Americans Need Plain Sight


Justin Smith tackles the glaring absence of substantiated bias against President Trump and FOR Crooked Hillary in Michael Horowitz’s Inspector General Report on FBI/DOJ investigations.

 

JRH 6/18/18

Please Support NCCR

************************

Americans Need Plain Sight

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 6/16/2018 8:37 PM

 

The FBI brass must have needed hazmat suits to scrub DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on agency misconduct in the 2016 elections, since the evidence of treason at the highest level of government was abundant. The truth is being hidden, and the result is a fiction representative of something out of Orwell’s ‘1984’; and so, we must do everything within our power to force the issue in opposition to status quo voices in government and the media, who are not representing the U.S. Constitution and objectives based on our founding virtues, We must hold these criminals, these traitors, in the FBI, the DOJ and elsewhere within the government,  accountable for illegally working to prevent Donald Trump from winning the election and afterwards trying to unseat him from power.

 

The five-hundred page IG Report was released on June 12th 2018, and it  barely scrapes the surface of previous known acts of sedition and espionage, if not treason. It doesn’t really address anything that the American people were not already aware had occurred. I made note of the Peter Strzok and Lisa Page texts in January 2018, just as the IG Report recently did.

 

Page texted Strzok in August 2016 and asked, “(Trump’s) not ever going to become president, right? Right?”  “No. No he won’t,” Strzok responded. Why are these two FBI agents still working for the FBI? This is treason at the FBI and heads must roll.

 

And yet, in regards to investigative decisions by FBI Deputy Director Assistant Peter Strzok, the lead investigator on the Clinton email case and the Russia investigation, and Lisa Page, Special Counsel to the Deputy Director, Inspector General Michael Horowitz incredibly offers us that there was “no evidence that the conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations”.

 

Among several other important items, the report also gives Hillary Clinton a pass on the mishandling of Top Secret information, even though it’s unfathomable that any career government official would not realize that an insecure system was not any place for those conversations. Seven email chains that were classified at the Top Secret/ Special Access Program level went through Clinton’s private server in an unsecured manner, and it is now known, that the Russians did, in fact, access them, as reported by Fox News.

 

This was willful and criminal misconduct by Hillary Clinton, because the gap between unclassified and Top Secret was so wide and obvious. She had to know her actions were criminal and illegal, and there was a purpose and a deception at work here, namely to cover up the illegal actions she and Obama took in Libya and across the Middle East [Blog Editor: Possible reference HERE & HERE].

 

Horowitz’s report split hairs with the definition of “gross negligence” — concluding that the term encompassed conduct “so gross as to almost suggest deliberate intention” or something that falls just short of being willful.”

 

Horowitz found that Hillary Clinton did not intend to violate the law, much in the disingenuous fashion that former FBI Director James Comey did. Any person capable of reading the law and cogent thought knows that our prisons are full of people whose crimes were not intentional, but they were still prosecuted and imprisoned for breaking the law.

 

This report has all the appearances of a whitewash and an evasion of the FBI’s troubling role in this garbage barge of institutional roguery. Americans remain in the dark, due to questions left unanswered, such as what really transpired between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch during their July 2016 airport tête-à-tête, a few days before Comey let Hillary, a presidential candidate, off the hook on the email server issue? How was it not a conflict of interest for Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe’s wife to receive $700,000 for her state legislative race, from Clinton’s campaign bag-man, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe? How did the wife of a top FBI agent, Bruce Ohr, get on the payroll of Fusion GPS, the company that brokered the Steele Dossier? And how did the FBI conceal the fact from the judges who ruled on FISA warrants against President Trump and his associates, that the Steele Dossier was bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign?

 

There isn’t a hint of any IG Report on other FBI abuse of power. like inserting an actual spy into President Trump’s campaign. Neither is there any attention given the FBI concealment of Obama’s lie and denial he knew anything about Clinton’s secret server.

 

What alternate universe is Horowitz from and when are some of these criminals and traitors to the United States going to be prosecuted and thrown into the deepest, darkest dungeon, underneath a prison?

 

U.S. Attorney John Huber has supposedly been investigating several of these crimes since November 2017. His boss, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has informed House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) that such an investigation is within the full scope of Huber’s existing mandate. With 470 investigators, Huber has enormous investigative firepower that far exceeds the staff of any special counsel.

Americans need plain sight and new leaders with plain sight, pure and simple, because something evil is coursing through the halls of our government and in the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation these days. Anytime an average citizen can recognize the multiple acts of treason that were committed by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and their minions, through the State Department, the FBI and the Department of Justice, but career federal agents dismiss them as oversights or “unintended”, something is terribly wrong, and if the Inspector General’s Report is any indication, our Republic is on its last dying legs, unless the patriots of America can right the Republic, peacefully or not.

 

Make a public demand for Justice.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_______________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text embraced by brackets as well as source links  are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

Judicial Watch Uncovers Hidden Strzok Emails in Latest Production of Clinton-Lynch Tarmac Meeting…


Judicial Watch issued a press release discovering the fix was planned ahead of time to exonerate Crooked Hillary. I can hardly wait to hear or read conclusions of the Inspector General to see if criminal actions can be executed in relation to the FBI/DOJ coverup.

 

JRH 6/8/18

Please Support NCCR

**********************

Judicial Watch Uncovers Hidden Strzok Emails in Latest Production of Clinton-Lynch Tarmac Meeting Docs—Strzok Email Suggests Clinton Investigation Decision Made in April 2016

 

Press Release

JUNE 07, 2018

Judicial Watch

 

FBI Security Official Reacts to Tarmac Meeting: Job is To Protect Comey from Embarrassment

 

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released 16 pages of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) documents related to the June 2016 tarmac meeting between former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton showing involvement of the FBI’s former Chief of Counterespionage Peter Strzok.

 

The FBI originally informedJudicial Watch they could not locate any records related to the tarmac meeting.  However, in a related FOIA lawsuit, the Justice Department located emails in which Justice Department officials communicated with the FBI and wrote that they had communicated with the FBI.  As a result, by letterdated August 10, 2017, the FBI stated, “Upon further review, we subsequently determined potentially responsive documents may exist. As a result, your [FOIA] request has been reopened …”  This is the second batch of documents the FBI produced since telling Judicial Watch they had no tarmac-related records.

 

The new documents were obtained by Judicial Watch in response to an October 2016 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice  (No. 1:16-cv-02046)) filed after the Justice Department failed to comply with a July 7, 2016, FOIA request seeking:

 

  • All FD-302 forms prepared pursuant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server during her tenure.

 

  • All records of communications between any agent, employee, or representative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding, concerning, or related to the aforementioned investigation. This request includes, but is not limited to, any related communications with any official, employee, or representative of the Department of Justice, the Executive Office of the President, the Democratic National Committee, and/or the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton.

 

  • All records related to the meeting between Attorney General Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on June 27, 2016.

 

In a previously unseen email, on July 1, 2016, Strzok forwarded to Bill Priestap, assistant director of FBI counterintelligence, and other FBI officials an article in The New York Times titled then “ Lynch to Remove Herself From Decision Over Clinton Emails, Official Says.” Priestap comments on it, saying: “The meeting in PX is all over CNN TV news this morning …” Strzok replies: “Timing’s not ideal in that it falsely adds to those seeking the ‘this is all choreographed’ narrative. But I don’t think it’s worth changing … later won’t be better.”  Priestap responds “Agreed.”

 

In November 2017, Judicial Watch revealed 29 pages of FBI documents showing officials were concerned about a leak that Bill Clinton delayed his aircraft taking off in order to “maneuver” a meeting with the attorney general.  The resulting story in the Observer was discussed in this production of documents. The Strzok email was absent from this production.

 

Another Strzok email suggest the decision on the Clinton email matter has been under discussion since April 2016—three months before then-FBI Director James Comey announced he would recommend no prosecution.

 

On July 3, 2016, an email with the subject line “Must Read Security Article” someone from the FBI’s Security Division (SECD) forwards the article in the Observer and reveals concern:

 

I believe that the source quoted in the article is one of the local Phoenix LEO’s [law enforcement officers]. Needless to say that I have contacted the Phoenix office and will contact the local’s [sic] who assisted in an attempt to stem any further damage. This is exactly why our Discretion and Judgement are the foundation of the AG’s trust in our team, which is why we can never violate that trust, like the source did in this article.” [Emphasis in original]

 

A July 1, 2016, email from an unidentified official in the FBI Security Division sent to officials in several FBI offices with the subject line “Media Reports***Not for Dissemination***”, sent in the wake of the tarmac meeting, an FBI official warns his colleagues (with emphasis) “Our job is to protect the boss from harm and embarrassment.” [Emphasis in original] He emphasizes that FBI officials should ask themselves “What issues are currently being reported in the media? And what actions/interactions/situations that the Director may be in could impact them.” The official then cites an example of a public relations disaster near-miss when Comey’s plane “literally just missed Clinton’s plane” when they flew into the White Plains, NY airport (HPN) a few months earlier, and saying, “Imagine the optics and the awkward situation we would have put the Director in we would have been at the FBO at the same time as Secretary Clinton.”

 

In a July 1, 2016 email exchange FBI Section Chief Rachel Rojas warns a colleague to “stay away” from discussion of the Clinton Lynch tarmac meeting following publication of the meeting, unless they hear from a “higher up”. The colleague responds the next day, telling Rojas not to worry because, “I know better <winking.>” He/she adds that “it was DOJ opa [Office of Public Affairs] who threw us under the bus.” Rojas replies “Doj is likely overwhelmed so in [sic] hoping it wasn’t intentional. I know it wasn’t you guys because I know you have great judgement. Nothing good would come from that. Her staff should have avoided that scenario. The bu[reau] will be fine but obviously disappointed on how this is happening. Unfortunately, she’s taking heat from all over the place and I feel bad for her. I know she didn’t want this on her plate or for this to happen.” The colleague then concludes by saying that he/she thought the leaker was “a Phoenix cop assisting with the motorcade.”

 

“These emails are astonishing, no wonder the FBI hid them from Judicial Watch and the court,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “They show anti-Trump, pro-Clinton FBI Agent Peter Strzok admitting the decision not to prosecute the Clinton email issue was made back in April 2016 – long before even Hillary Clinton was interviewed.  And the new emails show that the FBI security had the political objective of protecting then-Director Comey from ‘embarrassment’—which is, frankly, disturbing.”

 

On June 27, 2016, Attorney General Loretta Lynch met with former President Bill Clinton on board a parked plane at Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix, Arizona.  The meeting occurred during the then-ongoing investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s email server, and only a few days before she was interviewed the Justice Department and FBI.  (Judicial Watch filed  a request on June 30 that the U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General investigate that meeting.)

 

The tarmac meeting also came just days before former FBI Director James Comey held the July 5, 2016, press conference in which he announced that no charges would be filed against Mrs. Clinton. In his subsequent, May 3, 2017, testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Comey said the Lynch-Clinton tarmac meeting was the “capper” among “a number of things” that had caused him to determine that Department of Justice leadership “could not credibly complete the investigation and decline prosecution without grievous damage to the American people’s confidence in the justice system.”

 

________________________

© 2018 Judicial Watch, Inc.

 

Judicial Watch is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Contributions are received from individuals, foundations, and corporations and are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.

 

425 Third Street SW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20024
888-593-8442

 

About Judicial Watch

 

Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law. Through its educational endeavors, Judicial Watch advocates high standards of ethics and morality in our nation’s public life and seeks to ensure that political and judicial officials do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American people. Judicial Watch fulfills its educational mission through litigation, investigations, and public outreach.

 

The motto of Judicial Watch is “Because no one is above the law”. To this end, Judicial Watch uses the open records or freedom of information laws and other tools to investigate and uncover misconduct by government officials and litigation to hold to account politicians and public officials who engage in corrupt activities.

 

Litigation and the civil discovery process not only uncover information for the education of the American people on anti-corruption issues, but can also provide a basis for civil authorities to criminally prosecute corrupt officials. Judicial Watch seeks to ensure high ethical standards in the judiciary through monitoring activities and the use of the judicial ethics process to hold judges to account.

 

Judicial Watch’s investigation, legal, and judicial activities provide the basis for strong educational outreach to the American people. Judicial Watch’s public education programs include READ THE REST

 

8 Times Obama’s Intelligence Agencies Set People Up To Fabricate The Russia Story


Now here is a collusion list that is sure to inspire massive lying deflection with such beginning phrases as “But Trump did …

 

Have you noticed that NOT one scintilla of corroborated evidence has been produced to suggest that President Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016? My God! It’s 2018 and the Dems pulling all the stops and lies to remove the President from Office.

 

AND YET, there is a huge (or YUGE) amount of public information of not only collusion but also corruption within the Obama/Crooked Hillary camp to steal the 2016 election or (in the blessed event that won Trump won) impeach the President.

 

Willis L. Krumholz writing for The Federalist illustrates a clear picture of actions that should lead to criminal prosecution.

 

JRH 6/6/18

Please Support NCCR

************************

8 Times Obama’s Intelligence Agencies Set People Up To Fabricate The Russia Story

These events should anger any red-blooded American who believes in representative democracy and the importance of the rule of law.

 

Daily Briefing – Obama & Clapper

 

By Willis L. Krumholz

JUNE 6, 2018

The Federalist

 

The intelligence bureaucracies spied on the Donald Trump campaign: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants were granted because of a Hillary Clinton-funded and unverified document, national-security letters were issued to allow warrantless spying, and the unprecedented but not-illegal-per-se unmasking of Trump officials’ conversations with non-U.S. persons was shockingly routine.

 

Yet the news of a CIA-connected human source operating as far back as April or May of 2016 is about more than just spying. It is the latest example in what now looks to be a long line of attempted setups by the Clinton team, many times aided and abetted by our intelligence bureaucracies.

 

These events should anger any red blooded American who believes in representative democracy and the importance of the rule of law. Let’s review eight examples.

 

  1. CIA And FBI ‘Human Intelligence’

 

We’ve just learned about Stefan Halper, a CIA-connected Cambridge professor who — working for the FBI — contacted Trump advisers Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, and Sam Clovis during the 2016 election, to investigate what they might know about suspicions of collusion with Russia. Former Trump campaign aide Michael Caputo has claimed that he was approached by an unknown second U.S. intelligence community asset in early May of 2016.

 

The FBI says that the Russia investigation began in July, because of something Papadopoulos said to an Australian diplomat in May. Papadopoulos had supposedly told the Australian diplomat something about Russia having information that “could be damaging” to Clinton. Papadopoulos allegedly heard this from Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese-born professor who allegedly claimed to have close ties with Russia.

 

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team charged Papadopoulos — unconvincingly — with lying to investigators, because Papadopoulos said his contacts with Mifsud began before he was on the Trump campaign. Actually, the contacts started after he “learned he would be a foreign policy advisor for the campaign,” but before the campaign made a public announcement that he was to be an advisor.

 

Mifsud is strangely now in hiding, possibly fearing for his life. Lee Smith details Mifsud’s ties to Western intelligence agencies, and Margot Cleveland suspects Mifsud may have been a U.S. intelligence plant along with Halper.

 

  1. The Trump Tower Meeting

 

Whenever Democrats or David French types talk about Trump and Russia collusion they look to the Trump Tower meeting as definitive proof. There are several problems with that. First, no presidential campaign in American history would pass up the chance of hearing evidence of crimes being committed by their opponent, no matter the source. In fact, some would say you’re doing the country a favor if you let everyone know that your opponent is subject to blackmail from a not-so-friendly foreign power (just don’t have your son and son-in-law sit in on the meeting).

 

More problematic is that Glenn Simpson — head of Fusion GPS, the firm being paid by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to prove (or create) ties between Trump and Russia — met with the two Russians who attended the Trump Tower meeting both before and after the meeting. Simpson’s excuse for doing so? Because he was working with the two Russians on a different issue, the repeal of the anti-Kremlin Magnitsky Act.

 

In other words, at the very least, the firm that created the dossier for Clinton and the DNC — using Russian intelligence sources — was the same firm that was working with the Kremlin to repeal a law passed by Congress because Putin’s thugs beat an innocent man to death in Russian prison. At most, this was yet another setup.

 

  1. Mike Flynn And The Logan Act

 

During the 2016 campaign, Democrats howled about the need to prosecute Trump campaign officials under an obscure 1799 law called the Logan Act. Byron York has documented that this was the pretext Obama-appointed former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates used to unmask former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s side of highly-appropriate phone conversations with the Russian ambassador that occurred during the transition period, and then send FBI agents to interview Flynn about those conversations.

 

Although the FBI has tried to cover this up, we now know that the agents who interviewed Flynn — including the disgraced and hugely anti-Trump Peter Strzok — didn’t believe that Flynn had lied. Nevertheless, Mueller’s team charged Flynn with lying to the FBI. After Mueller’s charge had nearly bankrupted Flynn, and after Mueller threatened to go after Flynn’s son, Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI.

 

  1. Andrew McCabe Sets Up Reince Priebus

 

After an intelligence briefing at the White House in early 2017, former FBI number two Andrew McCabe asked to meet privately with former White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. A story had just dropped — anonymously sourced from multiple intelligence community officials — that Trump aides had multiple contacts with Russian intelligence during the election.

 

McCabe wanted to tell Priebus that the FBI didn’t think the story was true. Of course, Priebus asked McCabe if the FBI could publicly say just that. McCabe said he would have to check. But former FBI Director James Comey called Priebus to say that the FBI couldn’t publicly shoot down the story.

 

Days later, the “breaking news” on CNN was that the White House had tried to pressure the FBI into batting down the reports on supposed ties between Trump and Russia. So not only was the White House supposedly colluding, now there were allegations of obstruction of justice.

 

  1. Brennan Shops Dossier To Harry Reid

 

Former CIA Director John Brennan, who may have been the U.S. intelligence official to first push an investigation into the Trump campaign, briefed then-Sen. Harry Reid on the Clinton-funded dossier in August 2016.

 

The briefing did two things: First, it lent some legitimacy to the dossier, and second, it got Reid to pressure the FBI to not drop the investigation. The briefing had the added bonus of allowing Reid to speak publicly about Trump’s ties to Russia, as if he had just gained access to groundbreaking proof of collusion, which was of course covered by the media.

 

  1. Comey And Clapper Give CNN A Reason To Publish The Dossier

 

Comey, at the behest of former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, briefed Trump on one of the allegations in the dossier, but not on the main allegation in the dossier, who had funded the dossier, or how that dossier was being used by the FBI. Nevertheless, this briefing looks like one more setup, meant to allow CNN to report on the existence of the dossier as if it were highly verified and being seriously examined by U.S. intelligence community officials.

 

Clapper then leaked information about the dossier and the briefings to CNN, and later looks to have lied about those leaks to Congress. Amazingly, Clapper has previously lied to Congress. Clapper now works for CNN.

 

  1. The Jeff Sessions Recusal

 

Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation after anonymous intelligence community leaks about his contacts with Russians. Specifically, Sessions — as a senator — met with former Russian ambassador to the U.S. Sergei Kislyak in his D.C. office. In another meeting, Sessions gave a speech and a gaggle of diplomats — including Kislyak — talked with him for several minutes as he was coming off the stage.

 

The idea behind the unnecessary recusal was that somehow Sessions had misrepresented these contacts to former Sen. Al Franken. Actually, Franken — referring to one of many CNN stories sourced by anonymous officials about supposed Trump and Russia collusion — had clearly asked about whether Sessions had colluded with any Russians during the campaign, not whether Sessions had ever met any Russians.

 

  1. Rosenstein Recommends Comey Firing, Appoints Special Counsel

 

But with Jeff Sessions out of the way, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein became the acting attorney general for all things Russia-investigation-related. Rosenstein then recommended Comey’s firing, and then — overseeing the investigation that stemmed from that firing — appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel. Mueller, a former FBI Director, happened to be a close associate of Comey and Rosenstein, and would surely want to protect the interests of the FBI and the Justice Department.

 

Taken together, these setups indicate a massive effort to aid the Clinton campaign before the election.

 

After all, the entire theory of Trump-Russia collusion originated with the Clinton campaign in the lead-up to the Democrat National Convention, when it became clear that the DNC had experienced a document theft. That document theft was highly embarrassing to Clinton and the DNC, as it revealed that the DNC had been systematically stacking the deck against Bernie Sanders. The immediate goal, then, was to both distract from the mistreatment of Bernie, and completely peel the GOP national security establishment away from Trump. The Clinton campaign was successful in both of these efforts.

 

Later, during the general election, whenever Hillary’s misdeeds came up, Clinton responded by pointing to Trump’s nefarious ties with Russia. Distasteful as it may seem, this was Machiavellian politics 101. Any focus group of voters would have told the Clinton people that Hillary was the steady hand, but that they had ethical concerns about her, and also sought a change from the status quo. The way to counteract this reluctance was to paint Hillary’s opponent as ethically challenged, too, and paint his alternative to the status quo as downright dangerous. (You might say that Trump was an easy target here, but look what the Obama-campaign did to Romney.)

 

Dirty tricks are of course not new to American politics. But the apparent involvement of the U.S. intelligence community in these setups is deeply troubling. Democrats, intelligence bureaucrats, and the media have told us that the investigation started with Page. When that fell apart, they said the investigation started with Papadopoulos. Now, the Papadopoulos origination story is falling apart too.

 

It now looks like the corrupt and highly partisan upper-echelon of the U.S. intelligence community started their preliminary investigation as soon as the Clinton people — in the run-up to the Democratic convention — began claiming that there were ties between Trump and Russia. During this same time, Clinton and the DNC paid Fusion GPS, which hired Chris Steele to dig up ties between Trump and Russia.

 

This is nothing more than prosecutorial point and shoot, where corrupt big-government politicians send the corrupt and sympathetic federal bureaucracy after their political enemies. It’s no different than what happened with Lois Lerner at the Internal Revenue Service. Democrats gave speeches and sent official letters, Obama implied he wanted action, and dutiful bureaucrats did the rest.

 

With the intelligence agencies on board, legitimacy was lent to the Hillary Clinton campaign’s wild claims. All the media had to do in the weeks before Election Day was to frantically report that Trump’s campaign was being investigated, and that a document containing allegations of Trump-Russia ties (the “dossier”) was being seriously looked into by intelligence officials. That fed back to the voters, and certainly made many feel a little bit better about voting for Clinton, or not voting for Trump.

 

After the election, it has been all about C.Y.A., because these corrupt bureaucrats leading these intelligence bureaucracies never imagined Trump would win. Here, ladies and gentleman, is your real election interference and collusion: between the massive, all-powerful and unaccountable intelligence bureaucracies, the media, the Obama administration, and the Clinton campaign.

____________________

Willis L. Krumholz is a fellow at Defense Priorities. He holds a JD and MBA degree from the University of St. Thomas, and works in the financial services industry. The views expressed are those of the author only. You can follow Willis on Twitter @WillKrumholz.

 

Copyright © 2018 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.

 

Watch ‘Obama’s America’ & Understand Deep State Criminals


John R. Houk

© June 4, 2018

 

Dinesh D’Souza released a documentary in 2012 entitled, “2016: Obama’s America.” The documentary so inflamed Obama by revealing the truth during his reelection year in 2012, he unleashed his DOJ on D’Souza to find anything that enable D’Souza’s arrest to shut him up.

 

Sound familiar?

 

The Obama DOJ found that D’Souza made a minor campaign donation infraction in support of Wendy Long’s GOP campaign to gain the Senate seat vacated by Crooked Hillary in New York. Long was clobbered by current Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.

 

Here is what led to Dinesh D’Souza pleading guilty:

 

Conservative filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza, whose documentary 2016: Obama’s America took a critical look at President Barack Obama and was a surprise hit in 2012, will be arrested in New York on Friday for allegedly violating campaign-finance laws, The Hollywood Reporter has learned.

Federal authorities accuse D’Souza of donating more than is legal to the campaign of Wendy Long, who ran in 2012 for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton three years earlier but lost to incumbent Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. Long, though, is not mentioned in an indictment obtained by THR on Thursday.

Insiders say D’Souza has been friends with Long since they attended Dartmouth College together in the early 1980s. According to the indictment, D’Souza donated $20,000 to Long’s campaign by aggregating the money from various people and falsely reporting the source of the funds. But Gerald Molen, a co-producer of 2016, says the charge is politically motivated. (‘2016: Obama’s America’ Filmmaker Indicted for Violating Campaign Finance Laws; By Paul Bond; The Hollywood Reporter; 1/23/14 3:16 PM PST)

 

Was it a normal occurrence to receive prison time for this kind of campaign violation?

 

Nothing unleashes mental terror like the thought of spending time in incarceration. It might be an exaggeration to call where Dinesh D’Souza slept for the last eight months jail, but the longtime conservative author, and in recent years anti-Obama filmmaker, was just released from a San Diego work release center.

 

The place where D’Souza had had to report every night after pleading guilty to campaign finance violations was riddled with hardened violent criminals, but he was far from terrorized or intimidated.

 

Time served is almost always a subtraction from the life of a convict. Not the case with D’Souza. Not only did he begin writing a new book; he also raised funds for a new film to coincide with next year’s presidential campaign, formulated what will become the sequel to his 2014 film “America: Imagine the World without Her,” taught English to about 100 Hispanic immigrants and in the process claims to have transformed most of them from socialist-leaning Democrats to Republican voters.

 

D’Souza’s conviction was clearly political retribution. Compare attorney Pierce O’Donnell, who gave $26,000 in illegal contributions to 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards and ended up facing only misdemeanor charges. (Dinesh D’Souza’s Time In Jail Was Well Spent; By THOMAS MCARDLE; IBD; 6/1/15)

 

D’Souza’s felony conviction was politically motivated, DUH!

 

Conservative filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza claimed Monday that a newly released case file on his 2014 prosecution for violating campaign finance laws shows he was targeted under the Obama administration for “political” reasons.

 

D’Souza, in an interview on “Fox & Friends,” said that former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara’s office and the Obama administration had been blocking a “congressional oversight committee” from obtaining the file, but Congress has since received it.

 

“There’s evidence in this case file, and there’s a lot more, that this was a political prosecution conducted by Bharara as a henchman for the Obama administration,” he said. (Dinesh D’Souza claims case file reveals his prosecution was ‘political’; Fox News; 3/13/17)

 

Comparing D’Souza’s penalty to the typical penalty:

 

… As Hamilton elaborated in Federalist No. 74, “The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel.”

 

The selective, politicized prosecution of conservative author, producer, and activist Dinesh D’Souza was an exercise in gratuitous severity. President Trump’s pardon of D’Souza, announced today, is the remedy the Framers had in mind.

 

D’Souza was (and is) a strident anti-Obama critic. He committed a trivial campaign-finance violation. This is not to excuse the conduct; it is to reaffirm the principle that the punishment should fit the crime, and to observe that the conduct at issue is typically not treated as a crime at all. Routinely, misconduct of the kind engaged in by D’Souza is settled by payment of an administrative fine to the Federal Election Commission. In stark contrast, the Obama Justice Department not only selectively prosecuted D’Souza; prosecutors turned the case into a multiple felony indictment.

 

Here’s how I described it at the time:

 

So now the Obama administration has indicted D’Souza for not one but two felony charges, arising out of alleged campaign-finance irregularities. Specifically, he is accused of corruptly reimbursing straw donors to the campaign of Wendy Long, Republican candidate in the New York Senate race — contributions D’Souza could not lawfully make himself because he was already “maxed out” at the $5,000 ceiling.

… The $20,000 amount of the offense alleged is puny — a negligible fraction of the Solyndra scam and a figure that would not even register … It is the kind of case on which the government routinely declines criminal prosecution, handling, instead, by an administrative fine.

D’Souza has no criminal record. Moreover, contrary to myriad voter-fraud violations that Attorney General Holder will not lift a finger to pursue, the transactions at issue posed no conceivable threat to the integrity of the election process: Ms. Long lost by 46 points. …

As Legal Insurrection’s Bill Jacobson notes, the 2008 Obama campaign was caught illegally hiding not $20,000 but nearly $2 million in irregular contributions (in addition to dragging its feet on the return of millions more in suspect donations). You probably don’t remember that because — I know this will shock you — the Obama Justice Department didn’t prosecute anyone. It was considered a mere hiccup: resolved by a fine considerably smaller than the $500,000 in bail D’Souza was forced to post lest he be detained pending trial on his multiple-felony indictment for conduct worth 25 times less that amount.

 

The Obama Justice Department’s extortionate tactic of turning a regulatory violation into a potential seven-year felony put enormous pressure on D’Souza to plead guilty. When he did, rather than just accept its pound of flesh, the Justice Department aggressively pushed for a prison sentence. A bravura performance at the sentencing proceeding by D’Souza’s lawyer, Ben Brafman, convinced the sentencing judge not to imprison him; but D’Souza was still confined to a halfway house for several months … (A Worthy Pardon for Dinesh D’Souza; By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY; National Review; 5/31/18 5:24 PM)

 

If Obama could persecute D’Souza unjustly, do you think Obama’s Deep State acolytes would do less to nail President Trump with any kind trivial or fabricated legal violation?

 

So, I found D’Souza’s FULL documentary of “2016: Obama’s America.” If you’ve never watched, it’s a good time to do. Understand what political power does to Democrats.

 

JRH 6/4/18

Please Support NCCR

***************************

VIDEO: 2016 Obamas America – full movie

 

Posted by Erna Lohwasser

Published on Nov 29, 2016

 

Leaked Confidential Letter from Trump’s Lawyer to Mueller…


By now you have heard that someone leaked a confidential 20-page memo that was sent from President Trump’s lawyers in January 2018 to Special Persecutor Robert Mueller. Mueller had requested that President Trump appear for questioning about alleged Obstruction of Justice. In short, the memo’s purpose informed Mueller that he can cross that off his bucket list because it wasn’t happening.

 

The part of the memo you probably won’t hear from the Mainstream Media is that it implicates former Deputy Attorney General as a dog-faced liar.

 

The Gateway Pundit has the story.

 

JRH 6/3/18

Please Support NCCR

*****************************

Leaked Confidential Letter from Trump’s Lawyer to Mueller on Jan. 29 Likely Spells Doom for Liar Sally Yates

On Saturday, the fake news New York Times published all 20 pages of a confidential memo Trump’s lawyers sent Robert Mueller in January. 

 

By Jim Hoft

June 2, 2018

Gateway Pundit

 

Deep State & Trump

 

On Saturday, The New York Times published a confidential memo written by Trump’s lawyers to Mueller dated January 29, 2018.

 

Mr. Trump’s lawyers hand-delivered a 20-page confidential letter to Mr. Mueller in January. The letter was a response to his request that Mr. Trump agree to be questioned about allegations that he committed obstruction of justice. The lawyers argued that Mr. Mueller does not need to talk to the president and laid out a series of claims that foreshadow a potential fight over a subpoena, were the special counsel to try to force the president to testify.

 

The Times obtained a copy of the letter as well as an earlier one sent to Mr. Mueller in June 2017, a month after he was appointed, which argues that “there is no statutory or constitutional basis for any obstruction charge” based on Mr. Trump’s firing of James B. Comey as F.B.I. director.

 

The leaked letter could spell doom for former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates.

 

Sally Yates

 

According to the contents of the letter Sally Yates lied to federal investigators about the Mike Flynn probe.

Attorney Nick Short pointed out the former Deputy Attorney General’s deceit.

 

From the report…

On January 24, 2017, Lt. Gen. Flynn was interviewed in the White House by FBI.

The FBI operatives believed Flynn provided truthful answers.

 

On January 26, 2017, Sally Yates met with White House Counsel Dan McGahn and told him Flynn lied.

 

Yates Implication in Memo

 

On January 27, 2017, Sally Yates and McGahn had another meeting and Yates lied about the ongoing witch hunt against the Trump team and she threw Michael Flynn, an innocent man, under the bus.

 

Yates Lies About Witch Hunt

 

Later the FBI told Michael Flynn he would not be charged and they were closing out his investigation.

 

Flynn Told Not to Be Charged

 

Then deep state hacks later charged him with lying to federal investigators. Sally Yates should find a good lawyer.

 

________________________

© 2018 The Gateway Pundit – All Rights Reserved.

 

About Gateway Pundit

 

 

Tinker, Tailor, Clapper, Carter, Downer, Halper, Spy


In this Jewish World Review post, Mark Steyn relates the obvious to readers: There was indeed interference in the 2016 election cycle, BUT it was not Donald Trump colluding with Russians. Rather it was the Dems and their Deep State comrades in the Obama Administration pulling out ALL efforts to make Trump was not elected. OR if elected, to undermine President Trump so malignantly, he’d get impeached or resign.

 

JRH 5/28/18

Please Support NCCR

**************************

Tinker, Tailor, Clapper, Carter, Downer, Halper, Spy

 

By Mark Steyn

May 28,2018

Jerusalem World Review

 

Facts – Myths

 

As I think most persons paying attention now realize, the investigation into foreign interference with the 2016 election was created as a cover for domestic interference with the 2016 election.

 

It was run at the highest (or deepest) Deep State levels by the likes of James Clapper and John Brennan, whose frantic and hysterical Tweets are like no utterances of any CIA director in history. That also explains one of the puzzling aspects of the last year that I’ve occasionally mentioned here and on TV and radio: If you were truly interested in an “independent” Special Counsel, why would you appoint Robert Mueller? He’s a lifetime insider and the most connected man in Washington – a longtime FBI Director, and Assistant Attorney-General and acting Deputy Attorney-General at the Department of Justice.

 

Exactly. His most obvious defect as an “independent” counsel is, in fact, his principal value to the likes of Andrew McCabe and Rod Rosenstein: He knows, personally, almost every one in the tight little coterie of discredited upper-echelon officials, and he has a deep institutional loyalty to bodies whose contemporary character he helped create. In other words, he’s the perfect guy to protect those institutions. As for the nominal subject of his investigation, well, he’s indicted a bunch of no-name Russian internet trolls who’ll never set foot in a US courthouse. That’s not even worth the cost of printing the complaint. Rush Limbaugh has been kind enough to quote, several times, my line that “there are no Russians in the Russia investigation”. Which is true. Yet that doesn’t mean there aren’t foreigners. And an inordinate number of them are British subjects – or, to use today’s preferred term, “Commonwealth citizens”. All the action in this case takes place not in Moscow but in southern England.

 

Let’s start at Cambridge University with a two-day conference called “2016’s Race to Change the World“, held on July 11th and 12th 2016 – or three weeks before the FBI supposedly began its “counterintelligence” operation against Trump, codenamed “Crossfire Hurricane”. That’s from the first line of the Rolling Stones’ “Jumpin’ Jack Flash”. The song and its key signature figure in the plot of a ho-hum Cold War thriller of the same name, about a British spy trying to get info from the Russians to an [sic] heroic American woman.

 

Yes, really. Jonathan Pryce played “Jumpin’ Jack Flash” , and I asked him about it when I moderated a panel on acting at St Catherine’s College, Oxford with him and Patti Lupone a few years later.

 

If you think that’s a weird event for an Oxbridge college to host, it’s as nothing to this “Race to Change the World” beano. I do my share of international junketing, but the bill of fare for this curious symposium is so bland as to be almost generic – panels titled “Europe and America”, “2016 and the World”, “Global Challenges Facing the Next President”. Compared to the laser-like focus of a typical Cambridge confab (“A Westphalia for the Middle East?“), it’s almost as if someone were trying to create an event so anodyne and torpid no one would notice it. All that distinguished these colorless presentations was the undoubted eminence of the speakers: former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright; former UK Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind; and Sir Richard Dearlove, former C (that’s M, for 007 fans) at MI6. The conference appears to have been put together at a couple of weeks’ notice by Steven Schrage, former “Co-Chair of the G8’s Anti-Crime and Terrorism Group” and a well-connected man on the counterterrorism cocktail circuit: Here he is introducing Mitt Romney to the director of the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center, and here he is spending election night in the UK at a party with Scotland Yard elite counterterrorist types. Make of that what you will – it’s a somewhat odd background for the convenor of an insipid, vanilla, cookie-cutter foreign-policy seminar – but among the small number of strangely prestigious attendees at Mr Schrage’s conference were:

 

~Carter Page, a petroleum-industry executive and Trump campaign volunteer;

 

~Christopher Steele, the former head of the Russia house at MI6;

 

~Stefan Halper, a University of Cambridge professor with dual UK/US citizenship.

 

Today, Mr Page is better known as the endlessly surveilled “person of interest” whose eternally renewable FISA warrant was the FBI’s gateway into the Trump campaign; Mr Steele is a sometime FBI asset who, a week before the Cambridge conference, had approached the G-men with the now famous “dossier” that provided the pretext for the FISA application; and Professor Halper turns out to be not some tweedy academic but a man with deep connections to MI6 and the CIA, on the payroll of something at the Pentagon called the “Office of Net Assessment”, and (one of) the supposed FBI informant(s) inside the Trump circle.

 

Carter Page says that in the course of this two-day conference he met Professor Halper for the first time. But I was struck by this aside Mr Page made to Sara Carter:

 

Madeliene [sic] Albright was always trying to get me to go into public debates. I told her I was there just as a listener, just as an attendee.

 

Hmm. If you’ll forgive another Patti Lupone-type digression, many years ago our mutual pal Ned Sherrin decided to launch, just for a laugh, a rumor that me and Carol Thatcher (Mrs T’s daughter) were having an affair. Ned told somebody, and somebody told somebody else, and about eight months later it turned up as an item in Nigel Dempster’s highly authoritative Daily Mail gossip column, along with a rather goofy picture of me and Carol at a David Frost shindig at the Grosvenor House in Park Lane. And Ned was stunned – because he assumed the Daily Mail story was true. Because, by the time it circled back to him, he’d clean forgotten he’d started the whole business.

 

Oddly enough, that’s exactly how James Comey and Andrew McCabe and John Brennan work. At the FISA court, the FBI, to bolster their reliance on the Steele dossier, pointed to newspaper stories appearing to corroborate aspects of it – even though, as he subsequently testified under oath at the Old Bailey, those stories were in fact fed to those reporters by Steele himself. Nevertheless, it works like a charm on gullible FISA judges. You take one thing and you make it two things. Or even better, you take nothing and you make it a thing: Here, from yesterday’s letter by Senator Ron Johnson, are McCabe, Sally Yates and other FBI/DOJ honchos arranging for Comey to brief Trump on the Steele dossier for the sole purpose of giving CNN a news peg for leaking details about what’s in it.

 

It’s almost as if that’s what Madeleine Albright is doing here, isn’t it? It’s one thing to invite Carter Page to show up at some tedious yakfest at Cambridge with Halper sitting in front of him and Chris Steele sitting behind. But what if you could get Page to stand up and say something? Then you could find a friendly journo to report it and, instead of just a nobody on the fringes of the campaign, you’d have a “senior Trump advisor” sharing his thoughts on the global scene with Madam Albright and Sir Richard and Sir Malcolm and all the other bigshots, and then you could use that story three weeks later at the FISA court, to demonstrate how deep into the heart of the campaign the Russkies had penetrated.

 

Instead, Professor Halper has to make do with chit-chatting to Mr Page over the tea and biscuits, and planting the seeds for a friendly relationship.

 

Herewith a note on the academic circuit: emeritus professors and visiting fellows are popular covers with espionage agencies because there’s minimal work and extensive foreign travel, to international talking shops like the one above. If you make the mistake of being a multinational businessman and go to foreign countries to meet with other businessmen, you’ll be investigated up the wazoo. But, if you’re a professor and you go to foreign countries to meet with other professors, the world is your oyster. You also get to meet young people, who are the easiest to recruit.

 

Here’s another professor, and from another Commonwealth country: Malta. Joseph Mifsud is (was) a professorial fellow at the University of Stirling in Scotland, but is (was) based in London as a principal of the “London Centre of International Law Practice” and a director of the “London Academy of Diplomacy”, both of which sound fancy-schmancy but are essentially hollow entities operating from the same premises – 8, Lincoln’s Inn Fields, a tony address (next to the London School of Economics and the Royal College of Surgeons) but the “London Centre/Academy’s” fifth in three years and at which they and a handful of other endeavors are holed up in a minimally furnished back room filled by four interns round a trestle table on fifty quid a week.

 

Professor Mifsud also has (had) similarly undemanding academic sinecures at the “Euro-Mediterranean University” in Slovenia and “Link Campus University” in Italy. At the beginning of March 2016, a young man called George Papadopoulos joined the Trump campaign. On March 14th, traveling through Italy, he met with Professor Mifsud. They got together again in Britain, and at some point Papadopoulos became head of the “London Centre of International Law Practice’s” soi-disant “Centre for International Energy and Natural Resources Law & Security”, a post for which he had no obvious qualifications. Happily, like most other jobs at the “London Centre”, it didn’t require work, or showing up at the “London Centre” or even being in London.

 

Mifsud is said to have ties to high-ranking figures in Moscow, but there seems to be more prima facie evidence of ties to high-ranking figures in London. That’s Professor Mifsud above with my old friend Boris Johnson, Britain’s Foreign Secretary, at some Brexit event last October 19th. On October 31st Joseph Mifsud disappeared and has not been seen since. I know how he feels: The same thing happened to me twelve days after I lunched with Boris at The Spectator in early 2006. Is (was) Mifsud an FSB asset? An MI6 asset? Both? Neither? Well, there’s more circumstantial evidence of Mifsud’s ties to British intelligence, including multiple meetings with, inter alia, Claire Smith of the UK’s Joint Intelligence Committee.

 

At any rate, back in London on April 26th 2016, Professor Mifsud told young Papadopoulos that the Russians have all this “dirt” on Hillary, “thousands of emails”. A couple of days later, a friend of George’s at the Israeli Embassy, Christian Cantor, introduced him to Erika Thompson, who worked for Alexander Downer, Canberra’s High Commissioner in the UK, at Australia House. On May 4th, Papadopoulos was quoted in The Times of London denouncing David Cameron for calling Trump “divisive, stupid and wrong“. On May 6th, Ms Thompson called Papadopoulos to say that Mr Downer wanted to meet him. On May 10th they met for drinks at the Kensington Wine Rooms. Young George claims that the High Commissioner told him to “leave David Cameron alone”. Which doesn’t sound quite right to me.

 

As longtime readers may recall, I have drunk with Alexander Downer and that is not something to be undertaken lightly. Somewhere in the course of the evening a pretty squiffy Papadopoulos lifted his head up from the bowl of cocktail olives and started blabbing about Russian “dirt” on Hillary.

 

Another digression: Mr Downer was Australia’s longest serving foreign minister and, as I used to say in those days, “my favorite foreign minister”. Since then, he has spent many years on the “advisory board” of Hakluyt, a curiously named body set up by former MI6 chaps. I’m not saying he spends his nights rappelling down the walls of presidential palaces (although I would be tickled to be proved wrong), but I don’t think I’m betraying any confidences when I say that, after tea with Alexander in Adelaide a couple of years back, whence he had just returned from some meeting with some group or other in Lisbon, I remember musing about that select circle of people who can jet around the world in the expectation that doors will open for them and some useful tidbit will drop into their laps. As for Hakluyt, its website is here: I do believe it’s the coolest thing I’ve seen since (another long me-‘n’-Carol-type story) I was given Marlon Brando’s business card, which had the words “Marlon” and “Brando” on it and nothing else.

 

At any rate Mr Downer relayed the information about young George to Aussie Intelligence back home. Canberra sat on the info for two months and then passed it along to the Yanks in late July, just in time for that FISA application.

 

And so, as July turned to August, Peter Strzok bade farewell to his “paramour” Lisa Page and flew to London for a sit-down with the High Commissioner at Australia House. When Strzok reported back to Washington, the FBI sicced the omnipresent “professor” Stefan Halper on George Papadopoulos. So the Trump aide woke up one August morning to an email from a Cambridge academic he’d never heard of, inviting him on an all-expenses-paid trip back to Britain to give a speech for $3,000. Once in London, Halper casually inquired of his new friend, “George, you know about hacking the emails from Russia, right?”

 

Right. As Rush put it, the day before I guest-hosted last week:

 

He was a nothing. He was a nobody, which made him a perfect mark. He was a young guy who wanted to go places… He actually put on his résumé that he had participated in Model UN in high school.

 

Just so: Papadopoulos was the perfect mark. And the easiest way to reel him in is to get him off his home turf. In your own neighborhood, you have your routine – your usual bars, favorite restaurants; you notice if something’s off. But, flown to London, you have no routine, no old haunts. You go where you’re invited, you’re introduced to important people – like “High Commissioners”, woshever the hell thash ish, hic – [Blog Editor: As an American I think Steyn is expressing a drunken form of “whoever the hell they is, hiccup] and you want them to think you’re important, too, so you reveal that you know all about the Russian “dirt” on Hillary.

 

So you got that from the Russians, right? Er, no. I got it from a Maltese guy in Italy who’s a Scottish professor and plugged in to MI6, and then I told it to an Australian bloke in London who’s also plugged in to MI6 and told me to lay off David Cameron, and then an American guy in Cambridge who’s plugged in to MI6 reminded me about it to see if I’d deny all knowledge of it, which would be suspicious, wouldn’t it..?

 

As I said, and as Rush likes to quote, there are no Russians in the Russia investigation. But, like that rumor about me and Carol Thatcher, you just put these things out there and a few months later they come back to you, via Canberra and the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing program and suddenly it’s “independently” “corroborated” “evidence” from a respected ally and you can take it to a FISA judge.

 

There were two investigations into presidential candidates during the 2016 election. But, as Andrew McCarthy reminds us, these two investigations were not the same. The Clinton “matter” was a criminal investigation – because there was credible evidence that Hillary had committed criminal acts. The FBI had no such clear-cut goods on Trump. So they had to find something else:

 

The scandal is that the FBI, lacking the incriminating evidence needed to justify opening a criminal investigation of the Trump campaign, decided to open a counterintelligence investigation. With the blessing of the Obama White House, they took the powers that enable our government to spy on foreign adversaries and used them to spy on Americans — Americans who just happened to be their political adversaries.

 

And the advantage of a “counterintelligence investigation”, unlike a criminal investigation, is that everything in it is “classified”. So that even an obvious set-up at a Cambridge confab or Kensington wine bar is “intelligence” that has to be “protected” for “national security” reasons. It’s a brazen, audacious scheme, and unlikely to have been loosed without the approval, however discreetly stated, of the then President. Occam’s Razor suggests that the man running the operation was the CIA’s John Brennan through the “inter-agency taskforce” that met at Langley. But Brennan isn’t that reckless: Go back to Madeleine Albright urging Carter Page to speak up at a Cambridge conference; Christopher Steele leaking parts of his dossier to the newspapers; a staffer at Australia House inviting George Papadopoulos for a drink… The best way to turn nothing into something is to plant it somewhere far away and wait for it to work its way back to you:

 

Britain’s spy agencies played a crucial role in alerting their counterparts in Washington to contacts between members of Donald Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, the Guardian has been told.

 

Golly, you don’t say! I wonder who “told” The Guardian that. A conference here, a speech there, a cocktail round the corner, and pretty soon you have the simulacrum of “counterintelligence” concerns from America’s closest allies:

 

According to one account, GCHQ’s then head, Robert Hannigan, passed material in summer 2016 to the CIA chief, John Brennan. The matter was deemed so sensitive it was handled at “director level”. After an initially slow start, Brennan used GCHQ information and intelligence from other partners to launch a major inter-agency investigation.

 

Er, wait a minute. If it’s “so sensitive” it’s being handled “director-to-director”, why isn’t the head of GCHQ meeting with his opposite number at NSA? Why’s he meeting with Brennan?

 

Hey, don’t get hung up on details. It all went brilliantly – except for one tiny detail: Hillary managed to do the impossible and lose. On January 23rd 2017, three days after Trump’s inauguration, GCHQ at Cheltenham Tweeted the sad fate of Mr So Sensitive:

 

We’re sorry to announce that Robert Hannigan, our Director since 2014, has decided to step down as head of GCHQ.

 

Oh, dear. Well, enjoy your sudden retirement, old boy. Unfortunately, for Brennan and Comey and McCabe and Strzok and the others on this side of the Atlantic in the third week of January, it wasn’t quite that simple. Because, instead of protecting Hillary, they were now protecting themselves – so it was necessary to dig in and double-down on the “Russia investigation”.

 

Which sounds super-credible except for one small point: there was never a Russia investigation. As Andrew McCarthy sums it up:

 

Opening up a counterintelligence investigation against Russia is not the same thing as opening up a counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign.

 

Which is what they did – Brennan and Clapper and Comey and McCabe. They took tools designed to combat America’s foreign enemies and used them against their own citizens and their political opposition. It was an intentional subversion of the electoral process conducted at the highest level by agencies with almost unlimited power. And, if they get away with it, they will do it again, and again and again. That’s what Brennan’s telling us on Twitter, and Clapper on “The View”:

 

Yeah? So what? Whatcha gonna do about it?

 

Good question.

________________________

Mark Steyn is an international bestselling author, a Top 41 recording artist, and a leading Canadian human rights activist. His latest book is “The Undocumented Mark Steyn: Don’t Say You Weren’t Warned“. (Buy it at a 57% discount by clicking here or order in KINDLE edition at a 41% discount by clicking hereSales help fund JWR)

 

© 2018 Mark Steyn Enterprises (US) Inc.

 

© 1997- 2018 Jewish World Review 

 

About JWR

 

JWR is a free magazine published five days a week on the World Wide Web of interest to people of faith and those interested in learning more about contemporary Judaism from Jews who take their religion seriously.

 

Our inaugural editorial is also our mission statement.

 

Readers, individuals wishing to submit an article on “spec,” or make a tax deductible donation and those seeking advertising rates may contact JWR by email or by calling (718) 972-9241. Please note that all correspondence with JWR remains our property and may be used accordingly.

 

READ THE REST

 

Judicial Watch Videos Tackle Deep State


John R. Houk, Editor

Posted May 26, 2018

 

Here are two Judicial Watch posts which are a Mueller exposé video from 5/24 and a Tucker Carlson/Tom Fitton discussion on Fox News about the untrustworthiness of former DNI Director James Clapper.

 

JRH 5/26/18

Please Support NCCR

**************************

Inside Judicial Watch: Mueller UNMASKED–Featuring Congressman Louie Gohmert

 

Inside Judicial Watch

May 24, 2018

Judicial Watch

 

NEW–Catch the latest edition of Inside Judicial Watch–with special guest Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) to discuss Robert Mueller’s career working in law enforcement–from the U.S. Attorney’s office to the special counsel investigation into alleged Trump/Russia collusion.

 

VIDEO: Inside Judicial Watch: Mueller UNMASKED–Featuring Congressman Louie Gohmert

 

Posted by Judicial Watch

Streamed live on May 24, 2018

 

In this edition of “Inside Judicial Watch,” host Jerry Dunleavy joins Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) to discuss Robert Mueller’s career working in law enforcement–from the U.S. Attorney’s office to the special counsel investigation into alleged Trump/Russia collusion.

 

Read Congressman Gohmert’s report here: https://1zwchz1jbsr61f1c4mgf0abl-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Gohmert_Mueller_UNMASKED.pdf

 

+++++++++++

Tom Fitton: ‘FBI and DOJ Cannot be Trusted’

 

MAY 25, 2018

Judicial Watch

 

VIDEO: Tucker: Washington’s unprecented [sic] hysteria over Russia

 

Posted by Fox News

Published on May 24, 2018

 

Tucker: Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper claimed that Russia flipped the result of the 2016 election, but he has no evidence. There’s no evidence that any foreign country changed a single American vote. That was Clapper’s position two years ago, when it was Barack Obama’s position that vote tampering was completely impossible. Now that Trump is in office, he and other Democrats are warning that Russia will try to subvert this year’s midterms as well. #Tucker

 

May 25, 2018- JW President Tom Fitton appeared on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on the Fox News Channel to discuss Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s claim that Russia flipped the election result.

 

____________________________

© 2018 Judicial Watch, Inc.

Judicial Watch is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Contributions are received from individuals, foundations, and corporations and are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.

 

425 Third Street SW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20024
888-593-8442

 

Contribute to Judicial Watch

 

About Judicial Watch

 

Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law. Through its educational endeavors, Judicial Watch advocates high standards of ethics and morality in our nation’s public life and seeks to ensure that political and judicial officials do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American people. Judicial Watch fulfills its educational mission through litigation, investigations, and public outreach.

 

The motto of Judicial Watch is “Because no one is above the law”. To this end, Judicial Watch uses the open records or freedom of information laws and other tools to investigate and uncover misconduct by government officials and litigation to hold to account politicians and public officials who engage in corrupt activities.

 

Litigation and the civil discovery process not only uncover information for the education of the American people on anti-corruption issues, but can also provide a basis for civil authorities to criminally prosecute corrupt officials. Judicial Watch seeks to ensure high ethical standards in the judiciary through monitoring activities and the use of the judicial ethics process to hold judges to account.

 

Judicial Watch’s investigation, legal, and judicial activities provide the basis for strong educational outreach to the American people. Judicial Watch’s public education programs include speeches, opinion editorials (op-eds), publications, educational conferences, media outreach, radio and news television appearances, and direct radio outreach through informational commercials and public service announcements.

 

Through its Open Records Project, Judicial Watch also READ THE REST