now, Robert Mueller is investigating the President of the United States for obstruction of justice, because he fired an FBI
Director who lied to Congress.
The Comey Firing-Attempted Entrapment of the President
On March 20, 2017, former FBI Director Comey breathed new life into what was, by then, an insurrection which had run out of steam.
People were simply tired of Democrats, like Adam Schiff,
4 Schiff has a watermelon face combining features of the comic Charlie Brown and a Conehead; his personality is like the grasping
and crazy personality of Peanuts cartoon character, Lucy Van Pelt.
As a prosecutor it took him three tries to convict the hapless former FBI agent Richard Miller of espionage despite overwhelming
and salacious evidence. trying on McCarthyite tinfoil hats before TV cameras and pontificating about the outrage du jour.
Comey, in testimony before the House Select Committee on Intelligence, made it officially public, for the first time, that the
FBI had been investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian interference in the election since July of 2016.
He opined that the FBI counterintelligence investigation (which had been leaking like a sieve since its instigation in July, without
producing any verifiable facts about either Russian interference or Trump campaign collusion) could continue for many more months,
if not years.
He refused to say whether the President himself was under investigation, despite the fact that he had told the President that
he was not, and had told Congress the same thing behind closed doors.
Despite the daily press instructions about events which the public must view as scandalous (why scandalous was never explained),
and highly publicized Congressional hearings concerning "Russia! Russia! Russia!" all of President Obama's men, at this late date,
had only managed to arrange the human sacrifice of Michael Flynn for lying to the Vice-President about his conversations with the
Russian ambassador in December.
5 Flynn's scalping itself was the result of the unmasking of Flynn's name and illegal leaks of same to the press as a result
of classified surveillance.
This fact was obliterated by sensational press coverage of the hyperventilated visit of Obama Assistant Attorney General Sally
Yates to the White House to warn, nonsensically, that Flynn had been "compromised" by the Russians because he lied to the Vice-President.
Exactly how this makes any sense at all we have not been told.
As Shakespeare's MacBeth intoned, "it is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." They had
also generated ethics, foreign intelligence registration, and tax questions about their other Trump campaign targets -- typical of
what happens when an entire life is put under a microscope, in a dedicated search for something, anything, that could be construed
feasibly as wrongdoing.
Ask yourself, what have any of these people allegedly done? Spoken with the Russians? Talked about lifting sanctions imposed because
Putin reacted to a coup Obama ran against the duly elected government of Ukraine? Lobbied on behalf of foreign governments? Really?
The actual testimony of Obama's intelligence officials before Congressional Committees, shorn of the media hype surrounding it,
was that there was absolutely no evidence of any Trump campaign collusion with alleged Russian efforts to interfere in the U.S.
In fact, on March 15, 2017, Comey himself had told Senators Chuck Grassley and Diane Feinstein behind closed doors, that the President
was not a target of his investigations, despite planted press stories to the contrary.
Comey had otherwise continually stone-walled Grassley concerning the Senator's persistent questions about the FBI's relationship
to British operative Christopher Steele.
While unable to produce any saleable legal goods, the illicit investigations had significantly bogged down the President's political
agenda, while fostering an increasingly toxic and divisive national political environment.
The strategy of official Washington, the Republicans who opposed the President's election, the Obama/Clinton Democratic establishment,
and the intelligence agencies operating on behalf of British strategic policies and axioms is clear -- use complicit Republicans
to trap the President in failed and obnoxious policies, such as the healthcare bill; hope that the President's silent majority remains
exactly that -- silent; hope that some of the smelly stuff they are throwing up against the wall actually sticks; distract, distract,
distract the President, and prevent him from working with Russia and China to develop the world, end wars, and implement the massive
infrastructure and space exploration projects which will actually save our economy.
On May 3, 2017, Comey followed his March drama-queen performance before the House, with even more theatrical speechifying before
the Senate Judiciary Committee.
He bloviated that despite the fact that his unprecedented disclosures and handling of the Clinton email investigation may have
impacted the election, and it made him nauseous, he, Mr.
Eagle Scout and True Crime Detective rolled into one, would do the same thing all over again.
He exaggerated the significance of the Anthony Weiner computer discovery by stating that it contained thousands of new Clinton
emails, not previously produced, some of which were classified -- a statement the FBI had to subsequently correct.
As Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein rightly argued, Comey violated numerous Justice Department regulations and ethical
norms in his outrageous actions in the Clinton email investigation.
It is the Attorney General's job to prosecute cases -- to open and close them -- not that of the FBI.
At the same Senate Judiciary hearing, Comey refused to state publicly that President Trump was not under investigation, despite
repeatedly assuring the President of that fact privately.
He knew this allowed the media and Democratic party "color revolution" to continue.
He refused to confirm that there was any investigation into the torrent of illegal classified leaks at the center of the media
On May 9th, President Trump fired Comey, setting the stage for Robert Mueller's appointment as Special Prosecutor.
At the center of Mueller's inquiry will be a conspiracy to obstruct justice charge against the President for firing James Comey,
along with any so-called process crimes he can find during his investigation -- registration offenses under the Foreign Agents Registration
Act, tax offenses, or false statements to FBI agents or Congress.
As he builds his case, Mueller will follow his standard playbook, putting unrelenting psychological pressure on those Trump loyalists
he can implicate in the process crimes.
He will continue to target and investigate the President's family for similar offenses in order to destabilize the President himself.
He will continue the relentless demonization of the President, in order to ensure that neutral officials in Washington who witnessed
key events will testify not according to the truth, but according to what they see as future career prospects.
Following his firing, Comey and friends leaked to the press notes which he had allegedly taken following most of his encounters
with the President.
With each encounter, Comey's leaked account says, he returned to discuss what was said and its implications with a close circle
of his FBI comrades.
He prepared for each encounter with the President based on "murder boards" conducted by his FBI colleagues.
In the course of their meetings, Comey says, the President asked for his loyalty, which Comey portrayed like the request of some
mafia don in a bad Hollywood movie.
If it happened, such a request, in the context of what appeared to be an open insurrection against the President by the intelligence
community, is hardly surprising.
The President denies that it happened.
On the day after the President fired Flynn, according to Comey, the President cleared the room and went one on one with him, expressing
the "hope" that Comey could let the matter of Michael Flynn go.
Comey whines that he took the President's "hope" as an "order," giving rise to concerns about possible obstruction of justice.
This line of reasoning was thoroughly eviscerated by Senator James Risch in the Senate Judicary Committee hearing on June 8, 2017.
Senator Risch forced Comey to admit that Trump never ordered him to let the Flynn matter go, but only expressed a "hope" that
he would do so, and no prosecution that Comey knew of ever went forward, based on someone expressing "hope" for something.
While the President denies he ever asked Comey to let the Flynn matter go, Harvard Law Professor Emeritus and famed trial lawyer
Alan Dershowitz writes that the President would be fully within his legal and constitutional prerogatives to order Comey to back
He could have simply told Comey, I am going to pardon Flynn.
So, it is clear by James Comey's own account that he was trying to set the President up, to entrap him -- an escapade which was
"crudely" interrupted when the President fired him.
Again, confirming this, Comey told Senator Susan Collins in his testimony, that the reason why he did not stop the President from
improper interactions, if he thought they were such, the reason he concealed the alleged improper and possibly illegal conduct from
his superiors at the Justice Department, and the reason he did not resign, was because his encounters with the President were of
"investigative interest" to the FBI.
Otherwise, Comey's leaks reveal a man so leery of even shaking the President's hand (or being photographed doing it) that once
in January he tried to hide himself in the White House drapes in the hopes that Trump would not see him.
The problem for Robert Mueller's obstruction case, among others, is that both Comey and his Assistant Andrew McCabe have previously
testified, under oath, to Congress that there was no pressure to end the FBI's investigations from anyone in the Trump Administration.
And, Comey confirmed in his testimony that prior to his firing, Trump was not under investigation for collusion with Russia, obstruction,
or any other offense.
Further, Comey has proved that he is willing to violate professional norms and Justice Department regulations, if not laws, by
leaking government documents.
The question is, what else was leaked by Comey and his FBI circle? Finally, we now know that Comey lied to or misled Congress
about the "wiretaps" on Trump Tower -- the Manafort FISA warrants prove the case.
Senator Grassley has asked the FBI: Why, if you were wiretapping a close associate of the President, wouldn't you warn the President
about him as is customarily done? The true answer is that the President himself was and is the target of an unprecedented and illegal
coup-attempt conducted by those sworn to uphold the Constitution and the nation's laws.
Those familiar with the relationship between Comey and Robert Mueller describe them as "joined at the hip," "cut from the same
cloth" (can't help thinking of the Union Jack), close personal friends, and mentor (Mueller) to mentee (Comey).
The problem with this relationship is that Department of Justice conflict guidelines specifically bar prosecutors (Mueller) from
investigating issues where close friends (Comey) have a significant role, such as material witnesses.
Official Washington knows all of this and yet touts this investigation as somehow "independent," "apolitical," and "unconflicted."
Will You Help Us End This Coup?
So, now you know.
Since the election and before, we have been stuck in a very elaborate and dangerous British hoax, gambling the future of our nation
in a cold coup against an elected president.
Actual crimes have been committed -- not by the President -- but against the President and the Constitution.
What has happened is that political differences, ideas, have been criminalized, the very danger most provisions of our Constitution
and its Bill of Rights were explicitly designed to guard against.
We have shown you the prosecutorial robot named Robert Mueller, whom others have always pointed to shoot, and why he has been
deployed to take out the President of the United States.
We have told you the real reasons why the President has been attacked by a foreign power, the British and their allies in our
We have shown you that many of the same people and methods were deployed on a smaller scale to deprive the world of the beautiful
ideas of Lyndon LaRouche.
Now, at a point where this President, freed of Mueller and adequately advised, could join with China's Belt and Road and usher
in a new renaissance for mankind, shouldn't we really, finally, win our future, this time?
Several FBI agents would like Congress to subpoena them so that they can step forward and
reveal dirt on former FBI Director James Comey and his Deputy Andrew McCabe, reports the
Daily Caller , citing three active field agents and former federal prosecutor Joe
" There are agents all over this country who love the bureau and are sickened by [James]
Comey's behavior and [Andrew] McCabe and [Eric] Holder and [Loretta] Lynch and the thugs like
[John] Brennan –who despise the fact that the bureau was used as a tool of political
intelligence by the Obama administration thugs," former federal prosecutor Joe DiGenova told
The Daily Caller Tuesday.
" They are just waiting for a chance to come forward and testify ."
DiGenova - a veteran D.C. attorney who President Trump initially wanted to hire to represent
him in the Mueller probe - only to have to step aside
due to conflicts , has maintained contact with "rank and file" FBI agents as well as a
counterintelligence consultant who interviewed an active special agent in the FBI's Washington
Field Office (WFO) - producing a transcript reviewed by The Caller .
These agents prefer to be subpoenaed to becoming an official government whistleblower ,
since they fear political and professional backlash, the former Trump administration official
explained to TheDC.
The subpoena is preferred, said diGenova, " because when you are subpoenaed, Congress then
pays for your legal counsel and the subpoena protects [the agent] from any organizational
retaliation . they are on their own as whistleblowers, they get no legal protection and there
will be organizational retaliation against them."
DiGenova and his wife Victoria Toensing have long represented government whistleblowers.
Most recently, Toensing became council for William D. Campbell, the former CIA and FBI
operative that was
deeply embedded in the Russian uranium industry - only to be smeared by the Obama
administration when he gathered evidence of two related bribery schemes involving Russian
nuclear officials, an American trucking company, and efforts to route money to the Clinton
Global Initiative (CGI) through an American lobbying firm in order to overcome regulatory
hurdles, according to reports by The Hill and Circa .
diGenova told the Daily Caller that asking for a Congressional subpoena is "an intelligent
approach to the situation given the vindictive nature of the bureau under Comey and McCabe . I
have no idea how to read Chris Ray who is not a leader and who has disappeared from the public
eye during this entire crisis. You know he may be cleaning house but if he's doing so, he's
doing it very quietly."
"I don't blame them," added diGenova. " I don't blame the agents one bit. I think that the
FBI is in a freefall . James Comey has destroyed the institution he claims to love. And it is
beyond a doubt that it is going to take a decade to restore public confidence because of Comey
and Clapper and Brennan and Obama and Lynch."
Meanwhile, the agent from the Washington field office says that rank and file FBI agents are
"fed up" and desperately want the DOJ to take action, according to transcripts of the
"Every special agent I have spoken to in the Washington Field Office wants to see McCabe
prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. They feel the same way about Comey," said the
"The administrations are so politicized that any time a Special Agent comes forward as a
whistleblower, they can expect to be thrown under the bus by leadership . Go against the Muslim
Brotherhood, you're crushed. Go against the Clintons, you're crushed. The FBI has long been
politicized to the detriment of national security and law enforcement."
The special agent added, " Activity that Congress is investigating is being stonewalled by
leadership and rank-and-file FBI employees in the periphery are just doing their jobs . All
Congress needs to do is subpoena involved personnel and they will tell you what they know.
These are honest people. Leadership cannot stop anyone from responding to a subpoena. Those
subpoenaed also get legal counsel provided by the government to represent them."
Meanwhile, the former Trump administration official who spoke with The Caller explained that
the FBI's problems go way beyond Comey and McCabe.
" They know that it wasn't just Comey and McCabe in this case. That's too narrow a net to
cast over these guys. There's a much broader corruption that seeped into the seventh floor at
the bureau ."
" They ruined the credibility of the bureau and the technical ability of the bureau, so
systemically, over the past several years, they're worried about their organizational
reputation and their professional careers."
"... On July 27, 2017 the House Judiciary Committee called on the DOJ to appoint a Special Counsel, detailing their concerns in 14 questions pertaining to "actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton." ..."
"... On September 26, 2017 , The House Judiciary Committee repeated their call to the DOJ for a special counsel, pointing out that former FBI Director James Comey lied to Congress when he said that he decided not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton until after she was interviewed, when in fact Comey had drafted her exoneration before said interview. ..."
"... And now, the OIG report can tie all of this together - as it will solidify requests by Congressional committees, while also satisfying a legal requirement for the Department of Justice to impartially appoint a Special Counsel. ..."
"... Who cares how many task forces, special prosecutors, grand juries, commissions, or other crap they throw at this black hole of corruption? We all know the score. The best we can hope for is that the liberals and neo-cons are embarrassed enough to crawl under a rock for awhile, and it slows down implementation of their Orwellian agenda for a few years. ..."
As we reported on
Thursday , a long-awaited report by the Department of Justice's internal watchdog into the Hillary Clinton email investigation
has moved into its final phase, as the DOJ notified multiple subjects mentioned in the document that they can privately review it
by week's end, and will have a "few days" to craft any response to criticism contained within the report, according to the
Wall Street Journal .
Those invited to review the report were told they would have to sign nondisclosure agreements in order to read it , people
familiar with the matter said. They are expected to have a few days to craft a response to any criticism in the report, which
will then be incorporated in the final version to be released in coming weeks . -
Now, journalist Paul Sperry reports that " IG Horowitz has found "reasonable grounds" for believing there has been a violation
of federal criminal law in the FBI/DOJ's handling of the Clinton investigation/s and has referred his findings of potential criminal
misconduct to Huber for possible criminal prosecution ."
Who is Huber?
in March , Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed John Huber - Utah's top federal prosecutor, to be paired with IG Horowitz
to investigate the multitude of accusations of FBI misconduct surrounding the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The announcement came
one day after Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed that he will also be investigating allegations of FBI FISA abuse .
While Huber's appointment fell short of the second special counsel demanded by Congressional investigators and concerned citizens
alike, his appointment and subsequent pairing with Horowitz is notable - as many have pointed out that the Inspector General is significantly
limited in his abilities to investigate. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) noted in March " the IG's office does not have authority to compel
witness interviews, including from past employees, so its investigation will be limited in scope in comparison to a Special Counsel
Sessions' pairing of Horowitz with Huber keeps the investigation under the DOJ's roof and out of the hands of an independent investigator
Who is Horowitz?
In January, we profiled Michael Horowitz based on thorough research assembled by independent investigators. For those who think
the upcoming OIG report is just going to be "all part of the show" - take pause; there's a good chance this is an actual happening,
so you may want to read up on the man whose year-long investigation may lead to criminal charges against those involved.
Horowitz was appointed head of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in April, 2012 - after the Obama administration hobbled
the OIG's investigative powers in 2011 during the "Fast and Furious" scandal. The changes forced the various Inspectors General for
all government agencies to request information while conducting investigations, as opposed to the authority to demand it. This allowed
Holder (and other agency heads) to bog down OIG requests in bureaucratic red tape, and in some cases, deny them outright.
What did Horowitz do? As one twitter commentators puts it,
he went to war ...
In March of 2015, Horowitz's office
a report for Congress titled Open and Unimplemented IG Recommendations . It laid the Obama Admin bare before Congress - illustrating
among other things how the administration was wasting tens-of-billions of dollars by ignoring the recommendations made by the OIG.
After several attempts by congress to restore the OIG's investigative powers, Rep. Jason Chaffetz successfully introduced H.R.6450
- the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016 - signed by a defeated lame duck President Obama into law on
December 16th, 2016 , cementing an alliance between Horrowitz and both houses of Congress .
1) Due to the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016, the OIG has access to all of the information that the target agency
possesses. This not only includes their internal documentation and data, but also that which the agency externally collected and
See here for a complete overview of the
OIG's new and restored powers. And while the public won't get to see classified details of the OIG report, Mr. Horowitz is also big
on public disclosure:
Horowitz's efforts to roll back Eric Holder's restrictions on the OIG sealed the working relationship between Congress and the
Inspector General's ofice, and they most certainly appear to be on the same page. Moreover, FBI Director Christopher Wray seems to
be on the same page
Which brings us back to the OIG report
expected by Congress a week from Monday.
On January 12 of last year, Inspector Horowitz announced an OIG investigation based on " requests from numerous Chairmen and Ranking
Members of Congressional oversight committees, various organizations (such as Judicial Watch?), and members of the public ."
The initial focus ranged from the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation, to whether or not Deputy FBI Director Andrew
McCabe should have been recused from the investigation (ostensibly over
$700,000 his wife's campaign took from Clinton crony Terry McAuliffe around the time of the email investigation), to potential
collusion with the Clinton campaign and the timing of various FOIA releases. Which brings us back to the
OIG report expected by Congress a week from
On July 27, 2017 the House Judiciary Committee called on the DOJ to appoint a Special Counsel, detailing their concerns in
14 questions pertaining to "actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey,
and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton."
The questions range from Loretta Lynch directing Mr. Comey to mislead the American people on the nature of the Clinton investigation,
Secretary Clinton's mishandling of classified information and the (mis)handling of her email investigation by the FBI, the DOJ's
failure to empanel a grand jury to investigate Clinton, and questions about the Clinton Foundation, Uranium One, and whether the
FBI relied on the "Trump-Russia" dossier created by Fusion GPS.
On September 26, 2017 , The House Judiciary Committee repeated their call to the DOJ for a special counsel, pointing out that
former FBI Director James Comey lied to Congress when he said that he decided not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton
until after she was interviewed, when in fact Comey had drafted her exoneration before said interview.
And now, the OIG report can tie all of this together - as it will solidify requests by Congressional committees, while also
satisfying a legal requirement for the Department of Justice to impartially appoint a Special Counsel.
As illustrated below by TrumpSoldier , the report will go from the Office of the Inspector General to both investigative committees
of Congress, along with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and is expected within weeks .
Once congress has reviewed the OIG report, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees will use it to supplement their investigations
, which will result in hearings with the end goal of requesting or demanding a Special Counsel investigation. The DOJ can appoint
a Special Counsel at any point, or wait for Congress to demand one. If a request for a Special Counsel is ignored, Congress can pass
legislation to force an the appointment.
And while the DOJ could act on the OIG report and investigate / prosecute themselves without a Special Counsel, it is highly unlikely
that Congress would stand for that given the subjects of the investigation.
After the report's completion, the DOJ will weigh in on it. Their comments are key. As TrumpSoldier points out in his analysis,
the DOJ can take various actions regarding " Policy, personnel, procedures, and re-opening of investigations. In short, just about
everything (Immunity agreements can also be rescinded). "
Meanwhile, recent events appear to correspond with bullet points in both the original OIG investigation letter and the 7/27/2017
letter forwarded to the Inspector General:
... ... ...
With the wheels set in motion last week seemingly align with Congressional requests and the OIG mandate, and the upcoming OIG
report likely to serve as a foundational opinion, the DOJ will finally be empowered to move forward with an impartially appointed
"To save his presidency, Trump must expose a host of criminally cunning Deep State political operatives as enemies to the Constitution,
including John Brennan, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, James Comey and Robert Mueller - as well as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton."
Killing the Deep State , Dr Jerome Corsi, PhD., p xi
I've been more than upfront about my philosophy. I have said on more than one occasion that progs will rue the day they drove
a New Yorker like Trump even further to the right.
Now you see it in his actions from the judiciary to bureaucracy destruction to (pick any) and...as I often cite... some old
dead white guy once said ..."First they came for the ___ and I did not speak out. Then they came for..."
Now I advocate for progs to swim in their own deadly juices, without a moment's hesitation on my part, without any furtive
look back, without remorse or any compassion whatsover.
Forward! ...I think is what they said, welcome to the Death Star ;-)
There have been (and are) plenty on "our side"...Boehner, Cantor, McCain, Romney and the thinly disguised "social democrat"
Bill Kristol just to name several off the top of my head but the thing is, they always have to hide what they really are from
us until rooted out.
That's what I try to point out to "our friends" on the left all the time, for example, there was never any doubt that Chris
Dodd, Bwaney Fwank and Chuck Schumer were (and are) in Wall Streets back pocket. But for any prog to openly admit that is to sign
some sort of personal death warrant, to be ostracized, blacklisted and harassed out of "the liberal community" so, they bite their
tongue & say nothing...knowing what the truth really is.
Hell, they even named a "financial reform bill" after Dodd & Frank...LMAO!!!
It's just the dripping hypocrisy that gets me.
For another example, they knew what was going on with Weinstein, Lauer, Spacey, Rose etal but as long as the cash flowed and
they towed-the-prog-BS-line outwardly, they gladly looked the other way and in the end...The Oprah...gives a speech in front of
them (as they bark & clap like trained seals) about...Jim Crow?
Jim Crow?!...lol...one has nothing to do with the other Oprah! The perps & enablers are sitting right there in front of you!
"After the report's completion, the DOJ will weigh in on it. Their comments are key. As TrumpSoldier points out in his analysis,
the DOJ can take various actions regarding " Policy, personnel, procedures, and re-opening of investigations. In short, just about
everything (Immunity agreements can also be rescinded). "
Rescind Immunity, absolutely damn right, put them ALL under oath and on the stand! This is huge! Indeed this goes all the way
to the top, would like to see Obama and the 'career criminal' testify under oath explaining how their tribe conspired to frame
Trump and the American people.
Hell, put them on trial in a military court for Treason, what's the punishment for Treason these days???
Also would like to see Kerry get fried under the 'Logan Act'!
As are half of their fellow travelers in the GOP. Neocon liars. Talk small constitutional govt then vote for war. Those two
are direct opposites, war and small govt. The liars must be exposed and removed. The Never Trumpers have outed themselves but
many are hiding in plain sight proclaiming they support the President. It appears they have manipulated Trump into an aggressive
stance against Russia with their anti Russia hysteria. Time will tell. The bank and armament industries must be removed from any
kind of influence within our govt. Most of these are run by big govt collectivists aka communists/globalists.
Who cares how many task forces, special prosecutors, grand juries, commissions, or other crap they throw at this black
hole of corruption? We all know the score. The best we can hope for is that the liberals and neo-cons are embarrassed enough to
crawl under a rock for awhile, and it slows down implementation of their Orwellian agenda for a few years.
FBI monitored phone calls of Trump's personal lawyer
"... US prosecutors, according to news reports, have also been covertly reading Cohen's emails. ..."
"... Spying on a lawyer's phone calls and Internet communications is considered highly unusual, given the principle of lawyer-client privilege. However, the Daily Beast ..."
"... Indeed, Trump's enemies within the ruling elite and the state apparatus know with whom they are dealing. The billionaire president is a representative of the criminal American financial oligarchy, a product of the New York real estate, casino gambling and reality TV milieu. His election expressed the degradation of American bourgeois politics and the entire political system. ..."
"... That being said, the methods being employed by Trump's factional opponents within the ruling elite are profoundly anti-democratic. The Mueller investigation itself is based on concocted and unsubstantiated allegations of Russian "meddling" in the elections and collusion by the Trump campaign in Moscow's supposed efforts to swing the election in his favor. ..."
"... This narrative, which has dominated US politics for nearly two years, has been used by the Democratic Party and most of the corporate media to attempt to whip up a war hysteria against Russia and force Trump to more rapidly escalate Washington's wars in the Middle East. It is also the pretext for the expanding campaign to censor the Internet and criminalize political dissent in the name of combating foreign-inspired "fake news." ..."
"... The context for the latest revelations is a sharpening of the conflict between the Trump White House and Mueller. Over the past several weeks, Trump has reshuffled the legal team handling his dealings with the special counsel to pursue a more aggressive legal response to the investigation. Last month, Trump named former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to head the team, following the resignation of John Dowd in March. ..."
"... This week, the White House announced the resignation of Ty Cobb, who had counseled Trump to adopt a cooperative posture toward Mueller, advising that such a course would lead to a more rapid conclusion to the investigation. Not only has that not occurred, but Mueller has increased pressure on Trump to agree to an interview with his investigators. ..."
"... Flood has been described in the press as a "wartime consigliere." His appointment is seen as increasing the possibility of a legal fight to block an interview with Mueller that could ultimately go to the US Supreme Court. ..."
"... In a Wednesday night television interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity, Giuliani excoriated former FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump fired last May after Comey announced that the FBI was investigating possible Trump campaign collusion with Russia. Giuliani called him "a disgraceful liar" and said he should be indicted for leaking "confidential FBI information." He called the Mueller probe "a completely tainted investigation" and denounced the FBI raid on Cohen as a "storm trooper" operation. ..."
Multiple media reports on Thursday revealed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation monitored and logged the phone calls of President
Donald Trump's personal lawyer and confidante, Michael Cohen, in the period leading up to the FBI raid on Cohen's office and residences
According to NBC News, at least one of the calls that were tracked was between Cohen and Trump.
The extraordinary fact that the federal government's chief police agency, an integral part of the country's intelligence network,
is monitoring telephone communications between the president and his self-described "fixer" points to the explosive level of conflict
within the American ruling class and its state.
The revelation comes a month after the FBI, based on a referral from Robert Mueller, the special counsel who is investigating
alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion by the Trump campaign, raided Cohen's office and residences
as part of a criminal probe into his business dealings. FBI agents seized Cohen's financial records, computer hard drive, cell phones
and taped recordings of conversations. Ostensibly, the main concern of federal prosecutors is Cohen's involvement in hush-money payoffs
to two women, a porn star and a former Playboy playmate, who claim to have had sexual relations with Trump.
US prosecutors, according to news reports, have also been covertly reading Cohen's emails.
Spying on a lawyer's phone calls and Internet communications is considered highly unusual, given the principle of lawyer-client
privilege. However, the Daily Beast quoted Ken White, a former federal prosecutor, as saying, "That sort of thing happens
all the time if you're dealing with mob wiretaps."
Indeed, Trump's enemies within the ruling elite and the state apparatus know with whom they are dealing. The billionaire president
is a representative of the criminal American financial oligarchy, a product of the New York real estate, casino gambling and reality
TV milieu. His election expressed the degradation of American bourgeois politics and the entire political system.
There is little doubt that the FBI and Mueller have seized more than enough evidence of wrong-doing in Trump's business dealings
to bring down an indictment, either to attempt a criminal prosecution -- never before carried out against a sitting president --
or force Trump to resign. Alternately, an indictment could become part of an impeachment effort should the Democrats win control
of the House of Representatives in the November midterm elections.
No one is more aware of the threat posed by these developments than Trump himself.
That being said, the methods being employed by Trump's factional opponents within the ruling elite are profoundly anti-democratic.
The Mueller investigation itself is based on concocted and unsubstantiated allegations of Russian "meddling" in the elections and
collusion by the Trump campaign in Moscow's supposed efforts to swing the election in his favor.
This narrative, which has dominated US politics for nearly two years, has been used by the Democratic Party and most of the corporate
media to attempt to whip up a war hysteria against Russia and force Trump to more rapidly escalate Washington's wars in the Middle
East. It is also the pretext for the expanding campaign to censor the Internet and criminalize political dissent in the name of combating
foreign-inspired "fake news."
These are the methods of palace coup, without the slightest democratic or progressive content. Should Trump be removed as a result
of such a campaign, the result would be to shift the political system even further to the right.
The context for the latest revelations is a sharpening of the conflict between the Trump White House and Mueller. Over the past
several weeks, Trump has reshuffled the legal team handling his dealings with the special counsel to pursue a more aggressive legal
response to the investigation. Last month, Trump named former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to head the team, following the resignation
of John Dowd in March.
This week, the White House announced the resignation of Ty Cobb, who had counseled Trump to adopt a cooperative posture toward
Mueller, advising that such a course would lead to a more rapid conclusion to the investigation. Not only has that not occurred,
but Mueller has increased pressure on Trump to agree to an interview with his investigators.
This week, it was reported that in discussions with Trump's lawyers in March, Mueller threatened to subpoena Trump to appear before
a grand jury if he did not voluntarily agree to an interview. On Wednesday, it was announced that Emmet Flood, a Republican who served
as one of Bill Clinton's lawyers during the House of Representatives impeachment process in 1998, would replace Cobb.
Flood has been described in the press as a "wartime consigliere." His appointment is seen as increasing the possibility of a legal
fight to block an interview with Mueller that could ultimately go to the US Supreme Court.
In a Wednesday night television interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity, Giuliani excoriated former FBI Director James Comey, whom
Trump fired last May after Comey announced that the FBI was investigating possible Trump campaign collusion with Russia. Giuliani
called him "a disgraceful liar" and said he should be indicted for leaking "confidential FBI information." He called the Mueller
probe "a completely tainted investigation" and denounced the FBI raid on Cohen as a "storm trooper" operation.
He cited a list of 49 questions for Trump prepared by Trump's lawyers on the basis of an oral presentation by Mueller's investigators
and called the wide-ranging queries concerning links to Russians and potential obstruction of justice, including the firing of Comey,
a "perjury trap." The questions were leaked and published earlier this week by the New York Times . The Times ,
along with the Washington Post , have been in the forefront of the media witch hunt against Russia.
On the question of Trump agreeing to be interviewed by Mueller, Giuliani said, "Right now, the odds are against it."
Most of the media commentary on the interview has focused on Giuliani's statement that Trump reimbursed Cohen for the $130,000
in hush money he paid to porn star Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election. Cohen has said he paid the money from his own
funds and without Trump's knowledge, and last month Trump told reporters that he had no knowledge of the payoff.
It is striking that despite the media obsession with Trump and Russia, and the single-minded focus of the Democratic Party on
this reactionary campaign, the public remains skeptical, if not hostile, to the entire matter. The Democrats have said virtually
nothing about Trump's war on immigrants, including the barbaric treatment of the Central American caravan of refugees forced to camp
out at the US border and the denial of their right to asylum. The Democratic Party has dropped its phony opposition to Trump's tax
cut for corporations and the rich and barely noted the mounting assault on social programs, from Medicaid to food stamps to housing
subsidies for the poor.
This is reflected in recent polls, which show Trump's approval rating actually increasing and the Democrats' edge in the coming
midterm elections cut in half since the beginning of the year.
There is mass opposition in the working class and among young people to Trump and his chauvinist, militarist and pro-corporate
policies. It is reflected in the upsurge of teachers' strikes and protests in defiance of the corporatist unions, which the unions
and the Democrats are doing everything they can to isolate and suppress.
This emerging movement of the working class in the US and internationally is intensifying the warfare within the American ruling
class and state. The crisis is being fueled not only by sharp differences over foreign policy -- including tactical differences over
Trump's threat to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal and his trade war measures -- but also by a general loss of confidence in Trump's
ability to manage either the global affairs of US imperialism or the tense internal social and political situation.
The independent social and political struggle of the working class is the only basis for a progressive solution to the crisis
of American capitalism. The opposition of workers to Trump can find no progressive outlet within the framework of the capitalist
two-party system. Both factions in the current political wars, notwithstanding their bitter differences, agree on a strategy of expanding
war abroad and austerity and repression at home.
"... Mr. McCabe then instructed the email investigators to talk to the Weiner investigators and see whether the laptop's contents could be relevant to the Clinton email probe, these people said. After the investigators spoke, the agents agreed it was potentially relevant. ..."
"... Mr. Comey was given an update, decided to go forward with the case and notified Congress on Friday (28 October 2016), with explosive results. ..."
"... In February of this year (2016), Mr. McCabe ascended from the No. 3 position at the FBI to the deputy director post. When he assumed that role, officials say, he started overseeing the probe into Mrs. Clinton's use of a private email server for government work when she was secretary of state. ..."
"... The Mueller probe in many ways has become a parody. They have financially ruined and destroyed Gen. Flynn for having a legitimate discussion with the Russian ambassador. Of course he has pled guilty to lying. The leaking of this conversation seems to be a felony but that has yet to be prosecuted. ..."
"... Mueller has not uncovered any collusion with the Russians by the Trump campaign but is targeting Manafort for financial irregularities that took place well before he joined the Trump campaign. Additionally, he referred Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen to the FBI for possible criminal activity that had nothing to do with Russia or collusion, who then raided his home and office. ..."
My current piece will be focused almost exclusively on Andy McCabe. He was fired, there was grumbling that this was unfair political
payback. And then we got a look at the Department of Justice Inspector General's report. Liar, liar pants on fire. Although the OIG
report is very poorly written (as you read through the 39 pages you'll feel like a young Yeshiva student pouring over some tendentious
exegesis by an elderly Hasidic Rabbi), it contains damning evidence of malfeasance on the part of McCabe. So let me simplify it for
McCabe was fired because he lied about his role in leaking information in late October 2016 to Wall Street Journal reporter, Devlin
Barrett, who authored the article,
FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe . Barrett's article is not much better than the IG report in terms of simplicity
and clarity. It lacks both. It is poorly written and requires a compass and advanced land navigation skills to map out the story.
This is the bottom line of the article--Andy McCabe is accused of ordering FBI Agents to not investigate the Clinton Foundation because
his wife got money from Virginia Governor and Clinton confidant, Terry McAuliffe. Here are the salient points from that article:
The surprise disclosure that agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation are taking a new look at Hillary Clinton's email
use lays bare, just days before the election, tensions inside the bureau and the Justice Department over how to investigate the
Democratic presidential nominee.
Mr. McCabe then instructed the email investigators to talk to the Weiner investigators and see whether the laptop's contents
could be relevant to the Clinton email probe, these people said. After the investigators spoke, the agents agreed it was potentially
Mr. Comey was given an update, decided to go forward with the case
and notified Congress on Friday (28
October 2016), with explosive results.
Senior Justice Department officials had warned the FBI that telling Congress would violate policies against overt actions
that could affect an election, and some within the FBI have been unhappy at Mr. Comey's repeated public statements on the probe,
going back to his
press conference on the subject in July.
Street Journal reported last week that Mr. McCabe's wife, Jill McCabe, received $467,500 in campaign funds in late 2015 from
the political-action committee of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime ally of the Clintons and, until he was elected governor
in November 2013, a Clinton Foundation board member.
In February of this year (2016), Mr. McCabe ascended from the No. 3 position at the FBI to the deputy director post. When
he assumed that role, officials say, he started overseeing the probe into Mrs. Clinton's use of a private email server for government
work when she was secretary of state.
According to a person familiar with the probes, on Aug. 12, a senior Justice Department official (
Matthew Axelrod according to Zero Hedge) called Mr. McCabe to voice his displeasure at finding that New York FBI agents were
still openly pursuing the Clinton Foundation probe during the election season. . . .The Justice Department official was "very
pissed off," according to one person close to Mr. McCabe, and pressed him to explain why the FBI was still chasing a matter the
department considered dormant.
For Mr. McCabe's defenders, the exchange showed how he was stuck between an FBI office eager to pour more resources into a
case and Justice Department prosecutors who didn't think much of the case, one person said.
When agents questioned why they weren't allowed to take more aggressive steps, they said they were told the order had come
from the deputy director -- Mr. McCabe.
Some FBI agents were dissatisfied with that answer, and asked for permission to make a similar request to federal prosecutors
in Manhattan, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. McCabe, these people said, told them no and added that they couldn't
This article triggered the investigation by the FBI's Inspection Division aka INSD, which then led to the 31 August 2017 investigation
by the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General aka OIG. These are the critical facts/findings by the OIG:
Prior to the 30 October 2016 Devlin Barrett article, the FBI had neither confirmed nor denied that there was an investigation
of the Clinton Foundation.
On 23 October 2016 the WSJ's Barrett reported that McCabe's wife had received $675,000 from Virginia Democrats linked to Clinton.
This article sparked a public debate over whether McCabe should have any role whatsoever with investigations that touched on Hillary
Clinton or the Clinton Foundation.
25 October 2016, McCabe learns that Barret (WSJ reporter) is working on a follow up to the 23 October piece. McCabe then authorized
the Special Counsel (some say it was Lisa Page, not confirmed) and the Assistant Director of the Office of Public Affairs aka
AD/OPA (Michael Kortan) to talk to Barrett.
27 October 2016, McCabe is excluded from a meeting/conference call regarding a search warrant for a set of Clinton-related
On the same day the Special Counsel and the AD/OPA met with Barrett who informed the two FBI officials that his sources claimed
McCabe wanted to shut down the Clinton Foundation investigation for "improper reasons."
On the same day the Special Counsel, after receiving guidance from McCabe, spoke with Barrett of the WSJ and informed him
of McCabe's 12 August conversation with the DOJ Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, which was very acrimonious and left
McCabe "pissed off."
Barrett's article about the battle between the FBI and DOJ over the Clinton Foundation was published online on Sunday, 30
October 2016 at 3:34 pm.
On the same day, shortly after the WSJ article hit the internet, McCabe made an angry call to the senior FBI Executives at
the Washington and New York Field Divisions to voice his outrage at the leaks and ordered those Executives "to get their houses
in order." McCabe did not disclose to either person that he had authorized the FBI Special Counsel to disclose that information.
31 October 2016, FBI Director Comey voiced his concerns about the leak to senior FBI staffers, which included McCabe.
May 2017 FBI INSD (i.e., the Inspection Division) opens investigation into the 30 October 2016 leak.
9 May 2017 McCabe is interviewed under oath by INSD and shown the 30 October 2016 WSJ article and specifically directed to
the report of the acrimonious exchange between McCabe and a senior DOJ official. McCabe said the report was accurate but that
he had no idea where the leak about the 12 August 2016 phone call with the PADAG at Justice came from.
Three days later (i.e., 12 May 2017), INSD emailed McCabe the draft Signed Sworn Statement for his review and signature. McCabe,
according to the OIG report, did nothing with the statement until three months later (18 August 2017).
Two months later, on 28 July 2017, the OIG interviewed McCabe under oath regarding "various FBI and Department actions in
advance of the 2016 Election," and was asked specifically if the Special Counsel had been authorized to speak to the Wall Street
Journal reporter who wrote the 30 October 2016 article. McCabe said, "Not that I'm aware of."
Four days later, 1 August 2017, McCabe called the Assistant Inspector General and stated, "he may have authorized the Special
Counsel to work with the AD/OPA and speak to Devlin Barrett."
7 August 2017, the Special Counsel was interviewed by INSD (the FBI) about the 30 October 2016 Barrett article. She admitted,
under oath, that she gave the information to Barrett but was authorized to do so by Andy McCabe.
Eleven days later (18 August 2017), INSD reinterviewed Andy McCabe about the 30 October 2016 article. McCabe admitted that
his sworn testimony from May was wrong and conceded that he had authorized the disclosure.
Andy McCabe was reinterviewed by the OIG on 29 November 2017 and admitted to the following:
he authorized the leak to the WSJ for the 30 October article;
he did not recall discussing the disclosure with Comey in advance;
he told Comey after the 30 October article that he had authorized the leak;
that other FBI executive managers knew he had authorized the leak
claimed he had not purposefully made previous false statements to INSD and OIG investigators.
There is still a big case of he said/she said to come that will pit McCabe against Comey. McCabe, under oath, insists he told
Comey, at least after the fact, and that Comey was okay with the leak. Comey is on the record, also under oath, saying that is not
true. Someone is lying. It is an appalling situation to be in a position of having to choose between the former number two guy in
the FBI and the former number one. They were supposed to be better than this.
Puts the whole case against Flynn in a new light. He has had his entire life ruined for saying something to the FBI that may not
have been true, but was not a statement under oath. Most Americans understand double standards and cheaters. America's premiere law
enforcement agency is now appearing to be worse than a crooked casino. Only house favorites win.
There is a private online forum where retired FBI Special Agents gather to discuss FBI related matters. The topics used to
be FBI health insurance, retirements, death notices, local newspaper articles, and ....well you get the idea. It is only a subset
of the entire retired population and the great majority of members are lurkers who do not actively participate. Still, it is the
best, if not only measure, of sentiment in this group. Unfortunately the matters you write about now dominate the discussions.
You may be interested to know that from my reading of it over the past 18 months, the overwhelming majority, by avalanche proportions,
possibly close to unanimity [previously unheard of in this organization in my generation on any topic] share your point of view
about the recent top Bu leadership. There is shock, disbelief, shame, and a great deal of anger at the recent/current top leadership
who got us into this situation. [as a point of reference, to measure seriousness, when I entered on duty a really serious matter
was "Bu agent, in Bu car, with Bu Steno (female employee), drunk"] [the penalty for which was usually fire the steno for lack
of moral character, and transfer agent to the New York office,] The good news is that this recent rot exists/existed only at the
very upper levels [maybe 10-20 people] of the HQ staff [approx 800]. The other 30,000 or so FBI employees were not involved.
That is not to say they won't be impacted; the last 18 months of drip by drip criticism must make work by the operational personnel
much more difficult. This is not a good thing as after all is said the FBI is still out there every day trying to catch corrupt
politicians, brutal policemen, kidnappers, bank robbers, terrorists,cyber criminals, organized crime members, and about 1000 other
types of criminals. I encourage you to make a distinction in your writing between the villains at the top and the rank and file
of the FBI.
Ah, but Nightsticker this is not a new phenomena, didn't the LDS faction always play by their own rules. I saw the careers destroyed
of those who chose to stand up to the Salt Lake City crowd, and didn't that bring us Waco and some humiliating revelations about
the Laboratory Division?
I would completely agree that the Steno's, the Ident clerks, and the Brick Agents were the hardest working of all Government
employees but there was always an element that operated purely for their own designs. Remember the old pound on the desk and shout
"No FBI Agent has ever been turned", whenever someone questioned the Bureau? Did they still say that after Whitey Bolger?
While your point that a distinction should be made between the rank & file and the villains at the top is well taken, there
have been several high profile cases of misconduct in the field offices. The Bundy case in Nevada being a recent one, where a
judge threw out the DOJ/FBI prosecution with prejudice for prosecutorial misconduct.
Considering how much these types of misconduct and malfeasance gets hidden from the public under the rubric of "classified
information", it seems there are many more cases of such misconduct that has come out in the recent past. One has to feel sympathetic
towards the ordinary citizen when the full force of the DOJ/FBI are brought to bear against them, especially in a climate where
national security "concerns" trumps liberty and due process.
Do you think the character of the agents & prosecutors as well as the "command climate" have changed due to institutional pressures
over the last couple decades?
Do you believe this all took place without anyone lower in the hierarchy knowing about it or participating in it? Can secrets
be kept in such a large organization where most don't know what the bosses are up to?
In your point #3, the Special Counsel is Lisa Page, who was legal counsel to McCabe. With the criminal referral from the IG
we'll have to see if and when he's indicted.
The Mueller probe in many ways has become a parody. They have financially ruined and destroyed Gen. Flynn for having a
legitimate discussion with the Russian ambassador. Of course he has pled guilty to lying. The leaking of this conversation seems
to be a felony but that has yet to be prosecuted.
Mueller has not uncovered any collusion with the Russians by the Trump campaign but is targeting Manafort for financial
irregularities that took place well before he joined the Trump campaign. Additionally, he referred Trump's personal attorney Michael
Cohen to the FBI for possible criminal activity that had nothing to do with Russia or collusion, who then raided his home and
In this context it will be interesting to see if the DOJ indicts McCabe. There's now increasing pieces of the puzzle being
uncovered that sheds more light on the incredible conspiracy among Brennan, Clapper, Loretta Lynch, Comey, McCabe, Sally Yates,
Susan Rice - essentially the top brass in the Obama administration who ran the intelligence, law enforcement and national security
apparatus who used their offices for political purposes to interfere and manipulate an election campaign and when that failed
to attempt a coup.
The foreign interference were these guys working with the British and Estonian intelligence to fabricate reports to launch
a fraudulent investigation on candidate Trump and his campaign.
The genie is out of the bottle. It will only be a matter of time when a GOP administration will use the intelligence and law
enforcement capabilities of an administration to play dirty tricks on the Democrats. The Democrats have made sure that the FBI,
CIA, ODNI, & DOJ have now become tools for vicious political fights.
Thanks for your ice clear update. Corporate media mostly ignores the "Pay to Play" governance that has enveloped Washington
DC with the decision in 2008 by the Obama Administration to foam the runways for Wall Street and not jail corporate crooks. The
FBI could not do a full investigation. The DOJ would never indict Hillary Clinton. Both James Comey and General Michael Flynn
should have kept their mouths shut. Yet, they rose near the top of the cess pool. I assume they simply couldn't acknowledge to
themselves the criminal sewer they were swimming in. An addition note on the sewer overflow; the President's Physician's nomination
to head the VA is in trouble due to drinking on the job and pushing pills.
Reports like these are our only hope of the restoration of a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
It's not just the leadership at the FBI. It is the whole kit and kaboodle when Brennan, Clapper, Lynch, Yates, and the ladies
Rice, Powers, Farkas all had a hand in this. I'm a Depression Era baby and I've seen many a scandal in government but I can't
recall another time when an existing administration of a major party used the intelligence and law enforcement agencies to actively
do opposition research on the other major party candidate. And then conspire to influence and manipulate a presidential election
and frame that candidate as an agent of a foreign power considered an enemy in many quarters. This is beyond the pale even if
one abhors the candidate. You read about stuff like this happening in banana republics. But in the USA. I can't believe our institutions
have sunk so low just in my lifetime.
Two friends get arrested for murder. One of them had to have done it. They both finger the other guy - and they both get off because
nobody can prove beyond a reasonable doubt who did it. How convenient.
At this point it is hard to discern which of our institutions haven't been corrupted by power-mad philosopher kings.
There is an entire corner of [conservative] Twitter following the Borg political shitshow (and particularly the upcoming DOJ
OIG report) pretty closely and have been for some time. A lot of it seemed pretty far out there when I first came across them
(and may still be, there's no way to know for sure until there's a lot more clarity on some of these issues) but they have increasingly
tracked with a lot of what you have written about here and have generally been on the mark, if not superficially clairvoyant.
They're decidedly very pro-Trump but if you're interested (and use Twitter) here's a few of these characters: @_VachelLindsay_
, @drawandstrike , and @TheLastRefuge2.
Thank you. For us in the general public, who have to try to get through the day following the news, it's becoming a stomach-turning
activity. I've recently found myself thinking that only a bad script writer could have come up with all that is being broadcast
on the supposed "news" channels--especially those that do report much of what you have just summarized. I have felt so sorry for
Flynn and others caught up in this total dysfunctional system.
With the top people in the FBI acting so politically, it makes me wonder at some of the other events we've had to read about
regarding the FBI, such as the handling of information regarding the killer in the Florida Pulse nightclub, the dropping of the
ball, so to speak, in regard to the Boston Marathon bombers, the lack of interest in following up on the call to the FBI regarding
the school killer in Florida. And now I question the decision to give the guns back to the father of the shooter in Tennessee
at the Waffle House. Are the everyday working procedures now totally tained by politics also?
My inclination is to think that the regular FBI agents have their hands tied by politically motivated rules set at the top
that do not allow agents to do what they know is right.
Every time I hear Comey speak, I go into a state of cognitive dissonance because it seems as if somehow a ninth-grade student
with absolutely no ability to think logically was somehow promoted to the top office of the FBI.
As the FBI's investigation into the Clinton Foundation pressed on during the 2016 election,
a senior official with the Obama justice department, identified as Matthew Axelrod, called
former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe - who thought the DOJ was pressuring him to shut down
the investigation, according to the recently released inspector general's (OIG) report.
The official was "very pissed off" at the FBI , the report says, and demanded to know why
the FBI was still pursuing the Clinton Foundation when the Justice Department considered the
case dormant. -
The OIG issued a criminal referral for McCabe based on findings that the former Deputy
Director "made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor - including under
oath - on multiple occasions."
McCabe authorized a self-serving leak to the New York Times claiming that the FBI had not
put the brakes on the Clinton Foundation investigation, during a period in which he was coming
under fire over a $467,500 campaign donation his wife Jill took from Clinton pal Terry
" It is bizarre -- and that word can't be used enough -- to have the Justice Department call
the FBI's deputy director and try to influence the outcome of an active corruption
investigation ," said James Wedick - a former FBI official who conducted corruption
investigations at the bureau. " They can have some input, but they shouldn't be operationally
in control like it appears they were from this call ."
Wedick said he's never fielded a call from the Justice Department about any of his cases
during his 35 years there - which suggests an attempt at interference by the Obama
Washington Times Jeff Mordock points out, Although the inspector general's report did not
identify the caller, former FBI and Justice Department officials said it was Matthew Axelrod ,
who was the principal associate deputy attorney general -- the title the IG report did use.
Mr. McCabe thought the call was out of bounds.
He told the inspector general that during the Aug. 12, 2016, call the principal associate
deputy attorney general expressed concerns about FBI agents taking overt steps in the Clinton
Foundation investigation during the presidential campaign. -
"According to McCabe, he pushed back, asking ' are you telling me that I need to shut down a
validly predicated investigation? '" the report reads. " McCabe told us that the conversation
was 'very dramatic' and he never had a similar confrontation like the PADAG call with a
high-level department official in his entire FBI career ."
The Inspector General said in a footnote that the Justice official (identified separately as
Matthew Alexrod) agreed to the description of the call, but objected to seeing that "the Bureau
was trying to spin this conversation as some evidence of political interference, which was
Axelrod quit the Justice Department on January 30, 2017, the same day his boss, Deputy AG
Sally Q. Yates was fired by President Trump for failing to defend his travel ban executive
order. He is now an attorney in the D.C. office of British law firm Linklaters LLP.
Axelrod told the New York Times he left the department earlier than planned.
" It was always anticipated that we would stay on for only a short period ," said Alexrod of
himself and Yates. "For the first week we managed, but the ban was a surprise. As soon as the
travel ban was announced there were people being detained and the department was asked to
defend the ban."
The Washington Times notes that those familiar with DOJ procedures say it is unlikely
Axelrod would have made the call to McCabe without Yates' direct approval.
"In my experience these calls are rarely made in a vacuum," said Bradley Schlozman, who
worked as counsel to the PADAG during the Bush administration. " The notion that the principle
deputy would have made such a decision and issued a directive without the knowledge and consent
of the deputy attorney general is highly unlikely ."
Given that Andrew McCabe may now be in a legal battle with the Trump DOJ, the Obama DOJ and
former FBI Director James Comey - who says McCabe never told him about the leaks which resulted
in the former Deputy Director's firing, it looks like he's really going to need that new legal
The lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), naming WikiLeaks and its
founder Julian Assange as co-conspirators with Russia and the Trump campaign in a criminal
effort to steal the 2016 US presidential election, is a frontal assault on democratic rights.
It tramples on the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which establishes freedom of the
press and freedom of speech as fundamental rights.
Neither the Democratic Party lawsuit nor the media commentaries on it acknowledge that
WikiLeaks is engaged in journalism, not espionage; that its work consists of publishing
material supplied to it by whistleblowers seeking to expose the crimes of governments, giant
corporations and other powerful organizations; and that this courageous campaign of exposure
has made both the website and its founder and publisher the targets of state repression all
over the world.
Assange himself has been effectively imprisoned in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for
the past six years, since he fled there to escape efforts by the British, Swedish and
American governments to engineer his extradition to the United States, where a secret grand
jury has reportedly indicted him on espionage and treason charges that could bring the death
penalty. Since the end of March, the Ecuadorian government, responding to increasing pressure
from US and British imperialism, has cut off all outside communication with him.
The reason for the indictment and persecution of Assange is that WikiLeaks published
secret military documents, supplied by whistleblower Chelsea Manning, revealing US war crimes
in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as diplomatic cables embarrassing to the US State Department
because they detailed US attempts to manipulate and subvert governments around the world.
The Democratic National Committee on Friday filed a 66-page complaint that reeks of
McCarthyism, with overtones of the Wisconsin senator's demagogy about "a conspiracy so vast"
when he was spearheading the anticommunist witch hunts more than 70 years ago. After
detailing a long list of supposed conspirators, ranging from the Russian government and its
military intelligence agency GRU to the Trump campaign and Julian Assange, the complaint
declares: "The conspiracy constituted an act of previously unimaginable treachery: the
campaign of the presidential nominee of a major party in league with a hostile foreign power
to bolster its own chance to win the Presidency."
Such language has had no place in official American public life since the right-wing
political gangster McCarthy left the scene in the late 1950s. Ultra-right groups like the
John Birch Society kept alive such smear tactics in ensuing decades, but they were relegated
to the fringes of the political system. Now the Democratic Party has sought to revive these
methods as the central focus of its bid for power in the 2018 elections.
In the targeting of WikiLeaks, the antidemocratic content of this campaign finds its
foulest expression. The DNC suit asserts, without the slightest evidence, that "WikiLeaks and
Assange directed, induced, urged, and/or encouraged Russia and the GRU to engage in this
conduct and/or to provide WikiLeaks and Assange with DNC's trade secrets, with the
expectation that WikiLeaks and Assange would disseminate those secrets and increase the Trump
Campaign's chance of winning the election."
According to Assange and WikiLeaks, however, the material from the DNC and from Clinton
campaign Chairman John Podesta that it made public in 2016 was provided by an anonymous
whistleblower whose identity WikiLeaks does not know because it observed its normal security
practices to preserve secrecy and protect its sources. Not a shred of evidence has been
presented to prove otherwise.
The DNC legal complaint cites the negative consequences of the WikiLeaks revelations in
passages worth quoting:
135. The illegal conspiracy inflicted profound damage upon the DNC. The timing and
selective release of the stolen materials prevented the DNC from communicating with the
electorate on its own terms. These selective releases of stolen material reached a peak
immediately before the Democratic National Convention and continued through the general
136. The timing and selective release of stolen materials was designed to and had the
effect of driving a wedge between the DNC and Democratic voters. The release of stolen
materials also impaired the DNC's ability to support Democratic candidates in the general
But the DNC lawsuit does not explain why the WikiLeaks material was so damaging.
On the contrary, it says nothing about the actual content of what was leaked, other than
claiming that it included "trade secrets" and other proprietary information of the Democratic
The material published by WikiLeaks about the Democrats fell into two main categories.
First were internal emails and documents of the DNC showing that DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman
Schultz and her top aides were engaged in a systematic effort to block Clinton's challenger
Bernie Sanders and make sure Clinton received the Democratic nomination. In other words,
while complaining that Russia was engaged in rigging the 2016 campaign, the DNC was seeking
to rig the outcome of the Democratic primary contest.
The second batch of documents came from Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta and
included the transcripts of speeches delivered by Hillary Clinton to financial industry
groups for fees as high as $300,000 per appearance. In these remarks, she reassured the
bankers that they need not be alarmed by any campaign rhetoric about punishing them for the
financial skullduggery that triggered the 2008 Wall Street crash and destroyed the jobs and
living standards of millions of working people. She made clear that a Clinton government
would continue the pro-Wall Street policies of the Obama administration.
The DNC suit is a deepening of the effort by the Democratic Party to become the premier
party of the CIA and the military-intelligence apparatus as a whole. In targeting WikiLeaks
and Assange, the Democrats are embracing the smear by CIA Director Mike Pompeo -- now Trump's
choice for secretary of state -- that WikiLeaks is a "non-state hostile intelligence
service," allegedly allied with Moscow.
If, moreover, Assange is a traitor because he exposes the lies and crimes of the US
government, then by implication all those publications, websites and individuals who defend
him and challenge the government propaganda disseminated by the corporate media are
themselves complicit in treason and should be dealt with accordingly.
As the World Socialist Web Site has previously explained, the anti-Russia
campaign mounted by the Democrats is a reactionary concoction, backed by no factual evidence,
aimed at pushing the Trump administration to sharply escalate the war in Syria and adopt a
more aggressive policy against Russia. At the same time, it has been used as the
justification for a massive and coordinated campaign to censor the Internet. The manipulation
of search and news feed algorithms by Google and Facebook will be followed by more direct
efforts at the suppression of left-wing, anti-war and socialist publications.
The campaign has also served to position the Democrats as the party that stands up for the
"intelligence community" in its conflict with the Trump White House. This is now being
supplemented, in advance of the November midterm elections, by an influx of candidates for
Democratic congressional nominations in competitive districts drawn heavily from the ranks of
the CIA, the military, the National Security Council and the State Department (see: "
The conduct of the DNC demonstrates the reactionary and bankrupt character of the claims
by liberal and pseudo-left groups -- all of whom have maintained a complete silence on the
isolation and persecution of Assange -- that the election of a Democratic-controlled Congress
is the way to fight back against Trump and the Republicans. The truth is that the working
class confronts in these parties two implacable political enemies committed to war, austerity
"... Putting aside his partisan motivations, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA) was unusually blunt two months ago in warning of legal consequences for officials who misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to enable surveillance on Trump and his associates. Nunes's words are likely to have sent chills down the spine of those with lots to hide: "If they need to be put on trial, we will put them on trial," he said ."The reason Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we created." ..."
"... The media will be key to whether this Constitutional issue is resolved. Largely because of Trump's own well earned reputation for lying, most Americans are susceptible to slanted headlines like this recent one -- "Trump escalates attacks on FBI " -- from an article in The Washington Post , commiserating with the treatment accorded fired-before-retired prevaricator McCabe and the FBI he ( dis)served . ..."
"... What motivated the characters now criminally "referred" is clear enough from a wide variety of sources, including the text messages exchange between Strzok and Page. Many, however, have been unable to understand how these law enforcement officials thought they could get away with taking such major liberties with the law. ..."
"... None of the leaking, unmasking, surveillance, "opposition research," or other activities directed against the Trump campaign can be properly understood, if one does not bear in mind that it was considered a sure thing that Secretary Clinton would become President, at which point illegal and extralegal activities undertaken to help her win would garner praise, not prison. The activities were hardly considered high-risk, because candidate Clinton was sure to win. ..."
"... Comey admits, "It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making her an illegitimate president by concealing the re-started investigation bore greater weight than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in the polls." ..."
"... The key point is not Comey's tortured reasoning, but rather that Clinton was "sure to be the next president." This would, of course, confer automatic immunity on those now criminally referred to the Department of Justice. Ah, the best laid plans of mice and men -- even very tall men. One wag claimed that the "Higher" in "A Higher Loyalty" refers simply to the very tall body that houses an outsized ego. ..."
"... "Hope springs eternal" would be the cynical folk wisdom. FYI we haven't had a functioning constitution since the National Security Act of 1947 brought this nation under color of law, but the IC types wouldn't have you know that. Too tough to square the idea you'd never have had your CIA career in a world where the FISA court couldn't exist either. ..."
"... there is concrete evidence that the Democratic party/Clinton manipulated the primaries to destroy Clinton's challanger. That the DOJ, FBI & other alphabet agencies conspired with Clinton to equally, destroy Trump's campaign. ..."
"... We saw the same nonsense with Obama, the "peace president". Obama a man who never saw a Muslim he did not want to bomb or a Jew he did not want to bail out ..."
"... The best thing about this referral is that it also demands deputy AG Rod Rosenstein the weasel to recluse himself from this case. Rosenstein is the pinnacle of corruption by the deep state. ..."
"... Former CIA Director John Brennan is the prime mover behind the ongoing coup attempt against Trump. He gathered his deep state allies at DOJ and the FBI to join him in this endeavor. Brennan's allies -- McCabe, Lynch, Strzok, Yates, ect., may or may not be aware of Brennan's true motive behind creating all the noise and distraction since the 2016 election. It could be they're just partisan hacks; or they're on board with Brennan to keep secret what was revealed in the hack of the Podesta emails. ..."
"... I noticed Comey tried to pull a J Edgar-style subtle blackmail on Trump by the way he brought up the so-called "dossier" ..."
"... Bill Clinton got recruited into CIA by Cord Meyer, who bragged of it himself in his cups. ..."
"... Hillary cut her teeth on CIA's Watergate purge of Nixon. (If it's news to anyone that the Watergate cast of characters was straight out of CIA central casting, Russ Baker has conclusively tied the elaborate ratfeck to the intelligence community.) ..."
"... Obama was son of spooks, grandson of spooks, greased in to Harvard by Alwaleed bin-Talal's bagman. ..."
Wednesday's criminal referral by 11 House Republicans of former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton as well as several former and serving top FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) officials
is a giant step toward a Constitutional crisis.
Named in the referral to the DOJ for possible violations of federal law are: Clinton, former
FBI Director James Comey; former Attorney General Loretta Lynch; former Acting FBI Director
Andrew McCabe; FBI Agent Peter Strzok; FBI Counsel Lisa Page; and those DOJ and FBI personnel
"connected to" work on the "Steele Dossier," including former Acting Attorney General Sally
Yates and former Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente.
With no attention from corporate media, the referral was sent to Attorney General Jeff
Sessions, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and U.S. Attorney for the District of Utah John Huber.
Sessions appointed Huber months ago to assist DOJ Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz. By
most accounts, Horowitz is doing a thoroughly professional job. As IG, however, Horowitz lacks
the authority to prosecute; he needs a U.S. Attorney for that. And this has to be disturbing to
the alleged perps.
This is no law-school case-study exercise, no arcane disputation over the fine points of
this or that law. Rather, as we say in the inner-city, "It has now hit the fan." Criminal
referrals can lead to serious jail time. Granted, the upper-crust luminaries criminally
"referred" enjoy very powerful support. And that will come especially from the mainstream
media, which will find it hard to retool and switch from Russia-gate to the much more delicate
and much less welcome "FBI-gate."
As of this writing, a full day has gone by since the letter/referral was reported, with
total silence so far from T he New York Times and The Washington Post and other
big media as they grapple with how to spin this major development. News of the criminal
referral also slipped by Amy Goodman's non-mainstream DemocracyNow!, as well as many
The 11 House members chose to include the following egalitarian observation in the first
paragraph of the
letter conveying the criminal referral: "Because we believe that those in positions of high
authority should be treated the same as every other American, we want to be sure that the
potential violations of law outlined below are vetted appropriately." If this uncommon attitude
is allowed to prevail at DOJ, it would, in effect, revoke the de facto "David Petraeus
exemption" for the be-riboned, be-medaled, and well-heeled.
Meanwhile, the patience of the chairmen of House committees investigating abuses at DOJ and
the FBI is wearing thin at the slow-rolling they are encountering in response to requests for
key documents from the FBI. This in-your-face intransigence is all the more odd, since several
committee members have already had access to the documents in question, and are hardly likely
to forget the content of those they know about. (Moreover, there seems to be a good chance that
a patriotic whistleblower or two will tip them off to key documents being withheld.)
The DOJ IG, whose purview includes the FBI, has been cooperative in responding to committee
requests for information, but those requests can hardly include documents of which the
committees are unaware.
Putting aside his partisan motivations, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes
(R-CA) was unusually blunt two months ago in warning of legal consequences for officials who
misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to enable surveillance on Trump and
his associates. Nunes's words are likely to have sent chills down the spine of those with lots
to hide: "If they need to be put on trial, we will put them on trial," he said
."The reason Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we created."
Whether the House will succeed in overcoming the resistance of those criminally referred and
their many accomplices and will prove able to exercise its Constitutional prerogative of
oversight is, of course, another matter -- a matter that matters.
And Nothing Matters More Than the Media
The media will be key to whether this Constitutional issue is resolved. Largely because of
Trump's own well earned reputation for lying, most Americans are susceptible to slanted
headlines like this recent one -- "Trump escalates attacks on FBI " -- from an
article in The Washington Post , commiserating with the treatment accorded
fired-before-retired prevaricator McCabe and the FBI he ( dis)served
Nor is the Post above issuing transparently clever warnings -- like this one in a
article on March 17: "Some Trump allies say they worry he is playing with fire by taunting
the FBI. 'This is open, all-out war. And guess what? The FBI's going to win,' said one ally,
who spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid. 'You can't fight the FBI. They're going
to torch him.'" [sic]
Mind-Boggling Criminal Activity
What motivated the characters now criminally "referred" is clear enough from a wide variety
of sources, including the text messages exchange between Strzok and Page. Many, however, have
been unable to understand how these law enforcement officials thought they could get away with
taking such major liberties with the law.
None of the leaking, unmasking, surveillance, "opposition research," or other activities
directed against the Trump campaign can be properly understood, if one does not bear in mind
that it was considered a sure thing that Secretary Clinton would become President, at which
point illegal and extralegal activities undertaken to help her win would garner praise, not
prison. The activities were hardly considered high-risk, because candidate Clinton was sure to
But she lost.
Comey himself gives this away in the embarrassingly puerile book he has been hawking, "A
Higher Loyalty" -- which
amounts to a pre-emptive move motivated mostly by loyalty-to-self, in order to obtain a
Stay-Out-of-Jail card. Hat tip to Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone for a key observation, in his
, "James Comey, the Would-Be J. Edgar Hoover," about what Taibbi deems the book's most damning
passage, where Comey discusses his decision to make public the re-opening of the Hillary
Clinton email investigation.
Comey admits, "It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an
environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making
her an illegitimate president by concealing the re-started investigation bore greater weight
than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in the
The key point is not Comey's tortured reasoning, but rather that Clinton was "sure to be the
next president." This would, of course, confer automatic immunity on those now criminally
referred to the Department of Justice. Ah, the best laid plans of mice and men -- even very
tall men. One wag claimed that the "Higher" in "A Higher Loyalty" refers simply to the very
tall body that houses an outsized ego.
I think it can be said that readers of Consortiumnews.com may be unusually well equipped to
understand the anatomy of FBI-gate as well as Russia-gate. Listed below chronologically are
several links that might be viewed as a kind of "whiteboard" to refresh memories. You may wish
to refer them to any friends who may still be confused.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of
the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He served as an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and
then a CIA analyst for a total of 30 years. In retirement, he co-created Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
A weird country, the USA.
Reading the article I'm reminded of the 1946 Senate investigation into Pearl Harbour, where,
in my opinion, the truth was unearthed.
At the same time, this truth hardly ever reached the wider public, no articles, the book, ed.
Harry Elmer Barnes, never reviewed.
Will McCabe wind up in jail? Will Comey? Will Hillary face justice? Fingers crossed!
The short answer is NO. McCabe might, but not Comey and the Killer Queen, they've both served Satan, uh I mean the
Deep State too long and too well.Satan and the banksters–who really run the show–take care of their own and
apex predators like Hillary won't go to jail. But it does keep the rubes entertained while the banksters continue to loot, pillage and
plunder and Israel keeps getting Congress to fight their wars.
"Hope springs eternal" would be the cynical folk wisdom. FYI we haven't had a functioning
constitution since the National Security Act of 1947 brought this nation under color of law,
but the IC types wouldn't have you know that. Too tough to square the idea you'd never have
had your CIA career in a world where the FISA court couldn't exist either.
Consortium News many sops tossed to 'realpolitik' where false narrative is attacked with
alternative false narrative, example given, drunk Ukrainian soldiers supposedly downing MH 17
with a BUK as opposed to Kiev's Interior Ministry behind the Ukrainian combat jet that
actually brought down MH 17, poisons everything (trust issues) spewed from that news
The realpolitik 'face saving' exit/offer implied in the Consortium News narrative where
Russia doesn't have to confront the West with Ukraine's (and by implication the western
intelligence agencies) premeditated murder of 300 innocents does truth no favors.
Time to grow up and face reality. Realpolitik is dead; the caliber of 'statesman' required
for these finessed geopolitical lies to function no longer exist on the Western side, and the
Russians (I believe) are beginning to understand there is no agreement can be made behind
closed doors that will hold up; as opposed to experiencing a backstabbing (like NATO not
Back on topic; the National Security Act of 1947 and the USA's constitution are mutually
exclusive concepts, where you have a Chief Justice appoints members of our FISA Court, er,
nix that, let's call a spade a spade, it's a Star Chamber. There is no constitution to
uphold, no matter well intended self deceits. There will be no constitutional crisis, only a
workaround to pretend a constitution still exists:
To comprehend the internal machinations s of US politics one needs a mind capable of high
level yoga or of squaring a circle.
On the one hand there is a multimillion, full throttle investigation into – at best
– nebulus, inconsequential links between trump/ his campaign & Russia.
On the other there is concrete evidence that the Democratic party/Clinton manipulated the
primaries to destroy Clinton's challanger. That the DOJ, FBI & other alphabet agencies
conspired with Clinton to equally, destroy Trump's campaign.
Naturally, its this 2nd conspiracy which is retarded.
Imagine, a mere agency of a dept, the FBI, is widely considered untouchable by The President
! Indeed, they will "torch" him. AND the "the third estate" ie: the msm will support them the
As a script the "The Twilight Zone" would have rejected all this as too ludicrous, too
psychotic for even its broad minded viewers.
And that will come especially from the mainstream media
I quit reading right there. Use of that term indicates mental laziness at best. What's mainstream about it? Please
refer to corporate media in proper terms, such as PCR's "presstitute" media. Speaking of PCR, it's too bad he doesn't allow comments.
The MSM is controlled by Zionists as is the U.S. gov and the banks, so it is no surprise that
the MSM protects the ones destroying America, this is what they do. Nothing of consequence will be done to any of the ones involved, it will all be covered
up, as usual.
What utter nonsense. These people are ALL actors, no one will go to jail, because everything
they do is contrived, no consequence for doing as your Zionist owners command.
There is no there there. This is nothing but another distraction, something o feed the
dual narratives, that Clinton and her ilk are out to get Trump, and the "liberal media" will
cover it up. This narrative feeds very nicely into the primary goal of driving
Republicans/conservatives to support Trump, even as Trump does everything they elected him
NOT TO DO!
We saw the same nonsense with Obama, the "peace president". Obama a man who never saw a
Muslim he did not want to bomb or a Jew he did not want to bail out
Yet even while Obama did the work of the Zionist money machine, the media played up the
fake battle between those who thought he was not born in America, "birthers" and his blind
Nothing came of any of it, just like Monica Lewinsky, nothing but theater, fill the air
waves, divide the people, while America is driven insane.
The best thing about this referral is that it also demands deputy AG Rod Rosenstein the
weasel to recluse himself from this case. Rosenstein is the pinnacle of corruption by the deep
state. It's seriously way pass time for Jeff Sessions to grow a pair, put on his big boy
pants, unrecuse himself from the Russian collusion bullshit case, fire Rosenstein and Mueller
and end the case once and for all. These two traitors are in danger of completely derailing
the Trump agenda and toppling the Republican majority in November, yet Jeff Sessions is still
busy arresting people for marijuana, talk about missing the forest for the trees.
As far as where this referral will go from here, my guess is, nowhere. Not as long as Jeff
Sessions the pussy is the AG. It's good to hear that Giuliani has now been recruited by Trump
to be on his legal team. What Trump really needs to do is replace Jeff Sessions with
Giuliani, or even Chris Christie, and let them do what a real AG should be doing, which is
clean house in the DOJ, and prosecute the Clintons for their pay-to-play scheme with their
foundation. Not only is the Clinton corruption case the biggest corruption case in US
history, but this might be the only way to save the GOP from losing their majority in
But it does keep the rubes entertained while the banksters continue to loot, pillage and
plunder and Israel keeps getting Congress to fight their wars.
Sadly I think you're right. Things might be different if we had a real AG, but Jeff
Sessions is not the man I thought he was. He's been swallowed by the deep state just like
Trump. At least Trump is putting up a fight, Sessions just threw in the towel and recused
himself from Day 1. Truly pathetic. Some patriot he is.
" He's ferreted out more than a few and probably has a lot better idea who his friends are
he certainly knows the enemies by now."
He failed to ferret out Haley, Pompeo, or Sessions and he just recently appointed John
Bolton, so I don't agree with your assessment. If his friends include those three, that says
enough about Trump to make any of his earlier supporters drop him.
Anyway, not having a ready made team, or at least a solid short list of key appointees
shows that he was just too clueless to have even been a serious candidate. It looks more as
though Trump is doing now what he intended to do all along. That means he was bullshitting
everybody during his campaign.
So, maybe the neocons really have been his friends all along.
" America is a very crooked country, nothing suprises me".
Every country on this insane planet is "crooked" to a greater or lesser degree, when to a
lesser degree, this is simply because they, the PTB, have not yet figured out how to
accelerate, how to increase their corruption and thereby how to increase their unearned
Money is the most potent singular factor which causes humans to lose their minds, and all
of their ethics and decency.
And within the confines of a "socialist" system, "money" is replaced by rubber-stamps, which
then wield, exactly in the manner of "wealth", the power of life or death, over the unwashed
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro jazz
Just as it looks like the Comey memos will further exonerate Trump, we now have this farce
extended by the DNC with this latest lawsuit on the "Trump campaign". The Democrats are now
the most pathetic sore losers in history, they are hell bent on dragging the whole country
down the pit of hell just because they can't handle a loss.
Wishful thinking that anything will come of this, just like when the Nunes memo was released.
Nothing will happen as long as Jeff Sessions is AG. Trump needs to fire either Sessions or
Rosenstein ASAP, before he gets dragged down by this whole Russian collusion bullshit case.
Former CIA Director John Brennan is the prime mover behind the ongoing coup attempt against
Trump. He gathered his deep state allies at DOJ and the FBI to join him in this endeavor.
Brennan's allies -- McCabe, Lynch, Strzok, Yates, ect., may or may not be aware of Brennan's
true motive behind creating all the noise and distraction since the 2016 election. It could
be they're just partisan hacks; or they're on board with Brennan to keep secret what was
revealed in the hack of the Podesta emails.
John Podesta, in addition to being a top Democrat/DC lobbyist and a criminal deviant, is
also a long-time CIA asset running a blackmail/influence operation that utilized his
deviancy: the sexual exploitation of children.
What kind of "physical proof" could Assange have? A thumb drive that was provably
American, or something? Rohrabacher only got Red Pilled on Russia because he had one very
determined (and well heeled) constituent. But he did cosponsor one of Tulsi Gabbard's "Stop
Funding Terrorists" bills, which he figured out on his own. Nevertheless, a bit of a loose
cannon and an eff'd up hawk on Iran He's probably an 'ISIS now, Assad later' on Syria.
I noticed Comey tried to pull a J Edgar-style subtle blackmail on Trump by the way he brought
up the so-called "dossier". Anyone could see it was absurd but he played his hand with it,
pretending it was being looked at. I would say Trump could see through this sleazy game Comey
was trying to play and sized him up. Comey is about as slimy as they get even as he parades
around trying to look noble. What a corrupt bunch.
"The culprit has swayed with the immediate need for a villain "
[What follows is excerpted from an article headlined Robert Mueller's Questionable Past
that appeared yesterday on the American Free Press website:]
During his tenure with the Justice Department under President George H W Bush, Mueller
supervised the prosecutions of Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega, the Lockerbie bombing (Pan
Am Flight 103) case, and Gambino crime boss John Gotti. In the Noriega case, Mueller ignored
the ties to the Bush family that Victor Thorn illustrated in Hillary (and Bill): The Drugs
Volume: Part Two of the Clinton Trilogy. Noriega had long been associated with CIA operations
that involved drug smuggling, money laundering, and arms running. Thorn significantly links
Noriega to Bush family involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal.
Regarding Pan Am Flight 103, the culprit has swayed with the immediate need for a villain.
Pro-Palestinian activists, Libyans, and Iranians have all officially been blamed when US
intelligence and the mainstream mass media needed to paint each as the antagonist to American
freedom. Mueller toed the line, publicly ignoring rumors that agents onboard were said to
have learned that a CIA drug-smuggling operation was afoot in conjunction with Pan Am
flights. According to the theory, the agents were going to take their questions to Congress
upon landing. The flight blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland.
Am I a Christian? Well, no. I had some exposure to Christianity but it never took hold. On
the other hand, I do believe there was a historical Jesus that was a remarkable man, but
there is a world (or universe) of difference between the man and the mythology. Here's some
of my thoughts on the matter:
Nothing uncanny about it. There's a frenetic Democratic cottage industry inferring magical
emotional charisma powers that explain the outsized influence of those three. The fact is
very simple. All three are CIA nomenklatura.
(1.) Bill Clinton got recruited into CIA by Cord Meyer, who bragged of it himself in his
(2.) Hillary cut her teeth on CIA's Watergate purge of Nixon. (If it's news to anyone that
the Watergate cast of characters was straight out of CIA central casting, Russ Baker has
conclusively tied the elaborate ratfeck to the intelligence community.)
(3.) Obama was son of spooks, grandson of spooks, greased in to Harvard by Alwaleed
bin-Talal's bagman. While he was vocationally wet behind the ears he not only got into
Pakistan, no mean feat at the time, but he went to a falconry outing with the future acting
president of Pakistan. And is there anyone alive who wasn't flabbergasted at the instant
universal acclaim for some empty suit who made a speech at the convention? Like Bill Clinton,
successor to DCI Bush, Obama was blatantly, derisively installed in the president slot of the
CIA org chart.
Excellent post and quite accurate information, however my point being that the irrational
fear harbored by the individuals who could actually begin to rope these scumbags in, is just
that : Irrational, as they seem to think or have been lead/brainwashed to believe that these
dissolute turds are somehow endowed with supernatural, otherworldy powers and options, and
that they are capable of unholy , merciless vengeance : VF, SR, etc.
And the truth is as soon as they finally start to go after them they, they will fall apart at
the seams, such as with all cowards, and this is the bottom line : They, the BC/HC/BO clique,
they are nothing more than consumate cowards, who can only operate in such perfidious manners
when left unchallenged.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro Jazz
A massive battle is brewing between former FBI Director James Comey, and his deputy Andy
McCabe - as first noted a few weeks
ago by the Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross - over exactly who is lying about Comey knowing that
McCabe had been leaking self-serving information to the Wall Street Journal .
by ABC's The View to peddle his new book, A Higher Royalty Loyalty, where he called his
former Deputy Andrew McCabe a liar , and admitted that he "ordered the report" which found
McCabe guilty of leaking to the press and then lying under oath about it, several times.
Comey was asked by host Megan McCain how he thought the public was supposed to have
"confidence" in the FBI amid revelations that McCabe lied about the leak.
" It's not okay. The McCabe case illustrates what an organization committed to the truth
looks like ," Comey said. " I ordered that investigation. "
Comey then appeared to try and frame McCabe as a "good person" despite all the lying.
"Good people lie. I think I'm a good person, where I have lied," Comey said. " I still
believe Andrew McCabe is a good person but the inspector general found he lied, " noting that
there are "severe consequences" within the DOJ for doing so. As a reminder, the Justice
Department's internal watchdog, Inspector General Michael Horowitz, released a report last week
detailing his conclusions from the months-long probe of McCabe, which found that the former
acting FBI Director leaked a self-serving story to the press and then lied about it under oath
In response, McCabe's attorney, Michael R. Bromwich (flush with cash from the disgraced
Deputy Director's half-million dollar legal defense GoFundMe
campaign), fired back - claiming that Comey was well aware of the leaks .
" In his comments this week about the McCabe matter, former FBI Director James Comey has
relied on the Inspector Genera's (OIG) conclusions in their report on Mr. McCabe. In fact, the
report fails to adequately address the evidence (including sworn testimony) and documents that
prove that Mr. McCabe advised Director Comey repeatedly that he was working with the Wall
Street Journal on the stories in question..." reads the statement in part.
So to review , McCabe was fired when it was uncovered that he authorized an F.B.I.
spokesman and attorney to tell Devlin Barrett of the Wall St. Journal , just days before the 2016 election, that the
FBI had not put the brakes on a separate investigation into the Clinton Foundation - at a time
in which McCabe was coming under fire for his wife taking a $467,500 campaign contribution from
Clinton proxy pal, Terry McAuliffe.
New details show that senior law-enforcement officials repeatedly voiced skepticism of the
strength of the evidence in a bureau investigation of the Clinton Foundation, sought to
condense what was at times a sprawling cross-country effort, and, according to some people
familiar with the matter, told agents to limit their pursuit of the case . The probe of the
foundation began more than a year ago to determine whether financial crimes or influence
peddling occurred related to the charity.
Some investigators grew frustrated, viewing FBI leadership as uninterested in probing the
charity , these people said. Others involved disagreed sharply, defending FBI bosses and
saying Mr. McCabe in particular was caught between an increasingly acrimonious fight for
control between the Justice Department and FBI agents pursuing the Clinton Foundation case
So McCabe leaked information to the WSJ in order to combat rumors that Clinton had
indirectly bribed him to back off the Clinton Foundation investigation, and then lied about it
four times to the DOJ and FBI, including twice under oath.
With spring, things come unstuck; an unspooling has begun. The turnaround at the FBI and
Department of Justice has been so swift that even The New York Times has shut up about
collusion with Russia -- at the same time omitting to report what appears to have been
a wholly politicized FBI upper echelon intruding on the 2016 election campaign, and then
laboring stealthily to un-do the election result.
The ominous silence enveloping the DOJ the week after Andrew McCabe's firing -- and before
the release of the FBI Inspector General's report -- suggests to me that a grand jury is about
to convene and indictments are in process, not necessarily from Special Prosecutor Robert
Mueller's office. The evidence already publicly-aired about FBI machinations and interventions
on behalf of Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump looks bad from any angle, and the wonder
was that it took so long for anyone at the agency to answer for it.
McCabe is gone from office and, apparently hung out to dry on the recommendation of his own
colleagues. Do not think for a moment that he will just ride off into the sunset. Meanwhile,
Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, have been sent to the FBI study hall pending some other
shoes dropping in a grand jury room. James Comey is out hustling a book he slapped together to
manage the optics of his own legal predicament (evidently, lying to a congressional committee).
And way out in orbit beyond the gravitation of the FBI, lurk those two other scoundrels, John
Brennan, former head of the CIA (now a CNN blabbermouth), and James Clapper, former Director of
National Intelligence, a new and redundant post in the Deep State's intel matrix (and ditto a
CNN blabbermouth). Brennan especially has been provoked to issue blunt Twitter threats against
Mr. Trump, suggesting he might be entering a legal squeeze himself.
None of these public servants have cut a plea bargain yet, as far as is publicly known, but
they are all, for sure, in a lot of trouble. Culpability may not stop with them. Tendrils of
evidence point to a coordinated campaign that included the Obama White House and the Democratic
National Committee starring Hillary Clinton. Robert Mueller even comes into the picture both at
the Uranium One end of the story and the other end concerning the activities of his old friend,
Mr. Comey. Most tellingly of all, Attorney General Jeff Sessions was not shoved out of office
but remains shrouded in silence and mystery as this melodrama plays out, tick, tick, tick.
None of this makes President Trump a more reassuring figure. His lack of decorum remains as
awesome as his apparent lack of common sense. But he has labored against the most intense
campaign of coordinated calumny ever seen against a chief executive and his fortitude, at
least, is impressive. What is unspooling for him, and the body politic, are the nation's
finances, and the dog of an economy that gets wagged by finance. Yesterday's 724-point dump in
the Dow Jones Industrial Average is liable to not be a fluke event, but the beginning of a
cascade into the pitiless maw of reality -- the reality that just about everything is grossly
"... In 2003, he became the supervisory special agent of the Eurasian Organized Crime Task Force, a joint operation with the New York City Police Department. ..."
"... In early 2010, Randall, then 28, was assigned to a specialized group of FBI agents in lower Manhattan. The Eurasian organized crime unit, led by a veteran mob investigator named Michael Gaeta, scrutinized criminal groups from Georgia, Russia and Ukraine that were running sophisticated scams in the U.S. As Randall and Gaeta linked street-level criminal operators to figures in Eastern Europe's business and political elite, they started piecing together a string of rumors that led them to an unsettling conclusion: Russia might be bribing its way to host the 2018 World Cup. ..."
McCabe says he was fired as FBI deputy director because he is a crucial witness in Russia
investigation While he was the FBI's deputy director, McCabe was deeply involved in
overseeing investigations related to former secretary of state Hillary Clinton's use of a
private email server, and whether Russia colluded with Trump's campaign. Trump has denied any
collusion occurred and Russia has denied meddling.
Mr. McCabe began his career as a special agent with the FBI in 1996. He first reported to the
New York Division, where he investigated a variety of organized crime matters. In 2003,
he became the supervisory special agent of the Eurasian Organized Crime Task Force, a joint
operation with the New York City Police Department.
In early 2010, Randall, then 28, was assigned to a specialized group of FBI agents in
lower Manhattan. The Eurasian organized crime unit, led by a veteran mob investigator named
Michael Gaeta, scrutinized criminal groups from Georgia, Russia and Ukraine that were
running sophisticated scams in the U.S. As Randall and Gaeta linked street-level criminal
operators to figures in Eastern Europe's business and political elite, they started piecing
together a string of rumors that led them to an unsettling conclusion: Russia might be
bribing its way to host the 2018 World Cup.
Andrew McCabe lied four times to the Department of Justice and the FBI - including two times while under oath with Inspector General
Michael Horowitz, according to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) appearing on Fox News .
This is the first time the public has heard more detail of the circumstances behind the decision to fire McCabe just over
he qualified for his full pension.
JORDAN: " McCabe didn't lie just once, he lied four times . He lied to James Comey. He lied to the Office of Professional Responsibility
and he lied twice under oath to the Inspector General . Remember, this is Andrew McCabe, Deputy Director of the FBI. This is Andrew
McCabe, the text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page talking about Andy's office, the meeting where they talk about the
insurance policy in case Donald Trump is actually President of the United States Four times he lied about leaking information
to the Wall Street Journal ."
Specifically, McCabe authorized an F.B.I. spokesman and attorney to tell Devlin Barrett of the
Wall St. Journal
, just days before the 2016 election, that the FBI had not
put the brakes on a separate investigation into the Clinton Foundation - at a time in which McCabe was coming under fire for his
wife taking a $467,500 campaign contribution from Clinton
pal, Terry McAuliffe.
New details show that senior law-enforcement officials repeatedly voiced skepticism of the strength of the evidence in a bureau
investigation of the Clinton Foundation, sought to condense what was at times a sprawling cross-country effort, and, according
to some people familiar with the matter, told agents to limit their pursuit of the case . The probe of the foundation began more
than a year ago to determine whether financial crimes or influence peddling occurred related to the charity.
Some investigators grew frustrated, viewing FBI leadership as uninterested in probing the charity , these people said. Others
involved disagreed sharply, defending FBI bosses and saying Mr. McCabe in particular was caught between an increasingly acrimonious
fight for control between the Justice Department and FBI agents pursuing the Clinton Foundation case .
So McCabe leaked information to the WSJ in order to combat rumors that Clinton had indirectly bribed him to back off the Clinton
Foundation investigation, and then lied about it four times to the DOJ and FBI, including twice under oath.
Meanwhile - let's not forget, the FBI had evidence from undercover informant William D. Campbell, who recently told Congressional
investigators that he collected smoking gun evidence of Russia
routing millions of dollars
towards a Clinton charity in advance of Clinton's State Department approving the Uranium One deal.
Which McCabe was supposed to be investigating... and which the Little Rock field office took over in
Also recall that McCabe's team, under Director Comey,
the language of the FBI's official opinion concerning Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified information
- effectively "decriminalizing" her conduct . Comey's original draft - using the term "grossly negligent" would have legally required
that the FBI recommended charges against Clinton. Instead, McCabe's team changed it to "extremely careless," - a legally meaningless
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 . -
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI)
President Trump noted in a March 16 tweet that Comey "made McCabe look like a choirboy," despite the former FBI Director knowing
" all about the lies and corruption going on at the highest levels. "
At the time McCabe was fired, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement at the time that he had "made an unauthorized
disclosure to the news media and lacked candor - including under oath - on multiple occasions."
"Confused and Distracted"
After he was fired, McCabe said he was "confused and distracted" when he was talking to investigators - four separate times as
we've come to learn.
"I answered questions as completely and accurately as I could. And when I realized that some of my answers were not fully accurate
or may have been misunderstood, I took the initiative to correct them ," McCabe wrote in a
Washington Post op-ed
So it was all just a big misunderstanding, you see.
In the meantime, people feeling sorry for ol' Andy have set up an "official" Gofundme donation campaign for McCabe's "Legal Defense
Fund," which raised almost $400,000 in 10 hours for McCabe.
Hilariously, the description of the campaign starts off: " Andrew McCabe's FBI career was long, distinguished, and unblemished
...which ended when McCabe lied four times about leaking to the press in order to appear unbiased after his wife took nearly half-a-million
dollars from a Clinton crony .
OK, I'm willing to believe McCabe lied. Anybody who only figured out within the past 2 years that the FBI is a political
police force is beneath my contempt, actually.
I'm also pretty seasoned at reading these politicized reports, going back well over 40 years. It's clear this McDonald guy,
the undercover FBI "whistleblower," is at best full of shit, and at most a malicious political mole.
It's been clear for quite some time that the Clinton Foundation, like all the other "charitable foundation" tax dodges
used nearly universally by the wealthy and powerful, is a scam. Just like the Trump Foundation, which is supposedly being shut
down to avoid trouble from the obvious and pervasive fraud that entity engaged in.
So McCabe is a political hatchetman, dealing with and fighting against other political hatchetmen with different affinities,
loyalties and priorities. And the investigation into the Clinton Foundation was a complete charade, because the whole problem
with all these foundations isn't nearly so much what they do illegally but what they do that's perfectly lawful.
And when McCabe answered questions to some people, they approved of his responses, and when he answered questions to other
people, they classified his responses as lies and made an example of him to anyone else who might be insufficiently loyal one
way or the other.
The end result is a bunch of dirty operators are having their usual battle over pecking order.
The good thing is, the way the Executive Branch is tearing itself apart recently, nobody with any better options will have
anything to do with them. We're getting rid of the noxious, anti-American worship of authority figures which masquerades as "Respect
For The Office." Nobody with any sense is joining the military. Attorneys won't get involved in these partisan mud fights.
All this is very good news for those of us who recognize the decline of Empire when we see it. Of course we all hope, out
of compassion for our fellow man, that we would all recognize the historical trend and take considered action accordingly, but
it's clear by now that we won't do that, and we're all going to have to endure collapse. OK then, let's bring it on, have it out,
and get on with our lives going forward.
With that in mind, the destruction of our institutions is a good thing. This whole McCabe/FBI debacle is a good thing; now
that right-wingers have discovered what the Left has always known, right-wingers are going to destroy the Department of Justice
as lefties have never had the power to do. All the hookers suing the President is a good thing; worship of a King is something
we fought a war to end some 242 years ago. And America's Empire has brought the vast majority nothing but Oligarchy and misery.
Good riddance to bad rubbish, McCabe and all the rest.
I'm going to take a big risk and assume that you can actually read without moving your lips and sliding your finger along the
page. If you can't read, being a product of government schools, I'll give you some good news: There are a lot of BOOKS that you
can have read TO you, i.e. digital books. In any case, you might just want to read (or listen to) THE DICTATOR'S HANDBOOK by
Bruce Bueno de Mesquita
In this tome you will find the truth about the ultimate purposes of all of this infighting are. They have nothing to do with
Truth, Justice, and the American Way (whatever the hell THAT is!). My take is A POX ON ALL OF YOUR HOUSES! The REAL "problem"
with Donald Trump is that he either can't be or has yet to be BOUGHT by your masters.
They have NOTHING to offer him that he doesn't already HAVE! Just remember, though...if you idiots DO manage to bring him down,
the him low, run him off...or eliminate him (Don't pretend that you haven't considered that one!)...the societal societal dislocation...disintegration...and
just good old gunfire and club swinging...will sweep YOU away along with our civilization. You've managed to bring America to
the brink already....all we need for total disaster is a little more of your BS!
One common thread and indication an empire is in decline is a massive growth in crony capitalism and corruption. Sometimes
a system morphs or evolves towards its end and in other situations, a single event can act as the catalyst to bring a system to
Looking back to the economic crisis that gripped the world in 2008 we find an excellent example of shifting and adjusting
just enough to delay the day of reckoning. Many people see growing inequality as a sign that America's financial and political
systems are broken. The article below delves into how and why great empires collapse.
http://How Great Empires Collapse.html
Geez, if I could up vote you and Giant Meteor a hundred times I would. The joke is that McCabe will never go to jail and Comey will make millions for his book deal. Then there is McCabe's "go fund me" joke. The guy is reportedly worth $11 million and needs stupid libtards to fund him?? Really??? I want to see jail time and executions - start with Brennan and work your way down to Comey.
Fuck jail time. Taxpayers, myself included don't want to have to support this piece of government shit along with all of his
co-conspirators for the next 20 years in some federal luxury resort. Fucking execute them all on the South White House lawn at
dawn by firing squad.
Right now we're a nation without laws except for the little people. My patience is seriously running out with Trump and that
little Hobbit motherfucker Sessions and his jail-blocking shenanigans. Sessions wants to increase civil asset forfeiture, let
him start with McCabe's, Comey's, Clapper, and Brennan's bank accounts and houses for a start. Then take the entire Clinton Crime
Foundations assets down to the last dime.
Try using that excuse yourself and see how far it goes, as they put the cuffs on your 'little people' wrists. As for that GoFundMe page -give me a break. How much of that cash is laundered Clintoon money? No way 'average' Americans are
donating to that criminal POS, and definitely not to the tune of $388K. Investigate that .
The trouble as I see it, these folks by the very nature of what they do, tacit within their very job description, requires
lying on a fairly regular basis. It is requisite to their their employment. Lying becomes a way of life, and is a perfect fit
for those with sociopathic, narcissistic personalities.
One must also understand incentives .. 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.' Upton Sinclair
And this is seen in every aspect of human affairs, from top to the bottom. Especially pervasive, and venal within the so called
"main stream media" but certainly not limited to ..
Add to this the outright bought and paid for politicization of these 3 letter alphabet soup agency sycophants, not to mention
their political enablers / handlers, the fact they they by and large consider themselves immune in their official capacities,
immune from normative consequences, rule of law, bad acts, and as is now well established, whom play by an entirely different set
In short, they believe in their own bullshit, and that the end justifies the means. Of course all of this leads to the inescapable
conclusion, the republic no longer a nation of laws but rather, a nation of men.
In the words of the Clintons: Hey, that's OLD news...and we "...(can't) stop thinking' about tomorrow...." Lies were told,
hundreds of millions stolen, murders committed, and so on." But, having said that, let's just move on and in the words of that
GREAT AMERICAN, Rodney King "...just get along...."
I would suggest neoliberals and neoconservatives get along just fine. These two groups have different styles, but nonetheless, worship the same techno globalist agenda of war, money and power.
Which is why they've quite often been photgraphed together with broad smiles and warm embraces .. Two sides, same coin ...
War mongering, money grubbing, technocrat elites, bending the minds of citizen "consumers" toward the will and agenda of their
overlords, the corporate fascists.
These groups above all else pledge allegiance to king mammon. Others act as their enforcers. The primary vision of these liked
minded groups is to create an all knowing, all powerful centralized state of consequences for thee and none for me. They continue
faithfully to do the bidding of the money changers ..
Concur. They all lie. From top of the Federal Reserve and the repressive apparatus (C!A,FB!,Pentagram ,NSAyy and other assorted
3 letter scum agencies) to the bottom of the hired actors posing as politicians in Congress, Senate and the White House.
Do you remember any politician , president who kept his campaign promises lately? how about the Donald? Let's take only the
last example: the Skripal case ,where the Donald does not need evidence and expels 60 Russian diplomats and closes down a consulate
based on very ,very fake news. And risks a war with Russia ,based on a false flag done by US/UK.
Maria Zakharova said that Russia has no doubt that this was a coordinated attack done by US/UK. She should know something
There is no honor among the thieves and crooks and criminals in the US ,especially when the pie is shrinking and they have
to fight among them for it. Because this is what this low grade show is all about = thugs fighting among them for the disappearing
This spectacle is disgusting . I don't care at all ,at this point in time if they impeach the Donald. He deserves it. Whoever
comes after him can not be worse. And I don't think this can continue for too long . The AAZ Empire is done.
I have no respect for the Donald and his continuous lies and fake news. And the tired "he's better than Hillary" does not satisfy
me anymore. I voted for him based on this ,as a vote against Hillary . I am sorry I did. Maybe Hillary would have been better,collapsing
sooner this failed experiment .
Don't do unto others what you don't want done unto you. Confucius
There's also a practical reason not to do it...yet anyway. Put McCabe's nuts in a vice and start turning the screw
(figuratively). Claim the 5th all you want, Mr McCabe. Failure to cooperate only compounds your troubles.
The fired FBI apparatchiks are in a prisoner's dilemma. If they stay quiet, they might walk, but they dont know who else might
be singing or what tune they're singing. So it is to each person's advantage to sing, and the nice thing is, it only takes one
of them to do so (and I suspect, someone[s] already has).
BTW, $400K (taxable) is a far cry from his inflation-indexed pension that Im guessing would be between $8K and $12K per month,
plus a nice health insurance plan for the rest of his (and his wife's) life. Sucks to be him, but...
I have been accused of "
." That is not true. I did not knowingly mislead or lie to investigators. When asked about contacts with
a reporter that were fully within my power to authorize as deputy director, and amid the chaos that surrounded me, I
answered questions as completely and accurately as I could. And when I realized that some of my answers were not
fully accurate or may have been misunderstood, I took the initiative to correct them. At worst, I was not clear in my
responses, and because of what was going on around me may well have been confused and distracted -- and for that I
take full responsibility. But that is not a lack of candor. And under no circumstances could it ever serve as the
basis for the very public and extended humiliation of my family and me that the administration, and the president
personally, have engaged in over the past year.
Not in my worst nightmares did I ever dream my FBI career would end this way.
The next day I woke to find the president of the United States celebrating my punishment:
Andrew McCabe FIRED
great day for the hard working men and women of the FBI -- A great day for Democracy." I was sad, but not surprised,
to see that such unhinged public attacks on me would continue into my life after my service to the FBI. President
Trump's cruelty reminded me of the days immediately following the firing of James B. Comey, as the White House
desperately tried to push the falsehood that people in the FBI were celebrating the loss of our director. The
president's comments about me were equally hurtful and false, which shows that he has no idea how FBI people feel
about their leaders.
I was drawn to the FBI by nothing more complicated than a desire to do good. In 1994, I
submitted a special-agent application, dreaming about what life as a criminal investigator would be like. I devoured
every book I could find, and binged on news coverage of FBI investigations. When the day came for me to report to the
FBI training academy at Quantico, Va., I embarked on the greatest professional adventure I could ever imagine.
Each year, more than 2,000 men and women of all races, colors and creeds are drawn to the
FBI by the same professional and personal desire to do good. It is the DNA that we all share. As acting director, I
frequently talked to FBI people about that shared DNA as the glue that bound us together and enabled us to stay
mission-focused during the chaos that followed
in May 2017. True to form, our agents, analysts and professional staff reacted as FBI people
always do. They continued to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution despite the political winds --
and the unprecedented attacks on us by the president and other partisans -- that buffeted us.
The nation continues to need them. And not just the current employees of the FBI, but all
smart, talented, dedicated people considering careers in the law enforcement and intelligence communities. These are
hard jobs that demand sacrifice, often involve danger, and take a toll on families and personal lives. But they also
offer the rare opportunity to enter into a sacred trust with the American people: to protect and defend them,
honestly, justly and fairly. There is no greater responsibility, but there is no greater reward. We cannot afford for
young people to be dissuaded from lives of public service by the divisive politics and partisan attacks that now so
characterize our national discourse and that, I believe, played a major role in the end of my FBI career.
To those men and women, I say: Fear not. Set the headlines aside and give in to what draws
you to this work. The country needs you.
There is nothing like having the opportunity to be a part of the greatest law-enforcement
organization in the world, working every day for goals that you respect and cherish. It is the best job you will ever
have. Even if a president decides to attack you and your family. Even if you get fired on a Friday night, one day
from your retirement.
"Doom porn" argument aside it was almost 10 years since the last financial crisis. And
neoliberalism tend to produce financial crisis with amazing regularity. This is the nature of the
beast. So timing might be wrong, but the danger is here.
With spring, things come unstuck; an unspooling has begun.
The turnaround at the FBI and Department of Justice has been so swift that even The New York
Times has shut up about collusion with Russia - at the same time omitting to report what
appears to have been a wholly politicized FBI upper echelon intruding on the 2016 election
campaign, and then laboring stealthily to un-do the election result.
The ominous silence enveloping the DOJ the week after Andrew McCabe's firing - and before
the release of the FBI Inspector General's report - suggests to me that a grand jury is about
to convene and indictments are in process, not necessarily from Special Prosecutor Robert
Mueller's office. The evidence already publicly-aired about FBI machinations and interventions
on behalf of Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump looks bad from any angle, and the wonder
was that it took so long for anyone at the agency to answer for it.
McCabe is gone from office and, apparently hung out to dry on the recommendation of his own
colleagues. Do not think for a moment that he will just ride off into the sunset. Meanwhile,
Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, have been sent to the FBI study hall pending some other
shoes dropping in a grand jury room. James Comey is out hustling a book he slapped together to
manage the optics of his own legal predicament (evidently, lying to a congressional committee).
And way out in orbit beyond the gravitation of the FBI, lurk those two other scoundrels, John
Brennan, former head of the CIA (now a CNN blabbermouth), and James Clapper, former Director of
National Intelligence, a new and redundant post in the Deep State's intel matrix (and ditto a
CNN blabbermouth). Brennan especially has been provoked to issue blunt Twitter threats against
Mr. Trump, suggesting he might be entering a legal squeeze himself.
None of these public servants have cut a plea bargain yet, as far as is publicly known, but
they are all, for sure, in a lot of trouble. Culpability may not stop with them. Tendrils of
evidence point to a coordinated campaign that included the Obama White House and the Democratic
National Committee starring Hillary Clinton. Robert Mueller even comes into the picture both at
the Uranium One end of the story and the other end concerning the activities of his old friend,
Mr. Comey. Most tellingly of all, Attorney General Jeff Sessions was not shoved out of office
but remains shrouded in silence and mystery as this melodrama plays out, tick, tick, tick.
With spring, things come unstuck; an unspooling has begun.
The turnaround at the FBI and Department of Justice has been so swift that even The New York Times has shut up about collusion
with Russia - at the same time omitting to report what appears to have been a wholly politicized FBI upper echelon intruding on the
2016 election campaign, and then laboring stealthily to un-do the election result.
The ominous silence enveloping the DOJ the week after Andrew McCabe's firing - and before the release of the FBI Inspector General's
report - suggests to me that a grand jury is about to convene and indictments are in process, not necessarily from Special Prosecutor
Robert Mueller's office. The evidence already publicly-aired about FBI machinations and interventions on behalf of Hillary Clinton
and against Donald Trump looks bad from any angle, and the wonder was that it took so long for anyone at the agency to answer for
McCabe is gone from office and, apparently hung out to dry on the recommendation of his own colleagues. Do not think for a moment
that he will just ride off into the sunset. Meanwhile, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, have been sent to the FBI study hall pending
some other shoes dropping in a grand jury room. James Comey is out hustling a book he slapped together to manage the optics of his
own legal predicament (evidently, lying to a congressional committee). And way out in orbit beyond the gravitation of the FBI, lurk
those two other scoundrels, John Brennan, former head of the CIA (now a CNN blabbermouth), and James Clapper, former Director of
National Intelligence, a new and redundant post in the Deep State's intel matrix (and ditto a CNN blabbermouth). Brennan especially
has been provoked to issue blunt Twitter threats against Mr. Trump, suggesting he might be entering a legal squeeze himself.
None of these public servants have cut a plea bargain yet, as far as is publicly known, but they are all, for sure, in a lot of
trouble. Culpability may not stop with them. Tendrils of evidence point to a coordinated campaign that included the Obama White House
and the Democratic National Committee starring Hillary Clinton. Robert Mueller even comes into the picture both at the Uranium One
end of the story and the other end concerning the activities of his old friend, Mr. Comey. Most tellingly of all, Attorney General
Jeff Sessions was not shoved out of office but remains shrouded in silence and mystery as this melodrama plays out, tick, tick, tick.
"... It is an open secret that the CIA has been leaking like the proverbial sieve over the last two years or so to its favorite stenographers at the New York Times ..."
"... Washington Post. ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... On April 6, 2017 I attended a panel discussion on "Russia's interference in our democracy" at the Clinton/Podesta Center for American Progress Fund. In my subsequent write-up I noted that panelist Palmieri had inadvertently dropped tidbits of evidence that I suggested "could get some former officials in deep kimchi -- if a serious investigation of leaking, for example, were to be conducted." ..."
"... Palmieri was asked to comment on "what was actually going on in late summer/early fall ." She answered: "It was a surreal experience so I did appreciate that for the press to absorb the idea that behind the stage that the Trump campaign was coordinating with Russia to defeat Hillary Clinton was too fantastic for people to, um, for the press to process, to absorb . ..."
"... But she lost. And a month ago, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA) threw down the gauntlet, indicating that there could be legal consequences, for example, for officials who misled the FISA court in order to enable surveillance on Trump and associates. ..."
"... John Brennan is widely reported to be Nunes's next target. Does one collect a full pension in jail? ..."
"... Unmasking: Senior national security officials are permitted to ask the National Security Agency to unmask the names of Americans in intercepted communications for national security reasons -- not for domestic political purposes. ..."
"... Brennan's words and attitude are a not-so-subtle reminder of the heavy influence and confidence of the deep state, including the media -- exercised to a fare-thee-well over the past two years. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Washington Post ..."
"... The Post, incidentally, waited until paragraph 41 of 44 to inform readers that it was the FBI's own Office of Professional Responsibility and the Inspector General of the Department of Justice that found McCabe guilty, and that the charge was against McCabe, not the FBI. A quite different impression was conveyed by the large headline "Trump escalates attacks on FBI" as well as the first 40 paragraphs of Sunday's lead article. ..."
"... "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," Schumer told Maddow. "So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this." Did Maddow ask Schumer if he was saying President of the United States should be afraid of the intelligence community? No, she let Schumer's theorem stand. ..."
With former CIA Director John Brennan accusing President Donald Trump of "moral turpitude"
for his "scapegoating" of Andy McCabe, it remains to be seen whether a constitutional crisis
will be averted, writes Ray McGovern.
What prompted former CIA Director John Brennan on Saturday to accuse President Donald Trump
of "moral turpitude" and to predict, with an alliterative flourish, that Trump will end up "as
a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history"? The answer shines through the next sentence
in Brennan's threatening tweet : "You
may scapegoat Andy McCabe [former FBI Deputy Director fired Friday night] but you will not
destroy America America will triumph over you."
It is easy to see why Brennan lost it. The Attorney General fired McCabe, denying him full
retirement benefits, because McCabe "had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and
lacked candor -- including under oath -- on multiple occasions." There but for the grace of God
go I, Brennan must have thought, whose stock in trade has been unauthorized disclosures.
In fact, Brennan can take but small, short-lived consolation in the fact that he succeeded
in leaving with a full government pension. His own unauthorized disclosures and leaks probably
dwarf in number, importance, and sensitivity those of McCabe. And many of those leaks appear to
have been based on sensitive intercepted conversations from which the names of American
citizens were unmasked for political purposes. Not to mention the leaks of faux intelligence
like that contained in the dubious "dossier" cobbled together for the Democrats by British
ex-spy Christopher Steele.
It is an open secret that the CIA has been leaking like the proverbial sieve over the
last two years or so to its favorite stenographers at the New York Times and
Washington Post. (At one point, the obvious whispering reached the point that the
Wall Street Journal saw fit to complain that it was being neglected.) The leaking can
be traced way back -- at least as far as the Clinton campaign's decision to blame the Russians
for the publication of very damning DNC emails by WikiLeaks just three days before the
Democratic National Convention.
This blame game turned out to be a hugely successful effort to divert attention from the
content of the emails, which showed in bas relief the dirty tricks the DNC
played on Bernie Sanders. The media readily fell in line, and all attention was deflected from
the substance of the DNC emails to the question as to why the Russians supposedly
"hacked into the DNC and gave the emails to WikiLeaks."
This media operation worked like a charm, but even Secretary Clinton's PR person, Jennifer
Palmieri, conceded later that at first it strained credulity that the Russians would be doing
what they were being accused of doing.
On April 6, 2017 I attended a panel discussion on "Russia's interference in our
democracy" at the Clinton/Podesta Center for American Progress Fund. In my subsequent write-up I noted that panelist
Palmieri had inadvertently dropped tidbits of evidence that I suggested "could get some former
officials in deep kimchi -- if a serious investigation of leaking, for example, were to be
conducted." (That time seems to be coming soon.)
Palmieri was asked to comment on "what was actually going on in late summer/early fall
." She answered: "It was a surreal experience so I did appreciate that for the press to
absorb the idea that behind the stage that the Trump campaign was coordinating with Russia to
defeat Hillary Clinton was too fantastic for people to, um, for the press to process, to absorb
"But then we go back to Brooklyn [Clinton headquarters] and heard from the -- mostly our
sources were other intelligence, with the press who work in the intelligence sphere, and that's
where we heard things and that's where we learned about the dossier and the other story lines
that were swirling about; and how to process And along the way the administration started
confirming various pieces of what they were concerned about what Russia was doing. So I do
think that the answer for the Democrats now in both the House and the Senate is to talk about
it more and make it more real."
So the leaking had an early start, and went on steroids during the months following the
Democratic Convention up to the election -- and beyond.
As a Reminder
None of the leaking, unmasking, surveillance, or other activities directed against the Trump
campaign can be properly understood, if one does not bear in mind that it was considered a sure
thing that Secretary Clinton would become President, at which point illegal and extralegal
activities undertaken to help her win would garner praise, not prison.
But she lost. And a month ago, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA)
threw down the gauntlet, indicating
that there could be legal consequences, for example, for officials who misled the FISA court in
order to enable surveillance on Trump and associates. His words are likely to have sent
chills down the spine of yet other miscreants. "If they need to be put on trial, we will put
them on trial," he said. "The reason Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we
John Brennan is widely reported to be Nunes's next target. Does one collect a full
pension in jail?
Unmasking: Senior national security officials are permitted to ask the National Security
Agency to unmask the names of Americans in intercepted communications for national security
reasons -- not for domestic political purposes. Congressional committees have questioned
why Obama's UN ambassador Samantha Power (as well as his national security adviser Susan Rice)
made so many unmasking requests. Power is reported to have requested the unmasking of more than
260 Americans, most of them in the final days of the administration, including the names of
Deep State Intimidation
Back to John Brennan's bizarre tweet Saturday telling the President, "You may scapegoat Andy
McCabe but you will not destroy America America will triumph over you." Unmasking the word
"America," so to speak, one can readily discern the name "Brennan" underneath. Brennan's
words and attitude are a not-so-subtle reminder of the heavy influence and confidence of the
deep state, including the media -- exercised to a fare-thee-well over the past two
Later on Saturday, Samantha Power, with similar equities at stake, put an exclamation point
behind what Brennan had tweeted earlier in the day. Power also saw fit to remind Trump where
the power lies, so to speak. She warned him publicly that it is "not a good idea to piss off
Meanwhile, the Washington Post is dutifully playing its part in the deep-state
game of intimidation. The following excerpt from Sunday's lead article conveys the intended
message: "Some Trump allies say they worry he is playing with fire by taunting the FBI. 'This
is open, all-out war. And guess what? The FBI's going to win,' said one ally, who spoke on the
condition of anonymity to be candid. 'You can't fight the FBI. They're going to torch him.'"
The Post, incidentally, waited until paragraph 41 of 44 to inform readers that it was
the FBI's own Office of Professional Responsibility and the Inspector General of the Department
of Justice that found McCabe guilty, and that the charge was against McCabe, not the FBI. A
quite different impression was conveyed by the
large headline "Trump escalates attacks on FBI" as well as the first 40 paragraphs of Sunday's
Putting Down a Marker
It isn't as though Donald Trump wasn't warned, as are all incoming presidents, of the power
of the Deep State that he needs to play ball with -- or else. Recall that just three days
before President-elect Trump was visited by National Intelligence Director James Clapper, FBI
Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and NSA Director Michael Rogers, Trump was put
on notice by none other than the Minority Leader of the Senate, Chuck Schumer. Schumer has been
around and knows the ropes; he is a veteran of 18 years in the House, and is in his 20th year
in the Senate.
On Jan. 3, 2017 Schumer said it all, when he told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, that
President-elect Trump is "being really dumb" by taking on the intelligence community and its
assessments on Russia's cyber activities:
"Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday
at getting back at you," Schumer told Maddow. "So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed
businessman, he's being really dumb to do this." Did Maddow ask Schumer if he was saying
President of the United States should be afraid of the intelligence community? No, she let
Schumer's theorem stand.
With gauntlets now thrown down by both sides, we may not have to wait very long to see if
Schumer is correct in his blithe prediction as to how the present constitutional crisis will be
Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. He served as a CIA analyst under seven Presidents and nine
CIA directors and is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
"... Sessions noted that both the Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz as well as the FBI's disciplinary office had found "that Mr. McCabe had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor - including under oath - on multiple occasions. " ..."
"... Horowitz found that McCabe had authorized two FBI officials to talk to then-Wall Street Journal reporter Devlin Barrett for a story about the case and another investigation into Clinton's family foundation. Barrett now works for The Washington Post. - WaPo ..."
"... Former FBI officials tell CNN that McCabe could also lose out on future health care coverage in his retirement , but the "most significant 'damage' to a separated FBI employee is: loss of lifetime medical benefits for self and family," tweeted CNN law enforcement analyst James A. Gagliano, a retired FBI supervisory special agent. ..."
"... McCabe responded to his ouster, saying that his firing, along with negative comments by President Trump were meant to undermine Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, reported the New York Times . ..."
"... The Inspector General's report is thought to include evidence of outgoing Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe ordering agents to alter "302" forms - the paperwork an agent files after interviewing someone. ..."
"... Plenty of very hard-working Americans working in private industry have put in years and years and been fired or "downsized" or "rightsized" or "reorganized out of a job" for no reason other than the organization wanted to decrease costs and show a quarterly profit. ..."
"... Bet Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are wondering about their jobs, not to mention prison... ..."
"... What McCabe did should be taken to court; however, Session was trying to save his neck and made a wrong decision. ..."
"... Firing a person 1 day before retirement is dead wrong. Why? Because Session's ass is a target. The whole Trump administration has no plan to win against Germany and China. Now, his team has lost support from the majority of the Government employees. ..."
After a long day of what seemed like the swamp protecting one of their dirtiest creatures,
Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, just over 24
hours before he was set to retire and claim his full pension benefits.
McCabe turns 50 on Sunday - the earliest he would have been eligible for his full retirement
Sessions noted that both the Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz as well
as the FBI's disciplinary office had found "that Mr. McCabe had made an unauthorized disclosure
to the news media and lacked candor - including under oath - on multiple occasions. "
So, McCabe was involved in leaks and he lied under oath.
Horowitz found that McCabe had authorized two FBI officials to talk to then-Wall Street
Journal reporter Devlin Barrett for a story about the case and another investigation into
Clinton's family foundation. Barrett now works for The Washington Post. -
" I have terminated the employment of Andrew McCabe effective immediately ," said Sessions,
who said he based his decision on the findings.
While the move will probably cost McCabe a significant portion of his retirement benefits ,
he could challenge it in court.
Former FBI officials tell
CNN that McCabe could also lose out on future health care coverage in his retirement , but
the "most significant 'damage' to a separated FBI employee is: loss of lifetime medical
benefits for self and family," tweeted CNN law enforcement analyst James A. Gagliano, a retired
FBI supervisory special agent.
The FBI's OPR then reviewed the report and underlying documents and issued a disciplinary
proposal recommending the dismissal of Mr. McCabe. Both the OIG and FBI OPR reports concluded
that Mr. McCabe had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor -
including under oath - on multiple occasions.
The FBI expects every employee to adhere to the highest standards of honesty, integrity,
and accountability. As the OPR proposal stated, "all FBI employees know that lacking candor
under oath results in dismissal and that our integrity is our brand."
Pursuant to Department Order 1202, and based on the report of the Inspector General, the
findings of the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility, and the recommendation of the
Department's senior career official, I have terminated the employment of Andrew McCabe
McCabe responded to his ouster, saying that his firing, along with negative comments by
President Trump were meant to undermine Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation,
reported the New York
"The idea that I was dishonest is just wrong," said McCabe, adding, " This is part of an
effort to discredit me as a witness. "
Mr. McCabe was among the first at the F.B.I. to scrutinize possible Trump campaign ties to
Russia. And he is a potential witness to the question of whether Mr. Trump tried to obstruct
justice. Mr. Trump has taunted Mr. McCabe both publicly and privately, and Republican allies
have cast him as the center of a "deep state" effort to undermine the Trump presidency. -
While McCabe's firing is directly related to the disclosure of sensitive information to the
media about the Clinton email investigation, the former Deputy Director took a leave of absence
in January amid a heated controversy over the FBI's conduct surrounding the 2016 election.
In December, The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has discovered
that edits made to former FBI Director James Comey's statement exonerating Hillary Clinton for
transmitting classified info over an unsecured, private email server
went far beyond what was previously known - as special agents operating under McCabe
changed various language which effectively decriminalized Clinton's behavior.
McCabe's team also conducted a counterintelligence operation to investigate the Trump
campaign, in which they used an unverified dossier and were not forthright with the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) over its political origins,
in violation of FBI policy.
As revelations of FBI misconduct spiraled out of control last year, President Trump noted
that McCabe was "racing the clock to retire with full benefits."
The Inspector General's report is thought to include evidence of outgoing Deputy FBI
Director Andrew McCabe ordering agents to alter "302" forms - the paperwork an agent files
after interviewing someone.
18 U.S. Code § 1622 - Subornation of perjury
Whoever procures another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Plenty of very hard-working Americans working in private industry have put in years and
years and been fired or "downsized" or "rightsized" or "reorganized out of a job" for no
reason other than the organization wanted to decrease costs and show a quarterly profit.
So....McCabe breaks the law and does all this slimey stuff and then wants a full pension ,
starting at age 50 .....hmmmm...... it's hard to find a lot of sympathy for this guy.
Jeff Sessions has long stated he believes in the "Law of the Land". We can't have
two-tiered justice in America yet we do see it. The below link lays out the timeline pretty well through discovery by JW suit.
What McCabe did should be taken to court; however, Session was trying to save his neck and
made a wrong decision.
Firing a person 1 day before retirement is dead wrong. Why? Because Session's ass is a
target. The whole Trump administration has no plan to win against Germany and China. Now, his
team has lost support from the majority of the Government employees.
Good luck getting people to do things. And he better hopes because those employees know
more that one covert way to stress out the process.
The Justice Department's internal watchdog has been investigating former FBI
Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for apparently sitting on emails obtained from Anthony Weiner's
Washington Post 's Devlin Barrett and Karoun Demirjian reported Tuesday (of note, Barrett
was recently outed as a
potential source of FBI leaks , according to text messages between FBI employees accused of
... ... ...
The inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, has been asking witnesses why FBI leadership seemed unwilling to move forward on
the examination of emails found on the laptop of former
congressman Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) until late October about three weeks after first being alerted to the issue, according
to these people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.
McCabe tried to stall probe of Weiner laptop emails til after the election
McCabe's colleagues got suspicious about the delay
Comey sent 11th-hour letter that reopened the probe in order to correct for McCabe's perceived
Further pointing towards evidence of political bias is an October, 2016 Wall St. Journal article
which reported that McCabe's wife received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions
from close Clinton ally, then-Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe for her failed run at VA state
Felix Sater, the man at the center of a controversial email "tying" President Trump to
Russia while trying to work a business deal, has come forward in a comprehensive
BuzzFeed News Exposé, which if Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Anthony Cormier and
co-author Jason Leopold hadn't verified - nobody would believe.
Sater went from a "Wall Street wunderkind" working at Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, to
getting barred from the securities industry over a barroom brawl which led to a year in prison,
to facilitating a $40 million pump-and-dump stock scheme for the New York mafia, to working
telecom deals in Russia - where the FBI and CIA tapped him as an undercover intelligence asset
who was told by his handler " I want you to understand: If you're caught, the USA is going to
disavow you and, at best, you get a bullet in the head ."
... ... ...
Meanwhile, Sater is still working for the FBI , according to two cu